Rajasthan

StateCommission

CC/15/2017

Ramji Lal Meena s/o Rameshwar Meena - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bhartiya Senior Secendary School - Opp.Party(s)

Gopal Shastri

18 Jan 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

COMPLAINT CASE NO: 15/2017

 

Ramjilal Meena s/o Rameshwarlal Meena r/o village Lavan, Dhani Badki Tehsil Lavan Distt. Dausa.

Vs.

Bhartiya Senior Secondary School, Chaudhary Charan Singh Nagar, Patel Colony, Nawalgarh Road, Sikar.

 

 

Date of Order 18.1.2018

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

 

Mr.Gopal Shastri counsel for the complainant

Mr.Ranjeet Kheechar counsel for non-applicant

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

2

 

This complaint is filed on 18.1.2017 with the contention that the complainant's son Vinod Meena was studying with the non-applicant in academic year 2016-17. He was also residing in school hostel. On 24.8.2016 he fell ill, suffered from fever, vomiting and pain abdomen. The chief warden was informed but no doctor was consulted. When the complainant informed about the ill health of his son he went to Sikar and brought the son with him. He consulted on 28.8.2016 at Shree Hospital, Jagatpura, Jaipur, tests were undertaken which revealed that the health of his son is critical. He was further admitted in Fortis Hospital, Jaipur where he died on 29.8.2016 at 9.55p.m. The further contention of the complainant is that due to negligence of the institution he lost his son hence, claim should have been allowed.

 

The contention of the non-applicant is that son of the complainant was their student and he was residing in hostel. His illness was immediately reported to the parents and he was sent to Shri Kalyan Govt. Hospital, Sikar for treatment. Test was done and report was negative. On 28.8.2016 he went with his father. The institution is not negligent and the claim should have been dismissed.

3

 

Both the parties entered into evidence. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

 

This is not in dispute that the complainant's son was student with the non-applicant and he was residing in the hostel. As per the directions of the institution the parents could meet his ward only on last sunday of the month. Ex. 6 to 10 documents are in relation to treatment of deceased Vinod Meena. Certain tests were done on 28.8.2016 and parameters of the deceased were found not normal. Ex. 11 the assessment sheet dated 29.8.2016 of Eternal Hospital clearly shows that the deceased was suffering from fever from last 4-5 days. Ex. 6 the prescription of Shree Hospital also contains the fact that the patient is suffering from fever from last 4-5 days. His blood pressure was significantly low and having fever of 102 F. These documents clearly makes out a case that the son of the complainant was suffering from fever since 24.8.2016 as contended by the complainant and this fact has also not been denied by the non-applicant in its written reply.

 

The facts of the case clearly goes to show that the son of the complainant was ill since 24.8.2016 but he was not

4

 

medically taken care and after three days the parents were informed, till then his condition was deteriorated for which non-applicants are responsible. The contention of the non-applicant is that student was consulted at Shree Kalyan Hospital, Sikar but to support this contention prescription of the doctor or any medical investigation report has not been submitted. The register of Malaria Clinic Ex. NA 1 is submitted which speaks that on 27.8.2016 in Malaria Clinic his test for malaria was found negative. This also substantiate the deficiency of non-applicant as it is more than clear that from 24.8.2016 the child was suffering but he was not taken care and even no doctor was consulted and for the first time he was taken to Malaria Clinic on 27.8.2016.

 

Ex. 15 death summary of Fortis Hospital,Jaipur dated 29.8.2016 also reveals that the patient was suffering from fever from last six days associated with vomiting, breathing difficulty etc.

 

In view of the above it can very well be concluded that the non-applicants were deficient in taking care of the

 

5

 

complainant's son and due to the negligence of the non-applicant the complainant lost his son studying in 12^th standard.

 

Hence, in view of the above the complaint is allowed and looking at the fact that the complainant is lost his young Rs. 5 lakh is awarded as compensation for death of his son and Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony. The complainant will also get Rs. 20,000/- as cost of proceedings. The order be complied within one month failing the complainant is entitled 9% interest on the above amount from the date of this order.

 

(Nisha Gupta) President

nm