IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan:            President

K.P.Preethakumari:                  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy:                        Member

Dated this,  the  6 ^th day of   December,  2009

C.C.No.87/06

Kunnumprath Kunjambu,

S/o Kunjappa,

C/o. Shyna Medicals,                                                   :                       Complainant

Mattannur.

Vs.

Dr.O.K.Narayanankutty,

Psychiatrist,

Ashwini Hospital,

Thalap,                                                 :                                   Opposite Party:

Kannur - 2.

(Rep. by Adv.P.Mahamood)

O R D E R

Sri.K.Gopalan, President

This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay a sum of  Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh).

The case of the Complainant in brief is as follows:  The Complainant is a 73 years old senior citizen, who retired in the year 1992 from Tellichery Taluk Agricultural Marketing Society.  Complainant was residing with his wife and children.  He was being ill treated by the members of his family on arising some problems.  On 8^th day of September 2004 his children Thilakan and Suresh together with Mr.Vijayan, son-in-law beat him and put in a closed room and next day brought him again and admitted in the Opposite Party’s hospital for a day.  Harassment continued even after discharge and brought him again and admitted in the Opposite Party’s hospital for many days.  He had been subjected to treatment as a mental patient.  Since heavy dose injections were given, complainant could not resist the same.  Complainant escaped from the house arresting on first week of November 2004 and met the doctor working in Tellicherry Co-operative Hospital.  Doctor prescribed only for tonic and advised him that he had no complaint.  Complainant escaped to Kozhikode and stayed there in the Kolathur Ashram for a period of one month and after regaining his health returned to Mattannur.  Then he has been residing in his own room.  Complaint also lodged to police with respect to the incident.  Opposite Party is responsible for unnecessarily treating as the Complainant as mental patient and injecting heavy dosage medicine.  It was happened due to the inference of his son-in-law, who is a police.   The prescription of doctors who examined the Complainant on 19.12.04 and 06.08.05 will speak the truth.  Complainant has no documents of treatment given by the Opposite Party.  All those documents will be with Mr.Vijayan.  Complainant is entitled to get compensation since he had suffered much mental and physical strain due to the act of Opposite Party.  Hence this complaint. 

Pursuant to the notice Opposite Party appeared and filed version denying the allegations and averments of the Complainant.  The case of the Opposite Party in nutshell is as follows: The Complainant is frivolous, vexatious and devoid of truth or bona fides.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and Complainant is not entitled to get any compensation.  Opposite Party is a consultant psychiatrist having his own private clinic and also a visiting consultant psychiatrist to various private hospitals in Kannur including Ashwini Hospital.  The averment of Complainant that he was admitted and treated in Ashwini Hospital under the supervision of this Opposite Party is false and baseless.  As per the in-patient register no patient in the name and address of the Complainant was admitted in the hospital on 9^th September 2004.   No patient in the same name or address was admitted in subsequent days also as alleged by the Complainant.  If any patient is admitted under the Opposite Party a discharge certificate is issued by the Opposite Party at the time of discharge.  The complainant has not submitted any record to prove that he was under the treatment of the Opposite Party. The allegation of the complainant regarding the treatment of the complainant, by the Opposite Party is without proof.  Opposite Party has no knowledge regarding the treatment of Complainant in Tellicherry Co-operative Hospital.  No negligence or deficiency of service caused to Complainant due to any negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.  The complaint is frivolous and vexatious.  Complainant is not entitled for any relief.   Hence to dismiss the complaint.

            On the above pleadings the following issues were raised for consideration

1.      Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of Complainant?

2.      Whether the Complainant is entitled for remedy as prayed in the complaint?

3.      Relief and Cost?

The evidence consists of PW1, PW2, DW1, Exts.A1 and A2 marked .

Issue Nos. 1 to 3:

The case of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party was unnecessarily treated as mental patient and given heavily dose injection causing injury to his health.  Complainant further alleges that this was done due to influence of his on-in-law who is a policeman.   Complainant also stated that he has given police complaint on the incident.  But no documents produced by the Complainant to show that police has taken any case.  He has not even produced the copy of the complaint given to police.  Exts.A1 and A2 are the main documents produced by the Complainant.  Ext.A1 is the prescription given by Dr.Rajeev Nambiar, Neurologist after examining the Complainant in the free medical camp organized by various organizations.  But A2 is the prescription issued by Dr.Sreedharan.K. from Koyili Hospital.  No document produced to show that the Opposite Party treated the Complainant.  Moreover, nowhere in the Complainant or in the affidavit he has mentioned that he availed service of the Opposite Party on consideration.  Complainant’s case is that he was taken to hospital by force and admitted and treated under the influence of his son-in-law.  As per the allegations and his evidence by way of affidavit it is not a question of availing service from the Opposite Party but it is commission of offence by the Opposite Party under the influence of Mr.Vijayan.  Police complaint was also given by the Complaint against this.  But police has not taken any case.  The evidence of PW1 alone is not sufficient enough to prove the Complainant’s case to the aspect of availing service of the Opposite Party for consideration.  There is no record to show that any medicine had been prescribed by Opposite Party.

Complainant could not produce necessary documents and other evidence to establish his case to prove that there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. With the available evidence on record and perusal of documents it is not possible to jump into conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party.  The Opposite Party totally denied the case of the Complainant and contented that Complainant had not been taken treatment under him.  Complainant failed to produce even a prescription.  It is also pertinent to note that none of the relatives or neighbours did come forward and adduced evidence.  PW2 is a co-worker but he has deposed nothing to establish that the Complainant availed service from the Opposite Party for consideration.

            Since the Complainant has not been succeeded in proving negligence on the part of Opposite Party we are of opinion that Complainant is not entitled to get any relief.  The issues 1 to 3 are found against the Complainant.

            In the result, the complaint is dismissed.

President                                              Member                                   Member

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1: Copy of the prescription issued from free medical camp conducted on 19.12.04 at   

       Mattannur.

A2: Copy of the prescription issued from Koyili Hospital.

Exhibits for the opposite party:

B1: Register

Witnesses examined for the complainant:

PW1:  Kunnumprath Kunjambu

PW2:  V.Sukumaran

Witness examined for the opposite party:

DW1: Dr.O.K.Narayanankutty

//Forwarded by Order//

Senior Superintendent,

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.