By Sri. K. Gheevargese, President:-
 

The Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
 

The complaint in brief is as follows. The complainant is the wife of the deceased Raghu. On 29.1.2002 in connection with discomfort in the stomach, the Complainant's husband went to the Opposite Party's hospital for consulting the doctor. On the very same day when the Complainant's husband availed treatment and prior to it there was no other ailment which found to be noticeable. The Complainant was informed in the evening of the treatment day that the Complainant's husband is died. Brother of the Complainant's husband after arriving the hospital come to know that something untoward happened in the treatment and a FIR was registered upon the information of the deceased Raghu's brother. The death of the deceased was not informed to the relatives in time apart from that there were hasty steps by the Opposite Party and the hospital authorities to conceal the facts which lead to the death of Raghu. Apart from this the Opposite Party briefed that the death of the Complainant's husband was suicide by injecting some kind of poison from the room where he was admitted. The Opposite Party and the hospital authorities had taken the steps to wipe off the evidence which lead to the death of the Complainant's husband. The complainant here in has two children and they have been depending upon the deceased for livelihood. The loss incurred on the Complainant cannot be compensated in terms of money. There may be an order directing the Opposite party to give the complainant Rs.4,00,000/- from the date of complaint till realization along with cost.

2. The Opposite Party filed version. The admission of the deceased Raghu was on 29.1.2002 with the complaint of loose motion and vomiting. The patient was treated as inpatient administered medicines and there was no bystanders up to 1.30 PM. The patient found to be stable. The physical conditions of the patient later turned to be serious and was shifted to ICU at about 3.15 P.M the patient died. The doctor and hospital authorities had taken due care and caution in the treatment. When the room where the patient was admitted cleaned there found a syringe and some white powder this fact was also disclosed to the relatives of the deceased and advised them for postmortem and for which a case was also registered. The allegation of the Complainant that the death of the patient was not intimated in time is in correct. The brother of deceased Reghu was informed over phone. The syringe and white powder found in the room was also shown to the brother. The Opposite Party sent a copy of the intimation to the Police anticipating independent and a fair enquiry in the demise of the patient what all treatments were given to the patient are recorded in the case sheet.  No negligence or any lack of care was there in the treatments of the deceased Raghu. The negligence or carelessness cannot be attributed against the Opposite Party. The amount claimed by the Opposite party is an exaggerated sum and not based on the reasons and supporting grounds. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and the complaint is to be dismissed with cost.

3. Points in consideration are.

1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Relief and cost.

4. Point No.1 and 2:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit. Ext. A1 to A3 are the documents produced for the Complainant. The Opposite Party filed proof affidavit inter alia contenting the allegation of the complainant. The Complainant has also examined the witnesses PW2 and PW3 to substantiate their contentions. The case of the complainant is that the deceased Raghu the husband of the complainant was cast off into death by the negligence and mistake in the treatment by the Opposite Party. The treatment sought by the deceased Raghu was for some sort of ailment in stomach. The sudden demise of the deceased Raghu due to the mistake in treatment or negligence in service of the Opposite Party is to be compensated. Ext.A1 is the attested photocopy of the FIR. Informant in this Ext.A1 is examined as PW2 who is the brother of the complainant. According to him the deceased Raghu has no any noticeable ailment he was a man of healthy physique in appearance. The body of the deceased Raghu had under gone postmortem but the report is not produced in this case. The reason for the death of the deceased would have been elucidated in the postmortem report which is not produced as a piece of evidence which is very much essential in this case. The Opposite Party himself has given the intimation to the SHO in the limit for the further procedure of investigation. The reasons for the death of the deceased is not disclosed in evidence apart from the oral testimony of the witnesses PW2 and PW3 who are closely connected to the Complainant. Nothing else is brought out to substantiate contentions of the complainant that the treatment by the Opposite party to the deceased is having deficiency in service with considerable negligence and lack of reasonable care. From the above discussion we are in the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Part.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed no order as to cost.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 31^st August 2009.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER- I: Sd/-

MEMBER-II: Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

PW1. Rakha Raghu Complainant.

PW2. Ravi. Agriculture.

PW3. Sambasivan Agriculture.

Witnesses for the Opposite Party:

OPW1. Dr. P.C. Mohinudin, Doctor, P.B.M Hospital, Meenangadi.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Attested Photocopy of FIR.

A2. Copy of Letter. dt:30.1.2002

A3. Letter. dt:29.1.2002.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:

Nil.