Per Shri Dhanraj Khamatkar – Hon’ble Member:

(1)                This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 27.06.2003 passed in Consumer Complaint No.257/2000.

(2)                The facts leading to this case can be summarized as under:

The Complainant had admitted his mother – deceased Shalini Balkrishna Khasnis, in a hospital run by the Opponent Trust.  The Complainant alleged that he had admitted his deceased mother in the hospital run by the Opponent Charitable Trust on 08.08.1999 as her leg was fractured.  Complainant also contended that she was paralyzed and there were no sensation in her lower part of the body.  As she was lying on the bed she developed a bed sore.  The Complainant further alleged that the Opponent hospital had not taken proper care for not having a bed sores and because of the negligence of the Opponent hospital his mother died and for her death the Doctors of the Opponent Hospital, sisters and ward boys are responsible.  Similarly, it is alleged that the behavior of the ward boy Mr.Balu Dattatray Patil was rude.  The Complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opponent had filed consumer complaint praying for compensation of `1,21,450/-.

(3)                The Opponent had contested the complaint by filing written version.  In their written version they have contended that the Opponent is a Trust providing medical services to the people.  They have admitted that the deceased Shalini Balkrishna Khasnis was admitted in the hospital and denied the allegations made by the Complainant in the complaint.  They further contended that the Complainant has not explained the negligence on the part of the Opponents. They have filed case papers in respect of the deceased Shalini Balkrishna Khasnis.  They contended that the main allegations of the Complainant are against the ward boy.  They further contended that the Complainant had taken a discharge of his mother that too on the request of Complainant and afterwards she died.  Therefore, the Opponent prayed that the complaint may please be dismissed.

(4)                The District Forum after going through the pleadings of both the parties and the evidence adduced by both the parties came to the conclusion that the Complainant failed to prove negligence on the part of the Opponent and hence, dismissed the complaint vide its order dated 27.06.2003.  It is against this order that the original Complainant has filed this appeal. 

(5)                The matter was lying unattended. The matter was placed before us on 11^th July, 2011.  We directed office to issue notice to both the parties.  Accordingly intimations were issued on 01.10.2011.  On the date of hearing both parties remained absent. Since, this is an old matter, we have decided to dispose of the matter on merit.  We have gone through the complaint, written version filed by the Opponent, affidavit of the Complainant and the Opponent and the order passed by the District Forum.

(6)                Admittedly, the deceased mother of the Complainant was admitted in the hospital of the Opponent.  In the complaint the Complainant/Appellant himself had admitted that she was admitted for the fracture of the leg.  Complainant/Appellant further admitted that she was paralytic and there was no sensation on the lower part of her body and she was lying on the bed and hence, she was having bed sores.  The Complainant/Appellant has not pointed out any negligence in treating his deceased mother.  Complainant/Appellant only alleged that the Doctors, nurses and ward boy are responsible for the death of his mother.

(7)                On perusal of the case papers it is clear that the mother of the Complainant/Appellant died after the discharge.  The Complainant/Appellant tried to allege that the behavior of one of the ward boys viz.Bala Dattatray Patil was not proper.  The Opponent had filed the copy of the departmental proceeding against said Balu Dattatray Patil wherein the Complainant himself had stated that he had given proper service to the deceased.  For proving the negligence on the part of the Opponents the original Complainant/Appellant miserably failed to file any evidence to support that the treatment given by the Opponents was not proper and there was negligence on their part.  The District Forum after taking into consideration the pleadings of both the parties and evidence adduced passed the order dismissing the complaint.  We find the order passed by the District Forum is just and proper and we do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the original Complainant/Appellant.  We hold accordingly and pass the following order:

O  R  D  E  R

    (i)               The appeal is dismissed.

  (ii)               The order of the District Forum is hereby confirmed.

(iii)               Inform the parties accordingly.

Pronounced on 20^th October, 2011.