BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member, 3. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.22/2009 Order dated this the 6th day of July 2009 COMPLAINANT/S Smt.N.S.Pushpavalli W/o Late P.S.Ramachandra Rao, R/o Cauveri Extension, Srirangapatna Town, Srirangapatna 571 438. (By Sri.N.Parameshwar., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S 1.The Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Jonigara Street, Srirangapatna Branch, # 61 J, Srirangapatna Town, Srirangapatna 571 438. 2.The Administrative Officer, Basappa Memorial Hospital, 22/B, Vinobha Road, Jayalakshmipuram, Mysore 570 012. (By Sri.S.Sudarshan., Advocate for 1st O.P. & Sri.B.K.Shivalingaiah., Advocate for 2nd O.P.) Date of complaint 12.03.2009 Date of service of notice to Opposite parties 21.03.2009 Date of order 06.07.2009 Total Period 3 Months 15 Days Result 1. The complaint is allowed in part. 2. The 2nd Opposite party is directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant with cost of Rs.2,000/-. 3. The complaint against 1st Opposite party is dismissed. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the 1st Opposite party claiming accident benefits of the policies with interest and compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and to direct the 2nd Opposite party to pay sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and damages with costs alleging deficiency in service. 2. The brief facts of the complaint are that her husband P.S.Ramachandra Rao the husband of complainant had taken 5 policies from 1st Opposite party LIC. On 25.08.2008, unfortunately her husband P.S.Ramachandra Rao had fallen from cot accidentally at his house and sustained severe bleeding injury in the neck and immediately her husband P.S.Ramachandra Rao was shifted to B.M.Hospital Mysore and admitted as inpatient. Unable to sustain and bear the pain, her husband went out of the hospital on 27.08.2008, without informing the hospital authorities and also his attender and the 2nd Opposite party have neglected to take care of the patient. The complainant was shocked and lodged a complaint to police. Ultimately, the body of the complainant husband was found near by of B.M.Hospital, Mysore and hospital authorities declared that P.S.Ramachandra Rao died due to the accidental injuries. Thereafter, postmortem was conducted on 28.08.2008 and it was reported that P.S.Ramachandra Rao was died due to his injuries sustained to his neck. The cause of death of P.S.Ramachandra Rao is only due to the accident i.e., fallen from cot and not due to any other cause. Being the nominee of the insured, the complainant submitted the policies of her husband to 1st Opposite party and received the benefits of death of policy holder. However, the 1st Opposite party refused to pay the accidental benefit as mentioned in the policies. The complainant requested 1st Opposite party on 29.11.2008 to pay the double accident benefits, 1st Opposite party declined to pay giving reason that death is due to the negligence of assured. Then, the complainant got issued a legal notice, stating that the death is not due to negligence of life assured, but the death was absolutely due to accidental fall and injuries sustained to his neck and ultimately succumbed to injuries. The 1st Opposite party refused to pay the double accident benefits giving untenable reply. The 1st Opposite party has committed deficiency in service in not paying the double accident benefits of the policies. The 2nd Opposite party has also neglected in not taking care of the deceased P.S.Ramachandra Rao and committed deficiency in service, though, the 2nd Opposite party has lodged a missing complaint to the Jayalakshmipuram Police Station, Mysore. On these grounds, the present complaint is filed. 3. Notices were served on the Opposite parties. 1st & 2nd Opposite parties have filed written version. 4. The 1st Opposite party has admitted the 5 policies obtained by P.S.Ramachandra Rao the husband of the complainant and admitting the death of assured on 28.08.2008 and also the insured was admitted to B.M.Hospital, Mysore on 25.08.2008 after he sustained injuries by falling from the cot, it is denied that the life assured left the hospital as he was unable to bear the pain. The life assured left the hospital without availing proper treatment and proper discharge from the hospital. As per the police reports, the dead body of the life assured was found near Grandpa Hotel on 28.08.2008 and case in UDR No.8/08 was registered by Jayalakshmipuram Police Station, Mysore. As per the police report and post mortem report, the cause of death was natural. The complainant has received the available benefits under the policies, in respect of one policy of Marriage Endowment, Opposite party has waived the payment of future premium and as per the policy condition the claim amount becomes payable only on maturity of the policy. The accident benefit was not settled by 1st Opposite party as the death has occurred due to the negligence of the deceased who left the hospital without proper discharge. Further, the death of the assured was a natural death as per the post mortem and police report and hence, the complainant is not eligible for accident benefit. The complainant has given the discharge in respect of the disputed policies in full and final satisfaction of all her claims and demands and she had signed the discharge form without any undue influence, fraud or coercion. The claim of accident benefit is an afterthought. The Opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. 5. The 2nd Opposite party has admitted that P.S.Ramachandra Rao was admitted to B.M.Hospital on 25.08.2008 at 11.45 p.m. with the history of accidental fall from bed and hit to the sharp object and sustained neck injury around at 10.30 p.m. at home in Srirangapatna. The patient had a laceration muscle deep inferior of middle of neck. He was known diabetic under treatment. After admission, the treatment was started and in fact, he had an attendant by name Harish along with him. On 27.08.2008, the said patient left the hospital without informing his attendant or any staff of the hospital. The staff had attended on him at 9.30 p.m. and 10.00 p.m. the patient was not in the bed and even the attendant was searching for him. Immediately every body started searching for him, but he was not found in the hospital. Immediately the staff reported the matter to the RMO. The RMO in turn immediately lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional police regarding the missing of the person. On 28.08.2008, the body of the deceased P.S.Ramachandra Rao was found near Premier Studio, Mysore. The Opposite party is not aware as to why the patient left the hospital without informing his attendant. It is false that the patient left the hospital as he was unable to sustain and bear the pain which was intolerable. When the Insurance Company refused the accident benefit, the complainant has made allegations against the 2nd Opposite party Hospital complaining not taking care of the patient and till then she had not complained to the hospital authority at all. The hospital staff cannot sit as a guard by the side of the each patient. In fact, there was an attendant by name Harish who was with the patient in the hospital to care of his needs and patient or this attendant will move even at night times to the pharmacy and canteen and security person will not be able to know the purpose for which the person moves around in the hospital. There is no negligence on the part of the hospital authorities and they have not committed any deficiency in service. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. 6. During trial, the complainant is examined as CW.1 and she has produced the documents Ex.C.1 to C.8 and examined CW.2 the Doctor who performed postmortem. On behalf of the 1st Opposite party one witness is examined and 1st Opposite party has produced Ex.R.1 to R.15. On behalf of the 2nd Opposite party, a witness is examined and has produced Ex.R.16 & R.17. 7. We have heard both the sides and we have perused the records. 8. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the complainant proves that the death of her husband P.S.Ramachandra Rao was due to accidental injury? 2. Whether the 1st Opposite party proves that the complainant has executed discharge certificate in full and final satisfaction of all the claims of the policies? 3. Whether the 1st Opposite party has committed deficiency in service in refusing the accidental benefits of the policies? 4. Whether the complainant proves that 2nd Opposite party has committed deficiency in service by not taking care of the patient P.S.Ramachandra Rao in the hospital? 5. Whether the 2nd Opposite party is liable to pay the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-? 6. Whether the complainant is entitled to accidental benefits of the policies in question and compensation for mental agony as sought for? 9. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 10. POINT NO.1:- The undisputed facts are that P.S.Ramachandra Rao had taken 5 policies marked as Ex.R.2 to R.6, all of them are having facility of double accident benefit. The complainant is the nominee of the 4 policies and Ex.R.4 policy is a marriage endowment policy with accident benefit and the nominee is P.R.Pooja, the daughter of the insured. It is also undisputed that the insured P.S.Ramachandra Rao was admitted to B.M.Hospital Mysore on 25.08.2008 at 11.45 p.m. as per Ex.C.R.16, after he sustained injury in the neck by falling from the cot around at 10.30 p.m. at his residence and he was an inpatient and taking treatment and he was missing from the Hospital from 10.00 p.m. on 27.08.2008. Thereafter, the brother of the complainant and others were searching for the assured and on information that the male dead body was in the bush near Grandpa Hotel, he went and identified the dead body as brother-in-laws dead body and then lodged a complaint to police as per Ex.C.5 on 28.08.2008 at 11.30 a.m. and the police registered in UDR No.8/2008 and conducted inquest mahazar as per Ex.C.6 and recording the statement of witnesses, subjected the dead body for postmortem and CW.2 Dr.N.Ravi of Mysore Medical College conducted postmortem and issued the postmortem report Ex.C.7 and then the complainant submitted the policies for settlement being a nominee along with documents and thereafter, 1st Opposite party has settled the policy amount and obtained the discharge vouchers in respect of 4 policies, but did not pay the claim of accidental benefits and then, the complainant gave a petition as per Ex.C.1 on 29.11.2008 claiming accidental benefit and 1st Opposite party sent a reply as per Ex.C.2 stating that the police reports confirms that the cause of death is not due to accidental fall, but the death is due to negligence of the insured. Thereafter, the complainant got issued a legal notice as per Ex.C.4 on 12.12.2008 contending that her husband died due to accident and not due to any negligence of the assured and the 1st Opposite party has sent reply as per Ex.C.3, stating that the accident benefit is not payable, since the cause of death is not due to accident as proved by the Hospital reports, police reports and eye witness statement. 11. The complainant has relied upon her oral evidence and evidence of the CW.2 Dr.N.Ravi, who conducted postmortem and postmortem report Ex.C.7 and it is contended that the cause of death is not natural, but it was due to injury sustained accidentally falling from the cot in the house. 12. But, the contention of the 1st Opposite party is that the postmortem report clearly proves that the cause of death is natural and there is no evidence that there is an nexus between the injury sustained in the neck and death hence, the complainant has failed to prove that the death of the deceased assured was due to accidental injuries. 13. Relying upon the entry made in the Ex.R.16, the case sheet of the hospital produced by 2nd Opposite party which states that the P.S.Ramachandra Rao was brought with history of accidental fall from the bed and hit to the sharp object and sustained neck injury at around 10.30 p.m. (today) at home on Srirangapatna (25.08.2008) and after examination was admitted at 11.45 p.m. It is contended on behalf of the complainant that because of that injury only the deceased assured without tolerating pain went out of the hospital and fallen and died and there was no other reason for the death of the assured, because there is no evidence that he was suffering from any serious deceases leading to death. 14. The contention on behalf of the 1st Opposite party Insurance Company is that the police have filed B-report stating it is a natural death and the postmortem report also reveals the death is natural and the complainant has not challenged the same and the neck injury was in the process of healing as per the evidence of the doctor and further there is no evidence that it was a grievous injury and there was severe infection and the assured succumbed to the injuries sustained and further the doctor has not at all deposed that the injury is the cause of death and the doctor has admitted that there were simple injuries and the presumption that there was no other reason for the death except the neck injury cannot be accepted at all and the complainant has failed to prove the death was due to accidental injury. The contention of the complainant side is that there was a deep injury in the muscle of the neck and so, the injury was serious and the standard of proof before the Forum is not strict proof that the death was due to accidental reason and all the facts lead to the presumption that on account of only injuries, the assured died and there is no other reason for the death and therefore, the complainant has proved that the death was accidental one. 15. The learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon the passage in page 133 of Medical Jurisprudence by Dr.K.S.Narayan Reddys (2006 reprint edition) The manner of death is the way in which the cause of death was produced. If death occurs exclusively from disease, the manner of death is natural. If death occurs exclusively by injury or is hastened due to injury in a person suffering from natural disease, the manner of death is unnatural or violent, violence may be suicidal, homicidal, accidental or of undetermined or unexplained origin. The manner of death is established mainly by the investigational information and also by the pathological findings. Where a lesion is found at autopsy which is known to cause of death, this category includes deaths in which some lesion is found at autopsy which may have caused death, but which is also compatible with continued life, e.g. arteriosclerosis of the coronary arteries, advanced chronic heart diseases, lobar pneumonia, etc. The autopsy does not reveal any other reasonable explanation for death and the location, nature, severity and extent of the anatomical changes are sufficient to cause death, but it is not a conclusive proof. In such cases, the clinical history is important. In the case of coronary arteriosclerosis, if the deceased had several attacks of angina pectoris before his death, it can be reasonably assured to be the cause of death. In some cases, an injury may not appear to be sufficient to cause death, but some natural disease may be present which is known to cause death, e.g. coronary arteriosclerosis. In such cases, the circumstances of the death and the symptoms found at the time of collapse may suggest that the death was precipitated by injury. 16. The learned counsel for the complainant has also relied upon the paragraph at page 419 of Modis Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (22nd Edition) NECK Decapitation suggests a homicidal nature of death except when this occurs due to certain machineries or over a railway track, when this may be accidental also. A forceful blow over the neck can cause a fracture of the larynx, involving thyroid cartilage and cricoid cartilage or rupture of the trachea to cause death either by spasm or oedema of glottis or by suffocation due to internal bleeding into the larynx or due to surgical emphysema. Wounds of the neck are mostly incised and rarely punctured. In India, they are more often homicidal than suicidal and sometimes accidental. They are usually instantly fatal, if the large blood vessels, such as the carotid arteries and jugular veins of the neck are cut, but this is not always so, as some cases have been recorded in which persons have run a certain distance after the carotid arteries as well as the internal jugular veins had been cut. Hemorrhage from the severance of a small vessel, such as the superior thyroid artery, may cause death, if immediate surgical aid is not available. Wounds of the larynx and trachea are not necessarily fatal, if the large blood vessels are not injured. They may, however, cause death by suffocation due to flow of blood into the air passages, though most of it is coughed up. They may also cause death by subsequent oedema or inflammation, blocking of the air passages or by pulmonary sepsis. 17. After considering all the materials and record and the passages of medical jurisprudence cited above, though it is an admitted fact that on 25.08.2008 at night the deceased assured fell from the cot and hit to a sharp article and sustained neck injury and was admitted to B.M.Hospital and as per the postmortem report there was a sutured wound to the length of 8 inches in the neck, the burden is on the complainant to prove that the injury so sustained is the root cause for the death of the assured or he succumbed to the injuries sustained to the neck after he fell down from the cot accidentally. Of course, sustaining the neck injury is proved to be accidental, but we have to consider whether there is nexus between the neck injury and the cause of death. Though, the complainant has deposed that without tolerating the pain and suffering of the neck injury her husband left the hospital without informing the hospital authorities and though she informed the doctor about complaint of severe pain and treatment by the doctor, but there is no evidence to prove the same, because the doctor who conducted the postmortem report has deposed that the injuries found in the postmortem report are simple in nature and the sutured injury found on the neck was on the healing stage. Though, as per the case sheet and the evidence of RW.2 he was admitted to emergency ward, since the patient had laceration muscle deep inferior of the middle of the neck, there is no evidence that it is a grievous injury. There is no evidence that there was any fracture of the larynx or rupture of the trachea and an account of the wound of the larynx or trachea there was flow of blood into the air passages to cause death by subsequent oedema or inflammation, blocking of the air passages or by pulmonary sepsis. 18. Of course, there is no evidence that the death has occurred exclusively from other deceases. If death occurs exclusively by injury or is hastened due to the injury in a person suffering from natural disease, the manner of death is unnatural or violence. In the present case, admittedly the insured suffering neck injury falling from the cot was hospitalized and the neck injury was sutured and he was taking treatment. Why he left the hospital at 10.00 p.m. on 27.08.2008 when the neck injury was healing stage is not known. It clearly establishes the negligence of patient in not availing treatment. The evidence of the complainant that without tolerating pain and suffering of the neck injury has left the hospital and fallen and died due to the injuries. But in her statement before the police as per Ex.C.6(a) she has stated that her husband was under treatment and through phone Harish informed that her husband was missing from the hospital, when he had been to meals and then she identifying the dead body further stated that at night time her husband had come out of the hospital for walking and due to tiredness, fallen becoming unconscious, without notice by anybody through out night on account of wind and rain he might have died. So, before the police she is not definite that on account of injury her husband died, but on account of tiredness, fell becoming unconscious and further on account of wind and rain her husband might have died. The important evidence that of the doctor and postmortem is to be considered whether death was due to the neck injury sustained by accidental fall and the deceased assured succumbed to the injuries. In the postmortem report Ex.C.7 though the external injury namely sutured over the front of the neck measuring 8 cm and irregular abrasion over on arm and knee measuring 3 x 1 cm, 4 x 2 c.m. respectively, but the cause of death is clearly mentioned as natural. If we peruse the postmortem report no other reason is given by the doctor about the cause of death and all the internal organs of the body were intact. There is no mention that on account of the neck injury there was fracture of larynx or trachea or bleeding from the injury blocking air passage to the larynx and trachea. At one breath, he has deposed on account of the neck injury and pain and mental agony and further on account of diabetic, there is possibility of death, but in the cross-examination has admitted that the injuries found on the external body were simple in nature and sutured found in the neck was in the healing stage. So, the evidence of the doctor is not a direct finding, but it is only an hypothesis and not supported by his postmortem report Ex.C.7. It is an admitted fact that the deceased assured was a known diabetic as per the case sheet Ex.R.16 and he was on treatment and even the complainant has stated before the police that her husband was a diabetic patient and while going on walk he had tired and fell unconscious and since nobody noticed on account of chill and wind he might have died. It is not her case before the police that her husband died due to the complication of neck injury or even there is no evidence of the doctor that due to the complication of neck injury, the assured died. 19. Naturally, the Insurance Corporation considers the claim on the basis of the documents furnished by the claimant. Even though, in the claim application as per Ex.C.7 the immediate cause of death is mentioned as that falling from the cot sustaining injury he had died, but she has submitted the postmortem report and police reports which proves that the death is natural and there was no other material for the 1st Opposite party Corporation to accept that the death is on account of accidental injury. 20. Through the police have registered the case for unnatural death and later they have submitted B-report on the basis of the postmortem report which revealed that the cause of death is natural. Even, the complainant had furnished the entire police reports to the Insurance Company and those documents did not establish before Opposite party Insurance Company that the death was on account of the injury sustained accidentally falling to the ground and hitting to a sharp article. Even, before this Forum as discussed above, the complainant has not let in acceptable evidence to prove that death of the insured was on account of the injury sustained accidentally. As per the case sheet of hospital, the deceased assured was a known diabetic and was under treatment. The complainant has not at all stated to the police that on account of mental agony and due to pain of the neck injury in addition to the diabetes her husband had died. This theory is brought on record for the first time contrary to the statement made before the police by the complainant and also her brother. The complainant has stated before the police that in the night 9.30 p.m. her husband gone for walking, since, he was diabetic patient and due to tiredness, might have fallen and since nobody noticed through out the night due to wind and chill he might have died. Nothing prevented the complainant to state before the police that her husband died due to mental agony and without tolerating the pain of the neck injury in addition to diabetes. The hypothetical evidence of the doctor CW.2 who conducted postmortem that there is possibility of death on account of pain from the neck injury and mental agony in addition to diabetes is contrary to the postmortem report given by him as per Ex.C.7 wherein it is clearly stated that the cause of death is natural and every internal organ was intact. As observed above, there is no mention in the postmortem report that due to severe infection on account of the neck injury, the deceased assured has died. As per the policy condition, the accident death benefit is provided, if the life assured shall sustain any bodily injury resulting solely and directly from the accident caused by outward, violent and visible means and such injury shall within 120 days of its occurrence solely, directly and independently of all other causes result in the death of the life assured. The above conditions are not proved in the present case. Under these circumstances, we have to hold that the complainant has failed to prove that the death of her husband was due to accidental injury. 21. POINT NO.2:- The 1st Opposite party has taken the contention that the complainant has executed discharge vouchers in full and final satisfaction of all the claims of the policies and therefore, she cannot maintain the complaint. The learned counsel for the 1st Opposite party Insurance Company has relied upon the decision report in III (2004) CPJ page 181 of West Bengal State Commission in the case of LIC of India Vs- Jamuna Chanda. In that case, it is held that after receiving the amount in full and final settlement of claim, the complainant cannot approach Consumer Court for payment of the balance amount if any, because the complainant has failed to prove that her signature on the discharge voucher was taken by misrepresentation or fraud or by exercising undue influence or coercion. In that case also, since the accidental death benefit was not settled after receiving the death claim amount, the nominee filed a complaint against the Insurance Company claiming accidental death benefit. In the present case, the complainant has admitted in her evidence that she has signed the vouchers stating that she had received full amount of all the 5 policies. But, the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is not applicable to the facts of the case, because she has not pleaded that her signature to the discharge vouchers were taken by coercion, undue influence or misrepresentation. In the citation referred above, it is observed that before receiving the amount, the complainant made several correspondences claiming the accident benefit and in this backdrop it is difficult to believe that she accepted payment in full and final settlement of her claim, without understanding the implication of her signature. It is also noted that there is nothing on record to show that the complainant lodged any protest of the time of receiving the cheques and she has put signature to the discharge voucher in the presence of the witness who is an advocate of Calcutta High Court and this being the case it is logical to assume that she has put her signature after full understanding. But, in the present case, soon after the settlement of the policy claims, the complainant has submitted an application to the Opposite party Insurance Company as per Ex.C.1 on 29.11.2008 claiming accidental benefits complaining that only death claim has been settled, though all the records were furnished in spite of the accidental death of her husband. Thereafter, she got issued a legal notice as per Ex.C.4 again within 10 days and further at the time of settlement of the death claim, the witness is only the LIC Agent as per Ex.R.11 & R.12 and not a relative of the complainant and under these circumstances, it is doubtful whether she was aware of implication of putting signature to the forms of discharge printed in English at the time of issuing the cheques by the Opposite party Insurance Company. For the above reasons, the contention of the 1st Opposite party that the complainant has executed discharge certificate in full and final settlement of all the claims of the policy and hence, the present complaint is not maintainable is devoid of merits and hence, we answer the point in the negative. 22. POINT NO.3:- It is contended that the 1st Opposite party Insurance Company has committed deficiency in service in refusing the payment of accidental benefits of the policies. Of course, as per Ex.C.1 letter she claimed accidental benefit after receiving the death claim and for that 1st Opposite party has issued reply immediately on the same day stating that the cause of death is not due to accidental fall, but death is due to negligence of assured and when the legal notice was issued as per Ex.C.4, the Opposite party sent reply as per Ex.C.3 within a month, stating that the accident benefit is not payable under the above said policies, since the cause of death is not due to accident as proved by accidental report, police reports and eye witnesses statement. These grounds of repudiation of accidental death benefit are based on proper application of mind to the postmortem report and police reports submitted by the complainant to the Insurance Company which included her statement and the witnesses statement about the cause of death. As pleaded by the Opposite party Insurance Company, the death was due to negligent of the deceased life assured because for the neck injury he was taken to 2nd Opposite party Hospital and after suture of the wound he was in the general ward and one attendant by name Harish was with him and in the absence of attendant, the deceased left the hospital without notice to anybody and what was the actual reason to go out of the hospital after 9.30 p.m. is unknown. But as per the statement of the complainant before the police her husband had gone for walking at 9.30 p.m. and due to tiredness he might have fallen and notice by anybody through out the night due to chill and wind he might have died, since he was suffering from diabetes. So, the cause of death might be due to diabetes. Therefore, the repudiation of the accidental death benefit by the insurance company is justified and the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service by 1st Opposite party in repudiating the accidental death benefit. Therefore, we answer point no.3 in the negative. 23. POINT NO.4:- The complainant has pleaded that 2nd Opposite party has committed deficiency in service by not taking care of the patient in the hospital and it is liable to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is an admitted fact that the deceased assured with a history of cut injury to the neck by falling from the cot and hitting to a sharp edged article was brought to emergency ward and after examining, he was admitted and after sutured of the wound, he was treatment in the general ward and attendant by name Harish was looking after him. As per the records, he was admitted to the hospital on 25.08.2008 at 11.45 p.m. and he was under treatment and he left the hospital in the absence of attendant from 10.15 p.m. on 27.08.2008 and the hospital authority have lodged a missing complaint to the police, but on what date they filed the missing complaint to the police is not forthcoming, since the police have taken action on the basis of the complaint by brother of the complainant as per Ex.C.5 after tracing of the dead body on 28.08.2008. 24. The contention of the complainant side is that it is the duty of the hospital authorities to take care of the patient till discharge, but the Opposite party hospital authority has failed in its duty and its negligence is the cause for the deceased patient to go out of the hospital. The contention of the 2nd Opposite party Hospital Authority is that there was an attendant with the patient in the general ward and it cannot take care of all patients at all times and there will be no security near the general wards except for ICU and CCU. The RMO of the said hospital who is examined on behalf of the 2nd Opposite party has deposed that only as per the advise of the doctor and payment of the charges, the patient would be discharged and the patient in question was not discharged from the hospital on the advise of the doctor, he has also admitted that it is a duty to look after the inpatient admitted to the hospital till his discharge. Admittedly in the absence of attendant Harish, the patient has left the hospital and except in the emergency ward, the movement of visitors or the patient from the hospital will not be allowed after 9.30 p.m. and it is admitted that there is a watchman near the main entrance of the hospital. When the attendant was absent, it is the duty of the hospital authorities to take care of the patient at night time and in the present case due to the negligence of the Opposite party staff, the deceased assured has left the hospital at night on 27.08.2008 and his dead body was found on the next day near the bush, near the hotel which is nearer by the hospital. Therefore, to some extent, the Opposite party hospital authority has committed deficiency in service and therefore, in the circumstances of the case, it is reasonable to award compensation of Rs.50,000/-, though, the complainant has sought for Rs.1,00,000/- and hence, we answer point no.4 in the affirmative and point no.5 partly affirmative. 25. The complainant has sought for accidental death benefit of the 5 policies from the 1st Opposite party Insurance Corporation. But, in view of our finding on point no.1 and point no.3, the complainant is not entitled to the accidental death benefit and therefore, we answer point no.6 in the negative. 26. In view of our finding above, in the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER 1. The complaint is allowed in part. 2. The 2nd Opposite party is directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant with cost of Rs.2,000/-. 3. The complaint against 1st Opposite party is dismissed. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 6th day of July 2009). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
