BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
C.C. No. 32/2010 Filed on 29.01.2010
Dated : 16.02.2011
Complainant:
S. Geethasenan residing at 'May Fair', AVRA-10, Asharaveedhi Road, Pettah, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. M.R. Anandakuttan)
Opposite party:
S.P. Fort Hospital, Fort, Thiruvananthapuram represented by its Managing Director.
(By adv. S. Mohan Das)
This O.P having been heard on 25.01.2011, the Forum on 16.02.2011 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER
Facts of the case are as follows: Complainant was a patient of the consultant of the opposite party hospital, wherein the complainant was consulted allergy with the specialist Dr. Sri. Arjunan in connection with her allergic problems. As per the appointment given by the opposite party hospital complainant visited the hospital on 13.02.2009 and as per instructions the complainant was compelled to visit various units of hospital for taking X-ray and to conduct other para-medical tests and had come to the reception counter for number of times for remittance of advance payment for each and every test. It is submitted that the opposite party hospital has provided a ramp within the reception area so as to take patients on trolley and the said ramp is constructed without providing any hand rails in its either side and without any demarcation and in continuation of the steps provided. Due to the lack of proper, upkeep, construction defects, wrong degree of slope, flooring etc. etc. the complainant happened to fall down and had sustained bone fracture on her left hand and thereupon she was taken to the emergency unit of the Hospital and after examination it was found that the bone fracture is in the joint. Thereafter the complainant consulted the Orthopedic surgeon in the hospital, and on the decision of the said doctor a plaster was provided on her left hand and she was administered of his choice, undergone medical tests suggested by him and she was also asked to take complete rest for 14 days. By virtue of the above injury the complainant has sustained damage of Rs. 25,000/- as hospital charges, loss of earning, pain and sufferings and other mental agony to the petitioner. Thereafter the complainant was compelled to consult the orthopedician in Lords Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram as an out patient and administered corrective measure and better treatment. The complainant being a beautician is expected to do her job with physical person and the injury has caused 20% permanent disability to her ability to function as a busy beautician. Due to the carelessness approach of the opposite party to the complainant, the complainant has suffered a loss. The complainant had sent an advocate notice on 11.03.2009 to settle the issue amicably. But the opposite party has sent an evasive reply stating the unfounded contention that too to exonerate from the liability of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.
The opposite party in this case filed their version and thereafter they did not attend the case. Through their version the opposite party denied all the allegations against them. They admitted that the complainant had a consultation with Dr. Arjunan on 13.02.2009 in the hospital. In connection with the same there was no occasion for her to approach the reception counter several times. Further it is seen that she had a consultation with Dr. Cheriyan M. Thomas and the expenses for the same as per the records is meager. They further stated that the ramp provided in the hospital building is in use from the very inception of the establishment of the hospital and several patients and bystanders are using the same on every day. There was no any complaint from anybody else except the complainant till this day regarding the construction of the ramp. To the knowledge of the opposite party the complainant did not make any complaint as to defective service of the hospital except the lawyer's notice issued after a lapse of so many days of the alleged incident. Even if the complainant fell down and sustained any injury the same can only be due to her own negligence. Hence they pray for the dismissal of the complaint.
Points to be ascertained:-
Whether there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite party?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs?
Points (i) & (ii):- In this case the complainant has filed proof affidavit and she has produced 8 documents to prove her case. The affidavit filed by the complainant stands unchallenged since there was no cross examination. The complainant alleges that due to the lack of proper upkeep, construction defects, wrong degree of slope, flooring etc. the complainant happened to fall down and she sustained bone fracture on her left hand and thereby she had sustained huge loss, pain and mental agony. As a beautician she had lost her earning capacity due to this accident. To prove her contentions she has produced 8 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P8. Ext. P1 is the advocate notice dated 11.03.2009. Through this notice the complainant claims Rs. 50,000/- as damages from the opposite party. The incident happened on 13.02.2009 and notice issued on 11.03.2009. The opposite party raised a contention that the complainant sent an advocate notice after a lapse of so many days of the alleged incident. That contention is not correct, the complainant had sent notice within one month of the alleged incident. Ext. P2 is the reply notice dated 20.03.2009. Ext. P3 series are the bills issued by the opposite party for the treatment. As per these bills, Dr. Cheriyan M. Thomas has treated the complainant after the accident. As per these bills the complainant had paid Rs. 2,094/- (Rs. 170/- + Rs. 160/- + Rs. 160/- + Rs. 253/- + Rs. 430/- + Rs. 921/-) on 13.02.2009 as per the prescription of Dr. Cheriyan M. Thomas. Ext. P4 is the Diploma Certificate of the complainant issued by the Shaman College of Beauty Therapy, Hair Dressing and Cosmetology. Ext. P5 is the registration certificate of the complainant's beauty parlour “May Fair”. Through these documents the complainant has proved that she is a beautician by profession. Ext. P6 is the O.P card issued by the opposite party for consulting Dr. Cheriyan Thomas. From that O.P ticket it is evident that the complainant had paid Rs. 200/- on 13.02.2009. Ext. P7 series are the medical bills issued by the Lords Hospital for further treatment in connection with the accident. As per Ext. P7 series the complainant had paid Rs. 990/- (Rs. 150/-+ Rs. 140/-+ Rs. 400/- + Rs. 300/-). Ext. P8 series are the X-rays taken by the opposite party which shows the fracture of her hand. Through these documents the complainant has proved her pleadings in the complaint. The opposite party never turned up to contest the case. From the above mentioned discussions we find that there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite party. The accident happened due to the defective construction of the ramp in the opposite party's hospital. Due to that accident the complainant had sustained loss, injury and other hardships. Hence the complaint is allowed.
In the result, the opposite party is directed to pay the medical expenses incurred from this accident caused solely due to the negligence of the opposite party, ie; Rs. 3,284/- ( Rs. 2,094/- + Rs. 200/- + Rs. 990/-) along with Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as costs. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which 9% annual interest shall be paid for the entire amount from the date of order.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 16th day of February 2011.
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 32/2010
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :
PW1 - Geethasenan
II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Copy of advocate notice dated 11.03.2009
P2 - Reply notice dated 20.03.2009
P3 - Bills issued by the opposite party for the treatment.
P4 - Diploma Certificate of the complainant issued by the
Shaman College of Beauty Therapy, Hair Dressing and
Cosmetology.
P5 - Registration Certificate of the complainant's beauty
parlour.
P6 - O.P card issued by opposite party for consulting Dr.
Cheriyan Thomas
P7 - Medical bills issued by the Lords Hospital.
P8 - X-rays taken by the opposite party.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :
NIL
PRESIDENT
jb
