BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (under Consumer Protection Act, 1986) OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FA NO.101 OF 2014 AGAINST CC NO.643 OF 2012
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-II, HYDERABAD
Between:
M/s Vijaya Diagnostic Centre Pvt., Ltd.,
Rep. by its Director, H.No.16-11-741/C/C,
Beside Titan Showroom,
Moosarambagh village, Malakpet Mandal,
Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad – 500 036.
…Appellant/Opposite party
And
K.Mariyamma W/o K.Rayapu Reddy,
Aged about 60 years, Occ: Housewife,
Flat No.504, SSV MGR Apartments,
Road No.8, Arunodaya Colony,
Nagole, Hyderabad – 500 068.
…Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant : Sri P.Raja Sripathi Rao
Counsel for the Respondent : Served with notice
CORAM :
Hon’ble Sri Justice MSK Jaiswal … President
and
Sri K.Ramesh … Member
Thursday, the Fifteenth day of November
Two thousand Eighteen
Oral Order :
***
Opposite party in CC No.643 of 2012 on the file of District Consumer Forum-II, Hyderabad filed this appeal feeling aggrieved by the orders dated 22.01.2014 directing it to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and injury; Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and trauma; to pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs within a period of (30) days and on failure, to pay interest @ 9% per annum on Rs.10,000/- from the date of order till realization.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.
3) The case of the Complainant, in brief, is that lured by the claims of the Opposite party that they have become “Pioneers in Diagnostic Medicare”, she approached them for MRI-brain at the reference by Dr.Alok Ranjan of Apollo Hospitals and underwent the same on 05.10.2012 at 4-40 p.m. While conducting the MRI, the technicians of the Opposite party failed to cover the unwanted parts of the body, and are also required to provide the assistance of competent doctor at the site in addition to taking care of several aspects. On account of failure to follow certain procedures by the Opposite party, the Complainant sustained severe burn on the throat and chest was swollen red. This is purely on account of negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite party. Hence, the complaint with a prayer to direct the Opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.19,50,000/- towards their negligence in conducting MRI-brain scan and costs of Rs.49,000/-.
4) The Opposite party resisted the claim contending that they are pioneers in providing health care and the investigations are being conducted by qualified and experienced doctors as per the prescribed procedures and protocols. It admitted to have conducted MRI-brain scan to the Complainant on 05.10.2012 but claimed no fault on its part. The procedure was performed on the Complainant after due precautions as are necessary under the International Convention. The equipment is latest one and is being maintained in good condition. No contrast was used in the case of the Complainant. No severe burn injury as alleged was caused to the Complainant. The redness which occurred on the neck of Complainant had no nexus to the MRI procedure, however, the Radiologist immediately provided the first-aid. The attendant of the Complainant along with his henchmen destroyed the property of the Opposite party, whereupon, a complaint was lodged with the Police Station, Malakpet, Hyderabad. As a counter-blast, the present complaint is filed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.
5) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove their case, the Complainant filed her evidence affidavit and the documents Ex.A1 to A5. On behalf of the Opposite party, got filed the affidavit evidence of one S.Surender Reddy and the documents Ex.B1 to B4.
6) The District Forum after considering the material available on record, allowed the complaint bearing CC No.643/2012, by orders dated 22.01.2014, as stated, at paragraph No.1, supra.
7) The Appellant would contend that the orders of forum below are without appreciation of fact and law. It failed to see the service report Ex.B3 of the Engineer that there is no fault in the machine and that the allegations made by the Respondent are without any supporting evidence.
8) The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief ?
9) It is not in dispute that the Respondent underwent MRI scan at the Diagnostic centre of the Appellant by paying requisite fee on 05.10.2012. It is further not in dispute that the Respondent sustained burn injuries on her neck. The only dispute is that the burn injuries are not on account of any defect in the machine or mishandling of the equipment on the part of the officials of the Respondent.
10) It is pertinent to state, prima-facie, the forum below has considered all the aspects in proper perspective and has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards injury and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and costs of Rs.5,000/-. We do not find any irregularity or infirmities in the orders passed by the forum. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances, we feel that awarding of Rs.10,000/- towards damages for injury with interest thereon is just and reasonable and when interest is being awarded, directing to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/- may not be justified.
11) In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed and the order of the forum below is set aside to the extent of directing the Appellant to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and costs of Rs.5,000/-. The only amount that is liable to be paid by the appellant is Rs.10,000/- together with interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of orders of forum below i.e., 22.01.2014 till realization.
12) In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the orders of the forum below dated 22.01.2014 made in CC No.643/2012 are modified accordingly. The parties shall bear their own costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dated 15.11.2018
