By Jayasree Kallat, Member.
The petition was filed on 28.10.09. The complainant’s daughter was admitted in the Baby Memorial Hospital, Kozhikode for treatment. Complainant also had been with his daughter in the hospital. Meanwhile on 28.10.07 about 11.45 P.M. this complainant had crossed over the ramp nearby the labour room. Complainant had to go to the ground floor from the 2nd floor of the hospital. Complainant had taken the ramp way to reach ground floor. While crossing over the ramp complainant had a fall and had a fracture on the right wrist. Complainant had taken this way as it was the only method to reach ground floor. Due to the fall complainant had suffered major injury to his right wrist and had to be admitted in the hospital for treatment. The ramp of the OP’s Hospital was constructed in a negligent and unscientific method. There were not enough security measures to protect people who used this way. Complainant is alleging that there was no proper stair case to reach down stairs. Complainant had taken caution while moving along the ramp but because of the unscientific and negligent way of construction of the ramp complainant had a fall and sustained serious injury. This petition is filed against the opposite parties alleging negligence and deficiency in service.
Opposite parties had filed a joint version denying the averments in the complaint except those that are expressly admitted. The complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, as the complainant has not availed any service for consideration from the opposite parties. The complainant alleges that while his daughter was admitted as a patient in the OP’s hospital he happened to be there and while walking through the ramp in the hospital he fell down and sustained fracture to his right wrist. Opposite parties have provided sufficient number of stair cases as well as lifts and corridors for moving from one floor to the other in every wing of the hospital. Opposite parties are not preventing the bystanders from moving through these corridors but are giving sufficient warnings by display of caution signboards wherever any slippery or undulated surface exists. There are also sufficient railings provided for the purpose of avoiding any un- toward incident of falling by slipping. The complainant might have been in a hurry and discarded the warning and used the ramps without sufficient care and caution. The complainant had used words (the only way) to move from one building to other. But the opposite parties have provided ample access from one building to the other by using the lift or the stair case. Opposite parties can not be blamed for the carelessness of the complainant. There is no need to go through the ramp to go down stairs. As the ramp is only a connecting corridor between the 2nd floors of the old and new building. The ramp of the hospital is used daily by patients, bystanders, doctors and staff of the hospital. It is also used to carry patients in stretchers and wheel chairs. Such ramps are common in most of the hospitals and are constructed as per the plan approved by competent authorities. Simply because the complainant had fallen while using the ramp it can not be said that the construction of the ramp was unscientific. The opposite parties are not liable to give any amount to the complainant. There is absolutely no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence opposite party prays to dismiss the petition.
Points for consideration.
Point No.1. Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?
Point No.2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A61 marked on complainant’s side. Opposite party was examined as RW1. No documents on the side of the opposite party. Commission report filed by Adv. Commissioner is marked as Ext.C1.
Point No.1 Complainant’s daughter was admitted in the OP’s Hospital for treatment. Being the father of the patient the complainant himself was in the hospital. Opposite parties have taken the contention that the complainant is not a consumer as he has not availed any service from the opposite parties for consideration. Consumer Protection Act Section 2(d)II explains about what consumer means. As per section it includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails services for consideration. In this case the complainant has sought the service of the hospital for the sake of his daughter. During the course of the treatment complainant had remained in the hospital to look after the well being of his daughter. Hence we are of the opinion that this complainant will come under the purview of consumer protection Act.
Point No.2. The case of the complainant is that his daughter was admitted in the OP’s hospital for treatment. The complainant was also in the hospital during the treatment was done. Meanwhile while crossing over the ramp of the 2nd floor to go downstairs the complainant had a fall and sustained injury. The right wrist of the complainant had severe fracture. Due to the fracture from the hospital complainant had to undergo treatment and spent a lot of money on that account. Complainant is alleging that the floor of the ramp was so smooth that he had fallen down. According to the complainant the ramp was the only way to get downstairs. Complainant also alleges that this ramp which is used by the patients, bystanders, doctors, and the public was constructed in a negligent and unscientific way. Complainant has produced Ext.A1 to A61. The Photograph produced by the complainant himself as Ext.A60 shows that the hospital had taken extra caution and had displayed warning “ kq£n¨p \S-¡pI sX¶n hogmsX {i²n-¡pI”.The opposite parties have clearly stated that the ramp is not the only way to reach downstairs from 2nd floor. Enough staircases and lifts are provided by the hospitals. An Adv.Commission was taken by the complainant. In the report C1 filed by the Commission it is stated that there are lifts in both the old and new block. This ramp was constructed to connect the 2nd floor of the old block to the new block. Commission also has clearly stated that the hospital has given ample warning not to slip over the slope and to take care while using the ramp. Commission also came to understand that this ramp constructed was used by patients and their relatives to cross over to new block from the old block. The definite contention of the opposite parties is that the ramp is used by patients, bystanders, doctors and staff of the hospital as well as the public uses this ramp. It is also used to carry patients in stretchers and wheel chairs. Such ramps are common in most of the hospitals and are constructed as per the plan approved by competent authorities. This incident happened to the complainant only because of the carelessness of himself. In the complaint complainant had stated that this ramp was the only way to go down stairs from the 2nd floor. From the evidences, documents and Commission report C1 it has been revealed that the statement of the complainant is not correct. There are staircases and lifts in the OP Hospital which is made available for the use of bystanders like the complainant. Complainant had avoided the staircase and the lifts and taken shortcut at late night 11.30 which is not the usual time for the bystanders. The bystanders are given a pass to move around the hospital and also to go outside. In such a circumstance the fall of the complainant can not be said as the deficiency of the opposite party. More over it has been very clear that the ramp is used by doctors, patients, bystanders and other public. Patients are carried in stretchers along this way. Hospital has given proper warning as the floor is smooth which enables for the movement of the stretchers easily. Hence after going through all the aspects put forward by both parties in this case we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled for any relief.
In the result the petition is liable to be dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court this the 25th day of August 2011.
Date of filing:28.10.2010.
SD/-PRESIDENT SD/- MEMBER SD/- MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1.Cash bill receipt for Rs.220/- dtd.29.10.2007.
A2. Cash bill receipt for Rs.99.42 dtd.29/01/89.
A3. Cash bill receipt for Rs.120/- dtd.31/10/2007.
A4.Cash bill receipt for Rs.654.97 dtd.31/10/2007.
A5. Cash bill receipt for Rs.30 dtd.31/10/2007.
A6.Cash bill receipt for Rs.166.86 dtd.01.11.2007.
A7.Cash bill receipt for Rs.09.07 dtd.01.11.2007.
A8. Cash bill receipt for Rs.2270/- dtd.02/11/2007.
A9. Cash bill receipt for Rs.164.60 dtd.02/11/2007
A10. Cash bill receipt for Rs.50 dtd.07/11/2007
A11. Cash bill receipt for Rs.20 dtd.07/11/2007
A12. Cash bill receipt for Rs.18.30 dtd.07/11/2007
A13. Cash bill receipt for Rs.19.50dtd.09/11/2007
A14. Cash bill receipt for Rs.20 dtd.09/11/2007
A15. Cash bill receipt for Rs.70 dtd.09/11/2007
A16. Cash bill receipt for Rs.60 dtd.12/11/2007
A17 Cash bill receipt for Rs171.91 dtd.12/11/2007
A18. Cash bill receipt for Rs.39.25 dtd.14/11/2007
A19. Cash bill receipt for Rs.100 dtd.14/11/2007
A20 Cash bill receipt for Rs.225 dtd.14/11/2007
A21. Cash bill receipt for Rs.9.29dtd.14/11/2007
A22. Cash bill receipt for Rs.550dtd.14/11/2007
A23. Cash bill receipt for Rs.126.87 dtd.23/11/2007
A24. Cash bill receipt for Rs.65.50 dtd.03/12/2007
A25 Cash bill receipt for Rs.126.87 dtd.03/12/2007
A26. Cash bill receipt for Rs. 06.19dtd.03/12/2007
A27. Cash bill receipt for Rs.35 dtd.12/12/2007
A28. Cash bill receipt for Rs.70 dtd.12/12/2007
A.29. Cash bill receipt for Rs.42.75 dtd.12/12/2007
A30. Cash bill receipt for Rs.208 dtd.14/12/2007
A31. Cash bill receipt for Rs.48.96 dtd.14/12/2007
A32. Cash bill receipt for Rs.50 dtd.14/12/2007
A33. Cash bill receipt for Rs.145 dtd.17/12/2007
A34. Cash bill receipt for Rs.67.90dtd.19/12/2007
A35. Cash bill receipt for Rs.145dtd.25/12/2007
A36. Cash bill receipt for Rs.67dtd.14/12/2007
A37. Cash bill receipt for Rs.50dtd.28/12/2007
A38. Cash bill receipt for Rs.100dtd.28/12/2007
A39. Cash bill receipt for Rs192.75dtd.04/01/2008
A40. Cash bill receipt for Rs.223.50dtd.18.01.2008
A41. Cash bill receipt for Rs.182.84dtd.18.01.2008
A42. Cash bill receipt for Rs.100dtd.18.01.2008
A43. Cash bill receipt for Rs.192.20 dtd.01.02.2008
A44. Cash bill receipt for Rs.500 dtd.02.02.2008
A45. Cash bill receipt for Rs.100 dtd.08.02.2008
A46.Cash bill receipt for Rs.45 dtd.14.02.2008
A47. Cash bill receipt for Rs.126.87 dtd.26.02.2008
A48. Cash bill receipt for Rs.100 dtd.14.04.2008
A49. Cash bill receipt for Rs.5000 dtd.10.07.2008
A50. Treatment Certificate of Badakara Co-Op.Hospital Ltd dtd.23.10.09.
A51. Prescription of Baby Memorial hospital dtd.28.10.07.
A52. Prescription of Dr. George Itty dtd.30.10.07.
A53.Follow up card of Badagara Sanhakarana Hospital dtd.31.10.2007
A54. Prescription of Badagara Sahakarana hospital dtd. 31.10.2007.
A55. Prescription of Dr.Gopinathan dtd.31.10.2007.
A56. Prescription of Dr. Balakrishnan. Dtd. 25.04.08(Ayurveda)
A57.Cash bill for Rs.265.13 dtd.29.10.2007.
A58.Cash bill for Rs.1000/- dtd.28.10.07.
A59. Test report of Department of neurological science dtd03.01.2008.
A60. Photo 3 nos. regarding the ramp of hospital
A61.Change of ramp by Oppositeparty photos.
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant:
PW1.Kunhammed.M.K (Complainant)
Witness examined for the opposite party:
RW1.Mohanan.A., Sasthapuri, Kovoor, Medical College, Kozhikode.
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
