The case of complainant is that on 2.3.02 the mother of the complainant named Elia was admitted for treatment at the first respondent hospital. She was treated by the 2^nd respondent and other doctors and was died on 3.3.02 at 8.30 a.m. while under treatment of the respondents. It is a legal obligation and duty of the respondents to report the death with the concerned Panchayat without any delay. The respondents never informed the death of the petitioner’s mother to the Kodakara Panchayat, which caused much pain and grievances, and financial loss to the complainant to get the death certificate of his mother in time. The complainant belongs to a poor family and for the purpose of the electrification of his house the death certificate was necessary. The complainant was under the bonafide belief and impression that the respondents might have informed the matter of death to the Panchayat in time. But it was late to know by the complainant that even after a lapse of three years the death was not informed by the respondents to the Panchayat. At last on 9.3.05 the complainant started much painful efforts. All inconveniences and hardships caused only because of the irresponsible and illegal acts of the respondents. It is only on 9.6.05 the death of the complainant’s mother was registered with the Kodakara Grama Panchayat. The complainant was suffering with incurable disease on his vertebra causing much back pain. Due to the complainant’s frequent travel for the death of his mother to be registered he has to spend much money to retain his health. The respondents by their letter to the Mukundapuram Tahsildar dated 17.3.05 admitted that the delay was caused due to their fault. The complainant sent a notice to the respondents stating the facts and demanding a sum of Rs.40,000/- for mental agony, financial loss and physical strain. The respondents sent a reply stating untenable grounds and making a total denial. The acts of the respondents evident that there is deficiency in service by the respondents. Hence this complaint.

 

            2. The counter of respondents is that the complainant is a consumer as envisaged in the Consumer Protection Act. The respondents do not owe any duty to the complainant. They owe duty to the State only and not to the individuals. The Act dealing with registration of death and birth does not bar any individual from reporting death. The complainant should have reported the death to registering authority as he had also undertaken and assured the respondents that he would report the death to the registering authority and would take the death certificate from there within a fortnight from death date regardless of the usual reporting of the death by respondents. The complainant was also given intimation certificate of death when the corpse is taken from hospital. The death certificate and alleged delay in electrification of complainant’s house has no relevance. The well-settled principle of law is that no person is liable for the consequences, which are too remote from his conduct. The consequences of a wrongful act may be endless or these may be consequences of consequences or causes of causes. Law cannot take into account of everything that follows an alleged wrongful act. As such the complainant is not entitled for compensation. The averment that the complainant could not electrify his due to non-availability of death certificate is an absolute lie. It is strange to seek compensatory claim from respondents for complainant’s alleged visit to various governmental departments to allegedly get the death registered. If there was any difficulty as alleged in dealing with governmental departments the complainant should claim damage from the government. The respondents are not liable for the alleged malfeasance and misfeasance of government officials. The complainant would get the death registered if proper documents are produced. A person with incurable disease on his vertebra can never travel to the extent as detailed in the petition. The averments in the complaint are imaginary. The respondents are no way liable to any such consequences and not liable for the compensation. Hence dismissed.

 

            3. The points for consideration are:

(1)   Is there any deficiency in service on the part of respondents?

(2)   If so, reliefs and costs.

            4. The evidence consists of Ext. P1 to P11 and Ext. R1. No oral evidence adduced by both.

 

            5. Points-1 and 2: The case of complainant in brief is that his mother Elia was admitted for treatment at the first respondent hospital on 2.3.02. The next day she was died and it is a legal obligation and duty of the respondents to report the death with the concerned Panchayat without any delay. But the death was not intimated to the Panchayat and this caused much difficulty to him. So he filed this complaint to get damages for the mental agony, financial loss and physical strain caused to him.

 

            6. The respondent filed a written version and stated that the Act dealing with registration of death and birth does not bar any individual from reporting death. No person is liable for the consequences, which are too remote from his conduct. There is no duty owes by the respondents to the complainant. The only duty owes is to the State. It is strange to seek compensatory claim from respondents for complainant’s alleged visit to various governmental departments to get the death registered. 

 

            7. It is a definite case of the complainant that the death of his mother was not registered in time due to the deficiency in service of the respondents. According to him, it is a legal obligation and duty of the respondents to report the death with the concerned Panchayat. In the present case the death was occurred on 3.3.02 and it is to be registered within a reasonable time before the Kodakara Grama Panchayat. According to the complainant, he was under the belief that the respondents might have informed the matter of death to the Panchayat in time. The complainant only knew it after a lapse of three years. So he taken much effort to get the death registered. The respondents admitted that due to heavy work in the hospital they omitted to intimate the report of death to the Panchayat. They even admitted that they are apologizing the delay caused to the registration of death. Ext. P8 is the copy of letter given by the 2^nd respondent Doctor to the Tahsildar, Mukundapuram. Exts. P1 to P11 are the documents produced by the complainant to show the efforts taken by him. According to him, only because of the deficiency in service of the respondents he had to take these efforts. Ext. P3 is the copy of non-availability certificate issued by Kodakara Grama Panchayat in which it is stated that the search has been made on the request of the complainant in the registration records for the year 1999 to 2005 relating to the death of his mother. He also put application before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thrissur to get the death registered. The copy of application put before the Revenue Divisional Officer is produced and marked as Ext. P4. As per the request of Village Officer, Kodakara statement of two neighbours were also submitted before the Thrissur Revenue Divisional Officer. From the documents produced it can be seen that he had taken much effort to get the death registered. The version of the respondents that they do not owe any duty towards the complainant is wrong and since this is an obligation on the part of the respondents they have to oblige. Section 8 of the Registration of Birth and Death Act 1969 states the duty of the persons to give information to the registrar. Regarding birth and death Section 8(b) says that in respect of births and death in a hospital, health centre or nursing home or other like institution, the medical officer in charge or any person authorised by him in this behalf are duty bound to give information. So it was the bounden duty of the respondents to intimate the death of Elia to the Panchayat. In this case the respondents failed to intimate the death and forced to issue Ext. P2 certificate. 

 

            8. The respondents stated that no person is liable for those consequences which are too remote from his conduct. So according to them the complainant cannot claim compensation for the remote act of the respondents. This view cannot be considered. Because there is strict violation of law and as per the records the complainant taken much physical and mental strain. So he is entitled for compensation.

 

            9. The respondents also deny another averment in the complaint that the complainant could not electrify his house due to non-availability of death certificate. In Ext. P5 it is stated that in answer to question No.15 that the certificate is needed for getting current connection. It is dated 17.3.05 and is believable and no counter evidence produced by the respondents. But this aspect cannot be considered for damages.

 

            10. The complainant claims Rs.40,000/- as compensation. One of the reasons stated is the travel caused his back pain severe. In the complaint it is averred that he was suffering with incurable disease of vertebra and which made him very hard to travel and he was advised by the doctors for bed-rest. But there is no evidence adduced to substantiate this issue. 

 

            11. At the time of argument the Counsel for respondents argued that Section 28 of the Registration of birth and death Act 1969 will protect the respondents. The Section 28 describes protection of action taken in good faith. It is very clear from the section that no suit prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against the Government, the Registrar General, any Registrar or any person exercising any power or performing any duty under this Act for anything which is in good faith done etc. The protection of action taken in good faith confined to registration authorities. The hospital is not a registering authority. The duty cast upon them is only intimation of the birth or death. Section 8(1)(b) made it clear. So the protection ensuring under Section 28 will not help the respondents. The admission, which is a best form of evidence, is there in this case and they also apologize. There was deficiency in service on the part of respondents and they are responsible to compensate.

 

            12. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to give 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation with costs Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) to the complainant within a month.