By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
1. The complaint is that the complainant along with his family members were travelling in an Alto car bearing registration No. KL- 71E- 1323 met with an accident on 10/10/2021 at Morayur at about 9.55 pm. On the day of accident while the car reached at the place of incident a KSRTC bus bearing registration No. KL-15-9534 came from the opposite side in a rash and negligent manner driven by opposite party who is alleged to have consumed alcohol hit against the car and thus the accident occurred. The complainant sustained injuries and she was taken to the nearby clinic Iqrah at Mongam and the duty doctor examined the complainant, sutured the wounds, and also administered injection. Thereafter on 18/10/2021 the complainant approached the opposite party for wound certificate and then it was told that there is no such a practice to issue wound certificate which was told by a man who is in the management of the clinic namely Mr. Navas. The opposite party is not only refused to issue the wound certificate but insulted the complainant. The complainant asked the opposite party to place a board in front of the clinic stating that accident cases will not be entertained otherwise the people like complainant will suffer in future. But the opposite party did not heed the words of complainant. Thereafter complainant preferred petitions to the Hon’ble chief minister and also to the health minister.
2. The complainant issued lawyer notice to the opposite party on 01/11/2021 and a reply notice was received dated 06/11/2021 stating that the opposite party is not running an hospital as alleged by the complainant but it is only a clinic. The complainant submitted that the complainant approached the opposite party with the purpose of filing an application before the motor accident claims tribunal seeking compensation for injuries sustained in the motor accident. Due to non-issuance of wound certificate the complainant was deprived from filing compensation application and thereby she assessed an amount of Rs.50,000/-as loss caused to the complainant. Hence the complainant pray for the compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of depraving the complainant from filing application before the motor accident claims tribunal and also claimed Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony suffered by the complainant. The complainant further claimed an amount of Rs.50,000/- for the inconvenience and hardship caused to the complainant.
3. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party and on receipt of notice the opposite party entered appearance and filed version.
4. The opposite party denied the entire averments and allegations and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with the cost to the opposite party.
5. The opposite party submitted that he is not aware of the complainant. The opposite party submitted that he is not aware of the incident narrated by the complainant that she traveled in a vehicle, met with accident and the things alleged in the paragraph one of the complaint. The opposite party expressed his anguish that he was driving KSRTC bus and intoxicated condition and which dashed against the car in which the complainant and family were travelling. The opposite party submitted the he has not driven a bus alleged and he is not a KSRTC driver also. The attempt of the complainant is to file false complaint and thereby squeeze money from the opposite party.
6. The allegation that due to the accident the complainant sustained injuries to her and the local people had taken the complainant to the nearby Iqrah clinic and the doctor who was in duty treated the complainant etc are false and so denied. The aforesaid clinic is not at all a hospital only primary treatments are providing there and no accident cases are entertained in the clinic. In case of anybody approaching the clinic, it is usual to send back them to approach appropriate hospital. The opposite party denied that the complainant approached the opposite party for the treatment certificate and the opposite party denied the same. The Iqrah clinic is providing only primary treatment and there is no facility to prepare wound certificate and to issue to parties. The allegation that the complainant approached opposite party for the wound certificate and at that time the wound certificate was not issued and insulted the complainant is a false statement. The opposite party submitted that he is not aware of the petitions preferred by the complainant to the chief minister and to the health minister. All the things are to cause inconvenience and hardship to the opposite parties and the opposite party is ready and willing to take appropriate actions against the act of complainant. The opposite party admitted that the complainant had issued a lawyer notice to the opposite party and the opposite party duly sent reply to the complainant stating the true facts, but the complainant without considering the facts a complaint preferred with ill motive.
7. The opposite party submitted that there is no basis for the claim that the complainant sustained loss of Rs.50,000/- due to none issuance of wound certificate for filing claim before motor accident claims tribunal and that she sustained mental agony, financial loss, hardship and invoice etc . The opposite party denied the allegation that the complainant underwent treatment before Iqrah clinic it is specifically submitted that the complainant filed this complaint on experimental basis to extract money from the opposite party by illegal means. Hence the prayer of the opposite party is to dismiss this complaint with cost to the opposite party.
8. The complainant and opposite party filed affidavit and documents. The documents marked on the side of complainant are Ext. A1 t o A5. Ext. A1 is prescription issued to Biyyutty nil dated Ext. A2 is copy of notice dated 01/11/2021. Ext. A3 is copy of reply notice dated 06/11/2021. Ext. A4 is copy of petition submitted before Hon’ble chief minister of Kerala. Ext. A5. Is copy of petition submitted before Hon’ble health minister of Kerala. The complainant filed power of attorney but which is not marked as document. The opposite party did not file any document.
9. Heard parties, perused affidavit and documents.
The following points arise for consideration
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the side of opposite party?
- Relief and cost ?
10. Pont No.1 and 2
The perusal of complaint reveals that the opposite party was driver of KSRTC bus and he was driving the vehicle under the influence of liqueur in a rash and negligent manner and thus hit the bus against the car in which the complainant and other family members were travelling . The complainant filed affidavit also in support of the contention in the complaint. The allegation is very serious nature that the opposite party was driver of the KSRTC bust at the relevant time and he was driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner which led to the alleged accident. On the other hand, the opposite party specifically denied that he was not a driver of KSRTC and he had no occasion to drive a KSRTC bus also. So, from the prima facie itself the allegation in the complaint is baseless and not at all supported with true facts.
11. The grievance of the complainant alleged in the complaint is that the opposite party not issued wound certificate to the complainant stating that they are not maintaining wound certificate and there is no practice of issuing wound certificate. The complainant has not produced proper document to show that the complainant was duly examined and treated by the opposite party. Ext.A2 to 5 are documents to show the legal notices and the petitions preferred by the complainant are not proper documents to show that the complainant was treated by the opposite party. The complainant produced Ext. A1, the alleged prescription which does not reveal the name of hospital or the doctor who issued the same to the complainant. The opposite party received the notice from the Commission in the address furnished in the complaint and filed version and affidavit contenting that Iqrah clinic is not a hospital and not maintaining records of wound certificate and not issuing the same to the parties. They are providing only primary treatment and so they are not entertaining accident cases and they are referring the patients for the treatment of before appropriate hospitals. There is no reason to discard the averment of the opposite party. It is the case of the opposite parry that they are not running hospital and so they are not issuing wound certificate. The complainant preferred petitions before the authorities as evident from Ext. A4 and 5 and the complainant is entitled to proceed further before the concerned authorities if there are irregularities in running the clinic of the opposite party.
12. Considering the averments in the complaint and affidavit of the complainant and the documents produced, we do not find any merit in the complaint and so the complaint stands dismissed. The opposite party though pressed for the cost of the complainant, considering the authority being a Consumer Commission acting under the Consumer Protection Act, we are not directing the complainant to pay cost to the opposite party parties, but directed to suffer cost.
Dated this 7th day of June, 2023.
Mohandasan . K, President
Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A5
Ext.A1: prescription issued to Biyutty nil dated
Ext.A2: copy of notice dated 01/11/2021.
Ext A3: copy of reply notice dated 06/11/2021.
Ext A4: copy of petitioner submitted before Hon’ble chief minister of Kerala.
Ext A5: copy of petition submitted before Hon’ble health minister of Kerala.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Mohandasan . K, President
Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
