District Hospital,

Kannur.

 (Rep. by Adv.M.Kishore Kumar)                           Opposite party   

O R D E R

Sri.K.Gopalan, President

          This is a complaint filed under sectin12 of consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to frame guidelines with terms and conditions in respect of availing service of home nurses and to follow the system of exhibiting the same in the open space of the office of the opposite party and to pay an amount of `10,000 towards compensation.

          The case setup by the complainant in nutshell is as follows: The complainant availed the service of opposite party to get home nurse for attending and nursing   his aged mother. Opposite party sent a home nurse named Preetha on 18.7.08. After one moth service she availed duty leave for two days. But she did not come back thereafter since she did not turn up the complainant and his wife approached opposite party and made enquiry. It was then understood that Preetha was send to some other house. After the compulsion of the complainant another home nurse named Omana was deployed in complainant’s house. Though it was told that Omana will serve continuously she went back after 10 days since she was recalled back by opposite party. Complainant again approached opposite party and insisted further to send another home nurse. Another Home Nurse Sajitha was sent to complainant’s house on 19.10.08 but since she was not physically well she returned back. Complainant thereafter approached opposite party on many occasions but dragged him telling lame excuse. Complainant understood on enquiry that the opposite party unauthorisedly appropriating money sending home nurses according to his choice. Complainant did not give him any money so that home nurse was not sent to complainant’s house. The institution Red Cross society under the chairman ship of District Collector is having much credibility among the public, which the opposite party trying to make use of appropriating money and thereby deceiving those who are availing their service.

          Complainant being a Gandhist was not ready to give any bribe to influence opposite party. He intended to get the service of Home nurse on the one hand for reasons of his personal inconvenience and on the other hand to give more attendance and comfort to his aged mother. But for reasons of indifference and deficient service on the part of opposite party his mother suffered much discomfort and trouble which resulted diminishing the chances of recovery of her health. Her condition soon became worse and breathed her last on 29.12.08. If the service of opposite party assuring the attendance of a home nurses his mother would have been alive for some more time. Complainant sent a lawyer notice to which opposite party sent a recriminatory reply. Both the letters of reply contains serious allegations against the complainant and his wife, which caused much mental pain and sufferings. The averments in the notices stated that complainant behaved cruelly to his mother, who was 84 years old and she was not given proper food and was beaten up etc. are false and fabricated version  of opposite party  with malafide intention to escape from the liability. Complainant has suffered mental pain and miseries due to the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence  this complaint.

          Pursuant to the notice opposite party entered appearance and filed version denying the main allegations of the complainant, the brief of which is given below.

Complainant made application for the service of Red-cross nurses. The allegation that the nurses left the service of complainant due to the profit eye of opposite party etc. is false. Indian Red Cross Society is a part and parcel of the international infrastructure of Red Cross. It imparts services to the mankind universally and is not a business institution as colored or portrayed in the complaint. An appropriate candidate was deputed to the premises of the complainant. The first candidate was Preetha. After 28 days she availed two days mandatory leave and refused to continue due to complaint. She filed complaint in writing on 19.8.08. She stated that after she was sent out of the room there were noises from the room and patient had hemorrhage on the face etc. The next candidate allotted was Omana who worked from 1.9.08 to 11.9.08 and the third candidate was Sujatha who worked from 9.10.08 to 11.10.08. The candidates were astonished and thoroughly shocked an account of the atrocities of the complainant and his wife on the aged mother. It was complained by Omana and Sujatha. They have seen the complainant hurting the aged mother. It was done by closing the door and directing the nurses to go out of the room. They also seen hemorrhage on the neck of the aged mother.  It was also stated that the complainant slapped on the face of the mother and did not permit to give food and water in time. They constantly contacted to the office and complained of Sujatha gave written complaint on 11.10.08. On account of the bad character of the complainant, the Red Cross Nurses were constrained to retreat and it is a part of condition of deputation that the service shall be withdrawn if character and contact is found unsatisfactory. There is no deficiency in service. Hence to dismiss the case.

          On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite

     party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed in

     the complaint?

3. Relief and cost.

The evidence consists of oral evidence of PW1, DW1, DW2, DW3 and Exts. A1 to A9, B1 to B11.

Issue Nos.1 to 3

          Admittedly complainant applied opposite party for availing the service of Home Nurse. Ext.B1 is the application from. Ext.B1 reveals the period of service required was 3 months. The deployment order shown proves that three Home Nurses were deployed for complainant namely

1. Preetha from  18.7.08  to 17.8.08

          2. Omana A.K from 1.9.09 to 10.9.08

          3. Sajitha.V from 9.10.08 to 11.10.08.

          The case of the complainant is that he contracted with the opposite party for getting Home nurse for attending his mother aged 85 years for three months. Home Nurse was deployed after receiving fees but withdrawn before the expiry of contractual period without rendering service for the stipulated period causing much difficulty to complainant. Complainant suspects that the deployed nurses were withdrawn for the purpose of rendering service to other persons for illegal benefit from them.

          Opposite party on the other hand contended that the home nurses were constrained to retreat from service to complainant due to character default of the complainant since it is a condition of deputation that the character and contact if found unsatisfactory the service will be withdrawn.

          It can be seen that opposite party deployed Home Nurse Preetha.K for the service of complainant’s mother for a period of 3 months. She worked there for 28 days without break and went on 2 days leave as per schedule but did not come back to fulfill the service for the contractual period. Opposite party in his version contended that Preetha had filed written complaint before the opposite party on 19.8.08 in which she was stated that after driving out of the room there were noises from the room and patient had hemorrhages on face. Opposite party further stated that she told him that she was not able to continue her service due to the above reason. Thereafter she never worked with Red Cross.  Ext.A2 dated 21.1.09 is the first reply notice of opposite party. It is stated therein that Preetha worked for a period of 28 days and availed 2 days mandatory leave as per schedule and refused to continue due to complaint. Ext.A2 being the first communication has its own importance. Ext.A2 did not say that Preetha has stated anything with respect to the event except saying that she refused to continue due to complaint. He had not written what was the complaint. Ext.A4 dated 9.2.09  another legal notice sent by opposite party wherein it was stated that Preetha.K served his mother for one month and afterwords she had left refusing to come back to the patient or do services for Red cross. It was further stated that when questioned she revealed that complainant and his wife behaved cruelly towards the patients. She was beaten up in front of her and patient was not given proper food and was virtually a pensioner. The case of the opposite party now stands developed to a higher stage than of the case set up in Ext.A2 first reply notice. Ext.A2 pointed out that Preetha refused to continue services due to complaint. It was not stated what the complaint was. It was reserved. Preetha  stated nothing about cruelty towards patient in Ext.A2.  It was clearly formulated in Ext.A4 such a manner that she had been witnessing the cruelly of the complainant towards his mother/patient.

Further it was stated that “ she wrote a letter dealing the  cruelty”.  Ext.B4 is the letter written by Preetha. That is written on 19.8.08. Ext.A2, the first legal reply notice is admittedly written on 21.1.09. Preetha in her letter dated 19.8.2008 written that “ Rm³ tcmKnsb ip

{iqjn-¡p-¶-Xn-\n-S-bn Nne-t¸mÄ Ft¶mSv dqanÂ\n¶v  ]pd-¯p-t]m-Im³ ]d-bm-dp-­v.-]ns¶ dqT AS-¨-Xn-\p-ti-jT Nne i_vZ-§fpT  aäpT tIÄ¡m-dp-­v. dqT-Xp-d-¶-Xn-\p-ti-jT an¡-t¸m-gpT Ihn-fn Nph¸p Ie-bp-T-Nn-e-t¸mÄ apdn-ªn-«pT ImWm-T. A½ Fs¶  ASn-¨n-cp-¶pT F¶p ]d-ªv I-c-bm-dp­v”

It is pertinent to note that Ext.A2 legal notice dt.21.1.09 contain no whisper about any letter written by the Home Nurse/ Preetha. The allegation made in the letter Ext.B4 dt.19.8.08 is a serious one. If such a letter was written to opposite party that would have been definitely found place in Ext.A2 dt.21.1.09 legal reply notice. But opposite party was totally silent except saying ‘refused to continue due to complaint. It is opposite party who has to give a proper explanation for this.

          Moreover, it is much important to have a deep analysis in the content of the letter Ext.B4 and the contention of opposite party raised in Ext.A4 as well as in the version. Opposite party has stated in Ext.A4 thus: she revealed that No.1 and 2 of you behaved cruelly towards the patient who was an 84 years old lady. She was beaten up in front of her and patient was not given proper food and was virtually a prisoner”. This content has no relation with the content written in Ext.B4; which is quoted above. No where in the letter Ext.B4 it is stated she was beaten in front of her. What Preetha written is dqT AS-¨-Xn-\p-ti-jT Nne i_vZ-§fpT  aäpT tIÄ¡m-dp-­v. No word that she had seen beating the patient or beated in front of her is used in the letter. She has nothing stated about food.

          The evidence adduced by Preetha in the box deposed thus “  kptc-{µ³ A½-sb-ip-{iq-jn-¡p¶ ka-b¯v Ft¶mSv Nne Znh-k-§-fn  ]pd-¯p-t]m-Im³]-d-bp-T.-A-Xn-\p-ti-jT dqT AS¨v apdn-bn \n¶v-A-½sb hg-¡p-]-d-bp¶ i_vZTt-tIÄ¡mdp-­v. dqT Xpd-¶-Xn-\p-ti-jT sN¶m A½ Ft¶mSv aI³ ASn-¨-Xmbn ]d-bm-dp-­v. C¡m-c-yT Rm³ Hm^o-kn And-bn-¨n-cp¶”. She did not say he mother was beaten in front of her. What she was actually reported was that the mother told her that she was beaten by her son/complainant. Even if it is taken as true for argument sake one cannot forget the mother lady is an 85 years old lady that too in a laid up position. In ordinary course assessment of performance and state of affair of such a lady cannot be considered as quite normal as  a healthy women. It is important to note what DW2 Preetha deposed subsequently. She deposed ‘ Hcp Znh-kT dqT Xpd¶ ka-b¯v Np­¯v apdnªv tNmc h¶Xp Rm³ I­p. Nmb sImSp-¡p¶ ka-b¯v aSn ImWn¨ ka-b-¯m-b-n-cp¶p Ft¶mSv ]pd-¯p-t]m-Im³ ]d-ª-Xv. . In short this is the experience that leads her to write complaint letter. It is not based  on witnessing any incident of beating the old lady in front of her. In cross examination she has also deposed “ ]cm-Xn-¡m-c³ Fs¶ ASn¨p F¶p ]d-bp¶ XobXn F\n-t¡mÀ½-bn-Ã.-A-Sn-¡p-¶Xp Rm³ I­n-«nÔ. Her own evidence undoubtedly makes it clear that  she had not seen complainant beating her mother. She has also deposed in cross examination that “Rm³ tPmen sN¿p¶  ka-b¯v c­v XhW Fs¶ ]pd-¯m¡n hmXn-e-S¨v hg¡v ]dª kT-`-hT D­m-b-hn-cp-¶p.” she has served 28 days. In her 28 days service it is 2 days she had the above experience. She has not stated anything with regard to the proper food of mother. The above facts disprove what is contended by the opposite party. Preetha has no case that the mother was beaten in front of her and not provided food properly. It is also necessary to consider certain other aspects that reveals in the evidence adduced by DW2 in her cross examination “patients\ I­-t¸mÄ Xs¶ manage sN¿m³ _p²nap«m-Ip-sa¶v tXm¶n-bn-cp-¶p. Manage sN¿m³ _p²n-ap-«p-s­¶v SecretarytbmSv ]d-ªn-cp-¶n-Ã. ]cm-Xn-¡mcsâ A½/patient sâ tFI aI-\m-Wv. Rm³ t]mb-k-a-b¯v A½¡v tF-I-tZ-iT 84 hb-Êp-­m-hpT Ipfn-ap-dn-bn \n¶v hoWv Imev s]m«n-b-Xn-\p-ti-j-amWv Fsâ tkh-\T Bh-i-y-s¸-Sp-¶-Xv.DW1 is very open to say that it was quite difficult to manage this old lady. From the very first sight she was under such an  impression. In the chief examination itself she deposed that “patient \v kz-bT \S-¡m³ ]än-Ãm-bn-cp-¶p. \à weight Dff XSn-bm-bn-cp-¶p. Fs¶  NurseBbn Ab-¡p-¶ ka-b¯v tcmKn-bpsS hni-Zm-T-i-§Äsk-{I-«dn At\--jn-¨n-cp-¶p. B k-a-b¯v tcmKn¡v Hcp-sN-dnb  kt¸mÀ«v  sImSp-¯m aXn F¶p ]d-ªn-cp-¶p. ho«n sN¶-t¸mÄ t]j-yâns\ InS-¸n-em-bn-«m-Wv I-­Xv. Ahsc ]cn-]m-en-¡m³ hnj-a-ap-­m-bn-cp-¶p.DW2 is the Home Nurse who served the lady more days than that of other nurses. According to herthe managing of nursing of this lady was very much difficult. This element of tiresome has also played its own role in the whole event that has been taken place. The evidence and experiences explained that of Preetha is not sufficient enough to come in to a conclusion that the services of Home Nurses were withdrawn due to the cruelty of the complainant towards his mother.

          Complainant approached the opposite party again to send Home Nurses after the discontinuation of Preetha. Opposite party has no case that he has explained the reason for discontinuation of Preetha to complainant. It is not clear what is the reason  why opposite party did not make enquiry with complainant the actual incidents that has been taken place in the house of complainant, even if Preetha refused to come back to the patient or do  service for Red cross.

          Second Home Nurse, Omana served the old lady from 1.9.08 to 11.9.08 and the third nurse Sajitha served from 9.10.08 to 11.10.08. Opposite party contended in his version that these Home Nurses we astonished and thoroughly shocked on account of the atrocities of the complainant and his wife on the aged mother. They have seen the complainant hurting the aged mother. The same was done by closing the door and directing the nurse to go out of the room. They also had seen hemorrhages on the neck of the aged mother. It is also contended that the complainant slapped on the face of the mother and did not permit to give food and water in time. On the one hand opposite party contended that Nurses have seen the complainant hurting the aged mother and at the same time continued to say that the same was done by closing the door and directing the nurses to go out of the room. If it done closing the door they can not see slapping or hurting the mother. It is contended again that nurses were reporting these facts in the office in the form of complaint. But opposite party has not made any enquiry. Opposite party did not even ask the complainant about these incidents? Omana made written complaint on 11.9.08. Even after getting the written complaint no enquiry had been made by the opposite party. Third Home nurse Sajitha discontinued within two days with the same allegation and she also made   written complaint. Opposite party has no case even after getting this complaint from third Home Nurse Sajitha, he has made enquiry or put the subject matter of atrocity before the complainant so as to convince the reason why nurses were discontinued the service. Service is practically withdrawn without telling any reson. In short opposite party has no explanation before the complaint with respect to the withdrawal of service. Reply to legal notice also has not been explained why the complainant was not informed the reason for withdrawal of nurses. As far as this case is concerned opposite party has the legal and moral obligation to give information to complainant with regard to the actual reason of discontinuance of the service of Home Nurses. Opposite party has no case that the matter was presented before the complainant. An Institution like that of opposite party should have been handled the subject matter of atrocities, in an ideal manner. Anyhow or other it is absolutely essential to bring the reason before the complainant for withdrawing the service earlier than the contractual period.

          It has also to be considered that the women to whom for Home Nurse was appointed is a lady having 85 years of age. It can be very well assumed that the necessity of service of Home Nurse arosed due to her fall. Complainant is the only son. The family also seems to be a well to do family. In the natural course atrocities as explained above even without giving food is difficult to be believed. So first of all it is necessary to understand what are the measures opposite party has taken to understand the truth.

          Opposite party/DW1 deposed in cross examination as follows:  There is byelaw for the Red Cross society. It is not produced before the court. Opposite party is a Social welfare society. Certificate regarding those activities are kept in the office. It is not produced before the court. There is a byelaw with respect to providing Red cross nurses. The manner by which Nurses are deployed is not written in the byelaw. There are rules in providing nurses. It is not produced before the court. He is not remembering whether it was stated or not in the version. It cannot be seen that Ext.B3 is service rules. It is decided in the Red Cross meeting. It cannot be seen when it was accepted.  It is continued for the last 14 years.Copy of Ext.A3 was given to complainant. There is no evidence to show that it is given to complainant. It is also not stated in version. There is no separate column for the consumers to put signature. The first Home Nurse/Preetha served for 28 days and went on leave for two days. Another nurse was not send immediately since there was no body available at that time. The nurse who was deployed second time served in complainant’s house for 11 days and then the third nurse was sent. Nurse Preetha complained and  reported that she was not interested to do duty. Mr.Surendran did not permit her to service the old mother as is require. Moreover. She told that she was asked to go out of the room she also told that she heard sound from inside the room. When the door was opened she could see red scratches on the mother’s face. Mother herself told her that the scratches were the result of the deed of her son. She told him about the cruelty after 15 days of her service. It was given in writing at the time when she reported in office after her service. He has not taken any steps on the basis of the report of the nurse that she was beaten by her son/complainant. He has not made any attempt to know what is told by the first nurse is true or not. They did not interfere since it was a family matter No enquiry made to the complainant. He further deposed that second Home Nurse told him about the torturing of complainant to his mother after 8 days. She gave this complaint in writing. Even after getting report Ext.B5 from second nurse they have not taken any steps to know whether those reports are true or untrue Sajitha/ IIIrd  Home Nurse attended the job on 9.10.08. On 10.10.08 afternoon she returned back since she was unwell. It is deposed on the basis of the office records. Original day book has not been produced since it is required for daily use. Exts.B7, B8 and B9 are not concocted documents. They are photo copies of original receipt. Opposite party has also deposed in cross examination that the Red Cross Committee has discussed the incident of atrocities of complainant against the old mother. Nurses were deployed to those who apply first. There is no rule regarding this. Preferences were given to those who are bedridden and under coma and stroke patient. There is no condition to deploy a nurse for a definite period. If any objection arises we have the right to withdraw the   nurses. Ext.B3 is not a computer printout. It is a document available for the last many years. It is not possible to say when it was made. The decision of the committee had taken years back.

          It can be seen that opposite party has not produced important documents before the Forum even according to the deposition of DW1. Ext.B3 is claimed to be the rules regarding the deployment of Home nurses. DW1 deposed that Ext.B3 is a printed document and not computer printout. But it can be seen  Ext.B3 contain no name of the printing press. If it is printed in a printing press it will definitely carry the name of press where from the notice was printed. When the name of Indian Red Cross society is used every document in its name should have reliability. Ext.B3 cannot be considered as a document reliable as it lacks the name of the printing press. Opposite party has no explanation for this. DW1 has stated in cross examination that Ext.B3bn printsNbvX  press sâ t]cv ImWp-¶n-sÃ-¦n H¶pT ]d-bm-\n-Ã.         It is mandatory that every printed matter should bear the name of the press where from it has been printed. It is not expected from such a renowned institution to produce this type of unreliable document before the Forum. DW4 Mr.Rajan deposed in cross examination that Ext.B3 press sImSp¯p print sNbvXp hm§n-b-Xm-Wv. It is not wounder saying so even if untrue since he is an interested witness.

          The absence of the name of printing press on the Ext.B3 notice is a harbinger to lead in to a conclusion that there is no rules and regulations existing for the time being so as to deploy the nurses. It has  to be taken into account that the  byelaw  claims to be in existence has not been produced before the Forum. Since this is a hotly contested matter there is no possibility of non production such an important document which is a strong pillar to establish the case of opposite party. It can only be assumed that there is no such byelaw existing for the time being.DW1 deposed that “Red cross nursessâ tkh-\T \ÂIm³ Dff provision bye laws D­v. Then what is prevented the opposite party from producing the bye-law before the Forum. He has admitted that the same is not produced before the Forum. It cannot be ignored that there is a specific prayer to give a direction to opposite party to frame certain rules so as to have a guidance by which the nurses are allotted. If the deployment of nurses were guided by written bye law, the main case of the complainant can very well be shattered by merely producing the same before the Forum. Under such a situation if that document is not seen produced in usual course, it cannot be believed the very existence of such a bye-law as true.

          Here comes the need of analyzing the materials available a little bit deep with respect to the serious issue of the subject matter of the alleged harassment of complainant to his mother, which caused to quit the service of all the three nurses deputed for serving the old mother. All the three nurses say that the complainant Surendran scold his mother and she told them that she was beaten by her son. But none of them directly saw that he was beating the old mother. All the three nurses said that the alleged harassment was done closing the doors. That means no one witnessed the torture. DW2, Preetha who had been served this old mother for 28 days deposed that “Hcp Znh-kT  dqT Xpd¶ ka-b¯v Np­¯v apdnªv tNmc hcp-¶Xp Rm³ I­n-cp-¶p.  That was a single  experiences during the period  of her 28 days service. Can it be considered as the evidence to make assure that the old mother was tortured by her son, the complainant?  They have also deposed that they have heard utterance of rebuking. But they did not say what  it was. They heard only sound but no words. DW2 in her cross examination deposed “]-cm-Xn-¡m-c³ A½sb ASn-¨p-F¶p ]d-bp¶ Xob-Xn-F-\n-t¡mÀ½-bn-Ã. ASn-¡p-¶Xp Rm³ I­n-«n-Ã. A½sb aI³ ASn¨p F¶p A½ c­p-X-hW Ft¶mSv ]d-ªn-«p-­v.” From this evidence it is not safe to conclude that there was torture by the complainant to his mother. This is a case a son torturing his mother. It is not an ordinary case. There should be clear and cogent evidence to say that there was torture. Though exceptions cannot be ruled out the love of a son to his mother cannot be challenged without a cogent and straight forward proof DW2 deposed what is the circumstances under which she reluctant to go back from nursing the old mother. She deposed in cross examination that “patient s\ I­-t¸mÄXs¶ manage sN¿m³ _p²n-ap-«p-­m-Ip-sa¶v tXm¶n-bn-cp-¶p. In chief examination she had made much more clear saying this “ patient \v \S-¡m³ ]än-Ãm-bp-cp-¶p. \à           weight Dff XSn-bm-bn-cp-¶p……..-ho-«n sN¶-t¸mÄ  patient s\ InS-¸n-em-bn-«mWv I­-Xv. Ahsc ]cn-]m-en-¡m³ hnj-a-ap-­m-bn-cp-¶p. These words are large and sufficient to understand the state of mind of DW2 from the outset of  her service. In the chief examination itself she has explained why she did not go back. She said “ InS-¡-cpXv Fgp-t¶-än-cn-¡-WT F¶v AhÀ patients\ imkn-¡m-dp-­m-b-n-cp-¶p. A½sb Ft¸m-gpT ]nSn-¨n-cp-¯m³ Ft¶mSv ]d-bp-T. ]nSn-¨n-cp-¯p-¶Xv A½¡v CjvS-am-bn-cp-¶n-Ã. A§ns\ sN¿p-t-¼mÄ A½ Fs¶ ]d-bpT.AXn-\m F\n¡v Ft¸m-gp-T-c­v `mK-¯p-\n-¶p-ap-ff hnj-a-T-sIm­v {]bm-k-s¸-Sm-dp-­v. B hnj-a-amWv ]n¶nSv t]mIm-Xn-cn-¡m³ CS-h-cp-¯n-b-Xv. There is no need to hesitate to say it is this trouble –trouble in nursing- that prevented her from going back to service again.  The evidence adduced by DW2 in box in short, leads to conclude that the trouble she suffered in nursing is the real cause that lead her to quit the service, and not the alleged torment.

                   The second nurse Omana in her letter Ext.B5 stated thus: “]e {]mh-i-y-T-apdn ]q«n-bn«v kptc-{µ³ A½sb hfsc aÀ±n-¡p-I-bp-­m-b-n. She has continued to state that apJ¯v I¿p-sS ]mSp-IÄ ImWm-dp-­v. CXv \nX-y-hpT XpS-cp¶ kT-`-h-am-Wv.  She was not examined to prove the document. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that she never stated any where that she heard Surendran rebuking her at anytime for anything. She has stated that during  her service Surendran repeatedly beaten his mother. DW2 Preetha during her 28 days stay witnessed only one day the blood on the lip of the mother due to torture. But Omana, experienced all the 10 days of her stay that the mother was tortured by the complainant. Again the third Nurse DW3, Sajitha who nursed the old mother altogether two days. In chief examination she stated that “kptc-{µ³ A½sb D]-{Z-hn-¡m-dp-­mbn-cp-¶p. apdn ]q«n-bn-«-Xn-\p-ti-j-amWv A½sb D]-{Z-hn-¡m-dp-f-f-Xv.v ]n¶o-SvA½bpsS apJ-¯vNp-I¶ ]mSp-IÄ ImWm-dp-­m-bn-cp¶p” She joined on 9.10.08 and went  back on 11.10.08. She has deposed in cross examination that “10.10.2008\mWv ]cm-Xn-¡m-c³ A½sb D]-{Z-hn-¡m-dp-s­¶v Rm³ a\-Ên-em-¡n-b-Xv. A½sb D]-{Z-hn-¡p-¶Xv Rm³ t\-cn I­n-«n-Ã. Igp-¯n\p Npa¶ ]mSp-IÄ I­-Xp-sIm-­pT Ic-bp-¶Xp I­-Xp-sIm-­pT D]-{Z-hn-¨-Xm-sW¶p Rm³ a\-Ên-em-¡n. Igp¯v R¡n-b-Xnsâ  Ie-bmWv Igp-¯n I­-Xp.-kp-tc-{µ³ A½sb Hcp-X-hW D]-{Z-hn-¡p-¶Xp am{Xta Rm³ I­n-«p-f-fp. She has also not seen doing torture by complainant to her mother. She only suspected since she saw the red scratches on her face. This witness is an interested witness. A wag evidence of such witness cannot be taken to ascertain that the complainant beaten his mother and harassed her.

          It is also wonderful to see that the Red Cross kept silent over this atrocity towards an old lady after discussing the matter. DW1 in his evidence deposed in Box that “]cm-Xn-¡m-c³ aÀ±n-¨-Im-c-y-§Ä I½n-än-bn NÀ¨ sNbvXn-cp-¶p.” They were even not made an enquiry with the complainant even though he has approached them several occasions with request to send the Home Nurses again. An organization like that of opposite party should have at least discharge their moral obligation by presenting the seriousness of the matter before the complainant. It is difficult to understand what restrained them from asking the complainant the reason for the complaint of such a nature. Opposite party could not succeed in proving what they have pleaded giving cogent and clear evidence. Even the evidence given by the interested witness do not hold good to depend upon.

          In the light of the above discussion and the materials available  on record shows that there is no reasonable explanation on the part of opposite party for denial of service by providing home nurses to complainant  nursing for his mother as against terms of agreement. Though opposite party raised serious contentions he was unable to prove it by cogent and clear evidence. He cannot also disprove the case of the complainant. On going through the entire evidence of this case we have arrived at a conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in withdrawing the Home Nurses before the stipulated period of service. Moreover, the documents produced by the opposite party itself proves that there is no accepted rules and regulations followed by the opposite party as service provider in deploying the Home nurses for the consumers which in usual course raise obligation on the part of opposite party to frame the rules accepted by the General body concerned and publish for information of public at large by exhibiting legibly in a conspicuous place of  the premises of opposite party’s office. In the light of the above discussion it is found deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. We are of opinion that the opposite party is liable to pay a sum of  `2500 as compensation together  with the cost of this litigation a sum of `1000 within one month from the date of receipt of this order apart from the publication of the rules within a period of three months. Hence issue Nos. 1 to 3 is found in favour of complainant and order passed accordingly.

          In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the   opposite party to print and publish the rules accepted by the general body regarding the deployment of Home Nurses within three months of this order and to pay a sum of `2500 (Rupees Two thousand Five hundred only) as compensation and an amount of `1000 (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of this litigation within one month of receipt of this order. Opposite party is liable to comply the order within the above specified period, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection act.

              Sd/-                    Sd/-                      Sd/-

          President              Member                Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

 A1.Copy of the lawyer notice dt.8.1.09 sent to OP

A2.Repy notice

A3. Letter dt.23.1.09 issued by Dist. Collector, Kannur.

A4. Copy of the lawyer dt.9.2.09 notice  issued by OP

A5. Copy of the reply notice sent to OP

A6. Receipt dt.18.11.08 issued by OP

A7. Copy of the cash receiptdt.18.7.08 issued by OP

A8. Instructions dt.14.8.08 issued by OP

A9. Copy of the cash receipt dt.21.8.08 issued by OP

Exhibits for the opposite party:

B1.Application form submitted by complainant

B2. Payment voucher dt.18.11.08

B3.Service rule of Red cross nursing service

B4 to B6.Letter submitted by Preetha, Omana and Sajitha before OP

B7 to B9.Copy of the allotment register maintained by OP

B10.Cash receipt dt.18.7.08 addressed to complainant

B11. Cash receipt dt.21.7.08 addressed to complainant

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1. Complainant

Witness examined for the opposite party:

DW1. Umesh Pochappan

DW2.Preetha.K

DW3.Sajitha

DW4.T.Rajan

                  /forwarded by order/

          Senior Superintendent

Consumer Dispute  Redressal Forum, Kannur.