KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.15/2013
JUDGMENT DATED 1.2.2013
(Appeal filed against the order in CC No.09/09 on the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta dated 14.11.2012)
PRESENT
SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER
Pushpagiri Medical college Hospital,
Thiruvalla reptd. by its Administrator,
Fr.Mathew Punakulam, -- APPELLANT
Pushpagiri Medical College Hospital,
Thiruvalla.
(By Adv.V.K.Mohankumar)
Vs.
1. Sreejaya P.S.
Kuriyilethu House,
Melukara (PO), Kozhencherry.
2. Sreejesh K.J.
S/0 Jaya Devan, Kuriyilethu House,
Melukara (P.O) Kozhencherry.
3. Sreelekshmi
D/0 Jayadevan, -- RESPONDENTS
Kuriyilethu House,
Melukara (P.O) Kozhencherry.
4. Dr.Dominic Anto
Nero Surgeon, Pushpagiri Medical
College Hospital, Thiruvalla.
5. United India Insurance Co.Ltd,
Pathanamthitta.
6. Dr.Raju Paul, Neuro Surgeon,
Pushpagiri Medical
College Hospital, Thiruvalla.
JUDGMENT
SHRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA,MEMBER
This appeal is preferred from the order passed by the CDRF, Pathanamthitta in CC.No.09/09 order dated 14.11.2012. The appellant is the 1st opposite party hospital who prefers this appeal under the direction of the forum below that the complaint is allowed as prayed for in the complaint, thereby the first opposite party is directed to return the treatment expenses of Rs.1,20,000/- along with the compensation of 3 lakhs and cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainants are allowed to realize the same from the first opposite party along with interest @10% per annum till the realization of the order.
2. On behalf of the appellant, first opposite party is submitted that the forum below found that the 4th opposite party/doctor is negligent due to the treatment of the complainant. As per the evidence especially in Ext.A6 which clearly shows that treated doctors have put a hole on the right side of the patient. It is no doubt that the said hole made by the treated doctors is the cause of the liver injury which resulted in the death of the patient. At the same time, the opposite party have no case or no evidence adduced to show that they are not responsible for the liver injury is the cause of death of the patient. But the post mortem report opined that the surgical injury to the liver of the deceased and statements of the version of the first and second opposite parties and the deposition of the additional 4th opposite party. This were considered by the forum below. The forum below found the negligent and carelessness in the course of treatment of the complainant.
3. This Commission heard in detail. The counsel for the appellant argued that it fixed the liability against the first opposite party/hospital alone is illegal and irregular as per the law. The forum below found that the 4th opposite party/doctor in negligent and carelessness in the treatment and which caused death to the complainant. It cannot be understood that the forum below did not fix any liability against the doctors concerned. The forum below only to fix the liability against the first opposite party/doctor, it is not legally sustainable.
In the result, this appeal is allowed in part and set aside the result portion of the impugned order passed by the forum below. The other findings of the forum below is confirmed. The case stands posted to the forum below for fresh disposal after considering accordance with the strict principal of law of court. It is a principle of law involved vicarious liability (Master and Servant relation ship). The forum below is direct to pass a legal order. Give opportunities to both sides for arguments. All the parties are directed to appear before the forum below on 26.3.2013. This appeal is disposed of accordingly.
M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER
SL
