A. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUES REDRESSAL COMMISSION :AT HYDERABAD
FA 46/2007 against CC No. 279/2004 on the file of the District Forum II,
Krishna at Vijayawada.
Between :
K. Ramachandra Rao, S/o K. Polu Raju
Flat no. 105, VijayaSri Sai Elysum Temple Lane
Vasavi colony, Hyderabad … Appellant/complainant
And
1. Sri Chaitanya Educational Committee
Poranki, Vijayawada, represented by its Director
Dr. B. S. Rao and Dr. B. Jhansi Lakshmi Bai
2. Dr. B. S. Rao, S/o not known to complainant
Director, Sri Chaitanya Educational Committee,
Poranki, Vijayawada.
3. Dr. B. Jhansi Lakshmi Bai,
W/o Dr. B. S. Rao
Director, Sri Chaitanya Educational Committee
Poranki, Vijayawada … Respondents/opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. Indus Law firm
Counsel for the Respondents : M/s. T. Rajendra Prasad
Coram ; Sri Syed Abdullah … Hon’ble Member
And
Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao… Hon’ble Member
Friday, the Eighteenth Day of June, Two Thousand Ten
Oral Order : ( As per Sri Syed Abdullah, Hon’ble Member )
*******
Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation ordered in CC 279/2004 by the District Forum II, Vijayawada, this appeal is filed and sought for revising the order taking into account the grounds raised in the appeal.
The facts of the case disclose that the complainant’s son by name K. Venkata Krishna had secured 73.4% of marks in Intermediate Examination and in EAMCET entrance he secured 12,309 rank for admission in MBBS course. As there was no certainty in getting the seat with crude rank the complainant decided to admit his son for a long time EAMCET coaching run by OP no.1. So that he may appear for second time EAMCET to be held in 2004. The opposite parties after conducting entrance test on 15.06.2003 have admitted him for the long term coaching, the total fee is fixed at Rs.39,000/- including boarding and lodging for the course which was promptly paid. The complainant’s son was admitted in EAMCET coaching centre situate at Siddhartha Medical College premises which is nearby to the Agricultural lands of Nagarjunasagar Canal. The complainant along with his son visited the area where the coaching centre is located and noticed that due to dampness in the lands mosquitoes are in existence in the vicinity also noticed that there was no proper maintenance and the area was surrounded by unhygienic atmosphere which was brought to the notice of warden who used to attend all preventive measures. Opposite parties also assured on this aspect. In the 2nd week of August, the complainant was informed that his son was suffering from fever and called onl; his son and on an enquiry his son informed that due to mosquitoes and unhygienic atmosphere he was affected with fever. Though opposite parties have mentioned in the brochure that there was house dispensary but actually no house dispensary facility was provided in the premises. The complainant’s son was taken to Amma Hospital. The warden had expressed helplessness about the unhygienic conditions. Later the complainant visited his son to find out his improvement in his health. Again, on 18.09.2003 the complainant’s son was affected with fever and he was informed that he was admitted in Amma Hospital but fever had not subsided. Complainant’s son was sent to Hyderabad for further treatment. Complainant was shocked as to the attitude of the opposite parties. The complainant questioned the 2nd OP for sending his son without any escort especially when he was suffering from fever. The Director apologized for the lapses. Seeing the unhygienic condition prevailing in the coaching premises ten students have left the institution and they were also affected with ill heath. Again on 16.10.2003 the complainant’s son was affected with fever and on coming to know of it he immediately rushed to Vijayawada. The complainant questioned the warden and asked him to refund the fee but the warden did not agree for cancellation. The complainant requested for refund of Rs.27,000/- and he was advised to go to main office to take refund of it. The complainant’s son was taken to Hyderabad where necessary treatment was given. Meanwhile, the complainant’s son was given an offer in B. Tech seat in Biotechnology Course in Bapatla Engineering College basing on the rank secured by him in EAMCET 2003. The complainant was not inclined to send his on for coaching centre so as to save one academic year and he was admitted in Bapatla Engineering College Bapatla on 20.10.2003. The complainant’s son again was affected with fever on 30.10.2003. So he was admitted in a Nursing Home at Bapatla. The complainant has taken his son to Hyderabad for further treatment and while undergoing treatment he was succumbed on 24.11.2003. The cause of death was due to dengue fever. OPs 1 to 3 declined to refund the amount stating that the amount was non-refundable. Dengue fever was due to mosquito bite which was affected due to improper hygienic conditions prevailing at OPs coaching centre at Vijayawada. The complainant complained to the health authorities and to the State authorities as to the lapses of Ops. The OPs are bound to refund the fee that was collected from him. The complainant incurred a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards transport from Vijayawada to Hyderabad. The death of the son of the complainant has caused loss but any amount of money would not compensate the loss. The complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs for mental agony suffered due to the negligence of opposite parties.
The counter filed by OP 1 was adopted by OPs 2 and 3.
In their version they admitted that the complainant’s son had joined in their coaching centre for long term coaching for EAMCET. The other allegations are denied. It is also denied as to the allegation that on account of unhygienic conditions in the coaching centre, the complainant’s son was affected with fever twice for which he was admitted in Amma Hospital and given treatment. It is stated that seven students are admitted every year and there is no complaint at any time. OPs’ institute is a reputed one in the filed of coaching. The complainant after satisfying with the conditions admitted his son and also satisfied with the facilities provided to all the students. OPs have alleged that the complainant’s son was suffering from bronchitis which was suppressed at the time of admission. In case, any student was suffering from any ill health he will not be given admission. So that other student’s health is not affected. The complainant informed OP that his son got admission in Bapatla Engineering College and asked for refund of the amount. His admission was cancelled on 20.10.2003 by way of refund voucher as per the regulations applicable to the admission which are clearly noted in the application form. The opposite parties are not aware of the subsequent event that on account of dengue fever during the treatment he succumbed to it. The opposite parties cannot be made responsible for the death of his son. It is unfortunate.
To substantiate the allegations, the complainant filed affidavit and additional affidavit and got marked Ex. A1 to A15 also got examined one Dr. T. V. Rama Rao, DMHO as CW.1. The opposite parties while field the affidavit of one Sri V. Ravikumar and got marked Ex. B1 to B6.
On the contentions raised by the parties, the District Forum has adjudicated the dispute on the points of deficiency in service, the ill-health of the complainant during his admission in OPs coaching centre and with regard to the entitlement of fee paid for coaching.
After going through the evidence on record, the District Forum held that the complainant failed to place any medical opinion to show that his deceased son had suffered from fever while he was under the care and protection of OPs 1 to 3. So to fasten liability on account of the death of the complainant’s son which was due to the mosquito bite.
However, on the undisputed facts that the complainant’s son was admitted in Opposite parties coaching centre by paying Rs.27,000/- towards fee and when the course was discontinued it is held that the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount for Rs.27,000/- with interest at 12% from 1.11.2003 till payment.
Point for consideration is whether the impugned order suffers from any factual or legal infirmity for its interference ?
Ex. A-1 is the brochure issued by the Chaitanya Institute to show that a health care to the students was assured by extending the facilities of the doctors. It is surprising as to why the complainant has not produced any medical prescription to prove that his son was affected with fever twice and he was admitted in Amma Hospital. The complainant could have sent representation or gave a complaint either to the management or to the health authorities about the unhygienic conditions prevailing in the premises where good number of students were given long term coaching for EAMCET. Ex. A13 is a report submitted by the DMHO, Machillipatnam with regard to the dengue fever, Death resulted in Chaitanya residential Junior College, Vijayawada. Ex. A13 is of no help to support that the complainant’s son was affected with fever on account of mosquito bite. It may be that the complainant’s son was admitted in NIMS hospital on 08.11.2003 for treatment wherein he was diagnosed that he had dengue haemorrhagic fever which lead to his death. In Ex. A14 certificate it is noted that prior to admission the patient was admitted in NIMS hospital. On the basis of Ex. A13 letter discharge summary it cannot be said that the complainant’s son was affected with fever on account of mosquito bite when he was staying at the coaching centre run by the opposite parties. The opposite parties have filed Ex. B1 admission form, Ex B2 letter dated 20.09.2003 and Ex B3 dated 17.10.2003 given by the complainant’s son in which it is stated that he may be permitted to go to Hyderabad. It is not stated that on account of ill health he was permitted to go from coaching premises. In Ex. B4 letter dated 20.12.2003 it is stated that he may be permitted to vacate the premises as he had to join B. Tech Biotechnology course at Bapatla. Pending settlement of account, the student was relieved on 20.10.2003 and the concerned administrator has directed to refund a sum of Rs.5,000/- on production of original bills. In Ex. B1 there is no condition that fees paid for the coaching will not be refunded in the event of discontinuing the course in the middle and in such case the opposite parties cannot withhold the entire fees collected from the students. The complainant’s son was admitted I the coaching centre in July 26th, 2003 and thereafter in October, 2003 he attended to the counselling and got the seat in B. Tech Biotechnology. Thus, hardly he attend for the course for a period of 3 months. In such case, it is unjust on the part of the opposite parties in not refunding the amount. At the most they can deduct a proportionate amount for a period of 3 months of which the student had taken the coaching at the centre. The complainant has filed bills for Rs.27,000/- for the entire coaching. The fee was collected for a period of 12 months. So roughly for each month it comes to Rs.2,250/- and at that rate three months amount is to be calculated which comes to Rs.6,750/- which amount has to be deducted from the total amount of Rs.27,000/- and the rest of the amount should be refunded but the opposite parties failed to do so. So they are liable to refund an amount of Rs.20,250/-. But they did not do so all the while. In all fairness opposite parties ought to have refunded the amount. Undoubtedly the complainant had suffered inconvenience and mental agony by the act or omission as such they are liable to pay interest also on the delayed payment at the rate of 12% PA from October, 2003 till realization and costs of Rs.1000/-.
The District Forum has ordered payment of Rs.27,000/- with interest from 01.11.2003 till payment besides compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.5000/- which appears to be excessive and the same is to be revised.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by modifying the order of the District Forum directing the Respondents/Opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.20,250/- with interest from 21.10.2003 till date of realization and costs of Rs.1000/-. Each party to bear its own costs in the appeal. Time for compliance four weeks.
Sd/- MEMBER
Sd/- MEMBER
DATED : 18.06.2010
