HON’BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY, MEMBER

This Appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed by the OP assailing the judgment and order dated 9.8.2016 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II in connection with Complaint Case No. 16 of 2016, directing the OP to pay, within 30 days from the date of the order, to the Complainant Rs. 50,000/- along with interest @ 8% per annum for deficiency in service and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost.  The Ld. District Forum also directed to pay to the Complainant Rs. 3,000/- per month as penalty for the entire period of default.

The brief facts of the case, as emanating from the materials on records, are that the Respondent/Complainant got his mother with complaint of ‘breathing problem’ admitted on 11.1.2014 to Balaram Seva Mandir State General Hospital and on 12.11.2014 the mother of the Respondent/Complainant was admitted to OP-Hospital on transfer on initial payment of Rs. 15,000/- allegedly as per demand of the OP-Hospital and the mother of the Complainant was placed under a senior doctor, being Dr. Mohit Kharbanda, but Dr. Kharbanda having not attended to the mother of the Complainant, the Complainant transferred his mother, being the patient, to other hospital hiring ambulance at his own cost  as the Appellant/OP-Hospital allegedly did not provide ambulance to the patient concerned for transfer to SSKM Hospital where the patient breathed her last on 14.1.2014.  It is alleged in the Petition of Complaint that the OP-Hospital demanded money for admission and that the doctor concerned of the OP-Hospital did not attend to the patient concerned after admission, and it is also alleged that the OP-Hospital did not provide ambulance to the Complainant for transferring his mother to SSKM Hospital despite the advertisement of the Appellant/OP-Hospital in the newspaper about providing ambulance to the patient.  With the aforesaid factual background, the Complainant moved the Complaint concerned before the Ld. District Forum which passed the order in the aforesaid manner.  Aggrieved by such order the OP has preferred the instant Appeal.

The Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, filing BNA, submits that the Ld. District Forum passed the order impugned erroneously on the basis of inference, which is not permitted as per settled principle of justice delivery system.

The Ld. Advocate adds that the Respondent has failed to prove with cogent documentary evidence that the Appellant demanded money at the time of admission against its principle.

The Ld. Advocate continues that the Respondent also has not been able to prove with cogent evidence that the Appellant was under obligation to provide ambulance to the patient for transfer to other hospital.

The Ld. Advocate adds that the announced advertisement for providing ambulance to the patient is only confined to admission of the patients of heart-attack, brain stroke, etc. to the Appellant-Hospital only in the dead-night.

The Ld. Advocate submits that as the Respondent/Complainant has failed to prove his allegations with cogent documentary evidence, so the order impugned, which appears to have been passed without any basis of evidence but on presumption, deserves to be set aside upon allowing the instant Appeal.

On the other hand, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent/Complainant submits that as the Appellant received Rs. 15,000/- at the time of admission of the patient concerned contrary to its advertisement to that effect, so the Appellant cannot shake off its liability for violation of its announcement. 

The Ld. Advocate further submits that as the Appellant has not provided ambulance to the patient concerned for transfer to other hospital in violation of its advertisement in the newspaper to that effect, so the Appellant is liable for its failure to discharge its obligation.

The Ld. Advocate concludes that in view of the aforesaid submission, the instant Appeal should be dismissed and the impugned order be upheld.

Heard both the sides, considered their respective submission and perused the materials on records.

The materials on records do not exhibit any documentary evidence to prove that the money deposited by the Respondent with the Appellant at the time of admission was exacted by the Appellant as a pre-condition for admission.

Further, the materials on records do not reveal any documentary evidence to prove that the Appellant was under obligation to provide ambulance to the patient concerned in case of transfer to other hospital.  The advertisement regarding providing ambulance to the patients, as available on records, conspicuously indicate that the Appellant is under obligation to provide ambulance to the serious patients of heart-attack, brain-shock, etc. only for admission in the dead-night, which is not the case on hand.

The aforesaid facts, absence of evidence on records and observations lead to the conclusion that the impugned order appears to have been passed not on the basis of evidence but on the basis of inference and presumption and hence, the same deserves to be set aside.

Accordingly, the instant Appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the Complaint Case concerned stands dismissed.