BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 21st of November 2011
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.300/2010
(Admitted on 12.11.2010)
Sri. Suraj Kumar,
Aged about 30 years,
So. K.Rabindranath,
Opp Baliga Stores, Bejai Post,
Bejai Kapikad Road,
Mangalore. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri.B.P.Gautham)
VERSUS
The Administrative Officer,
Kasturba Medical Hospital,
Attavara, Mangalore. ……. OPPOSITE PARTY
(Advocate for the Opposite Party: Sri.K.S.Bhat).
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The Complainant states that, he is a resident of Mangalore and Opposite Party is the Administrative Officer in Kasturba Medical Hospital at Mangalore. It is stated that, one Mrs.Jayashanthi Karkera grandmother of the Complainant was admitted to the hospital of the Opposite Party for treatment on 03.11.2003 and she was undergone medical treatment for various diseases and was in Intensive Care Unit from 03.11.2003 to 12.11.2003. Thereafter, on account of some misunderstanding that arose among the family members on various causes, Complainant gave a representation dated 05.09.2010 before the Opposite Party. It is stated that, the Opposite Party initially agreed to provide documents, but later, despite of repeated request of the Complainant, Opposite Party refused to issue the documents mentioned in his representation. Hence the above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Party to consider the representation dated 05.09.2010 of the Complainant and also claimed Rs.10,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.
2. Version notice served to the Opposite Party by RPAD. Opposite Party appeared through their counsel filed version stated that, the complaint is vague and the Complainant is not a consumer and he has not hired the services of the Opposite Party nor he is an authorized attendant in respect of the said deceased Mrs.Jayashanthi Karkera. It is stated that, one Jayashanthi Karkera was admitted to the Opposite Party hospital and she died of bilateral cortical and brain stem infarction on 12.11.2003 and thereafter the dead body of the above patient along with death report handed over to one Sri.Satish Karkera i.e., the son of the deceased on 12.11.2003 itself. This Opposite Party is unaware of the alleged relationship of the Complainant with the deceased Smt.Jayashanthi Karkera and denied that the Complainant is the grandson of the deceased Jayashanthi Karkera. It is stated that, the Opposite Party on considering the request of the Complainant dated 05.09.2010 furnished the copy of the bill with regard to the treatment given to the deceased. And other documents like case sheets and other related documents and confidential documents pertaining to the health and treatment of the deceased patient cannot be furnished. The hospital is expected to maintain confidentiality of such documents unless they are obliged to give under any statute or court orders and stated that there is no deficiency and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
4. In support of the complaint, Sri.Suraj Kumar (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex C1 to C4 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure in detail. One Sri.Dhananjaya K (RW1), Assistant Finance Manager of the Opposite Party filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. The Complainant as well as Opposite Party filed notes of arguments.
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Negative.
Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
5. POINTS No. (i) to (iii):
In the instant case, the Complainant came up with a complaint stating that he is a grandson of one Smt.Jayashanthi Karkera. Smt.Jayashanthi Karkera admitted to the Opposite Party hospital and taken treatment for various diseases and died on 12.11.2003 at Opposite Party hospital. It is stated that, on account of some misunderstanding that arose among the family members on various causes, he gave a representation dated 05.09.2010 before the Opposite Party to furnish the documents i.e., as per Ex C1. But the Opposite Parties not furnished the documents hence this complaint.
The Opposite Party on the other hand contended that, they are not aware of the relationship of the Complainant with the deceased Smt.Jayashanthi Karkera who was died in their hospital but the Opposite Party furnished the copy of the bill with regard to the treatment given to the deceased. As far as other documents are concerned, it is stated that those documents are expected to maintain confidentially because they are pertaining to the health and treatment of the deceased patient.
The Complainant filed oral evidence by way of affidavit and produced Ex C1 to C4. Opposite Party also filed oral evidence by way of affidavit.
On perusal of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, we find that, the Complainant came up with a complaint stating that he is the grandson of one Smt.Jayashanthi Karkera who died in the Opposite Party hospital but no material evidence produced before this FORA to show that the Complainant is the grandson of Smt.Jayashanthi Karkera. Atleast the Complainant should have produced the legal heir certificate or any other tangible evidence before this Forum in order to substantiate that he is a grandson of Jayashanthi Karkera and he is authorized to collect the health related documents i.e., case sheets and other related documents from the custody of the hospital.
It is a settled proposition of law that, if any person is in need of medical records, the person one who is required to produce authorization letter or to satisfy the hospital that he is authorized to collect the above said documents. As per Regulation 1.3.2 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations 2002, “the Opposite Party is required to maintain strict confidentiality regarding the treatment of the patients and is precluded from giving information or medical records to any other person other than the patient / authorized attendant or legal authorities involved”.
In the instant case, the Complainant has no locus standi to collect the documents until and unless he satisfies the hospital authority that he is a grandson of Smt.Jayashanthi Karkera/authorized person to collect the documents. In the absence of the same, we are declined to accept the averments of the complaint made by the Complainant before this authority.
In view of the above reasons, we hold that there is no deficiency established by the Complainant in this case against the Opposite Party hospital. Hence the complaint deserves to be dismissed. No order as to costs.
6. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge or sent to the parties under postal certificate and thereafter the file shall be consigned to the record room.
(Page No.1 to 9 dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 21st day of November 2011.)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Sri.Suraj Kumar – Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1 – 05.09.2010: Letter of the Complainant to the Opposite Party.
Ex C2 – 07.09.2010: Postal receipt bearing No.RLAD-8529.
Ex C3 – 12.01.2003: Original Cash Bill issued by K.M.C. Hospital, Mangalore.
Ex C4 – : Postal acknowledgement.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
RW1 – Sri.Dhananjaya K, Assistant Finance Manager of the Opposite Party.
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Dated:21.11.2011 PRESIDENT
