DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 28^th day of April 2012

Present : Smt.Seena H, President

            : Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member

            : Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member           Date of filing: 16/12/2011

(C.C.No.195/2011)

K.Pazhanimala,

Secretary,

Forum for Consumer Justice,

Alathur (PO) – 678 541

(By Adv.M.Raveendran)                                 -        Complainant

V/s

1.Director of Health Service (Kerala State)

   DHS Office,  Thiruvananthapuram – 695 035

2.Superintendent

  Taluk Head Quarters Hospital,

  Alathur (PO) – 678 541

3.Sukesh

  Ambulance Driver,

  Taluk Head Quarters Hospital,

  Alathur (PO) – 678 541                                   -      Opposite parties

(By Govt.Pleader)

O R D E R

By Smt.PREETHA G NAIR, MEMBER

The complainant demanded  ambulance service from opposite parties to bring the dead body from the house to the place of cremation. The 3^rd opposite party is the driver of the ambulance and the vehicle was under the custody of opposite parties  1 & 2. The Govt.hospital at Alathur has no mortuary van  to bring the  dead body. As per the circular issued by the Director of Health Service stated that in case of emergencies or unavoidable circumstances if the vehicle is forced to use for similar activities, the vehicle shall be washed and disinfected observing the protocol immediately after the service. On 18/8/2011 the complainant demanded  the service of the ambulance to bring the dead body to crematorium at 8.40a.m. But the 3^rd opposite party has not availed the service of ambulance as per the direction of 2^nd opposite party. The complainant is the Secretary of Alathur Consumer Forum for Justice and he has demanded the service of ambulance. There after the complainant sent a letter dated 22/8/11 to 2^nd opposite party. On 13/9/11, the 2^nd opposite party sent a reply letter stated that they acted as per the circular issued by the 1^st opposite party. According to the complainant the acts of opposite parties are not under the circular. So the complainant sent another letter dated 15/9/11 to 2^nd opposite party. But the opposite parties have not taken further steps. Bring the dead body from the house to crematorium is comes under the unavoidable circumstances. There is no mortuary van in the private hospital, then only the complainant needs the service of Govt.Hospital ambulance for paying rent. The complainant stated that in the circular stated that in case of emergencies or under unavoidable circumstances, the vehicle is forced to use for similar activities and the present case also including  unavoidable circumstances. The acts of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and caused mental agony. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite parties to avail the services and pay Rs.1,000/- as cost of the expenses from 2^nd opposite party.

Opposite parties filed version stating the following contentions. The ambulance in Govt.Hospital  is used to take the patient to other hospital. On 18/8/2011 the ambulance was used to take a patient to medical college at Thrissur at 12.30 pm. If the service of ambulance was used to bring the dead body from the house to crematorium, the patient has not given the ambulance to take Medical College. As per the complaints of ambulance used to take the dead body from house to crematorium, the 1^st opposite party issued the circular.  As per the circular the vehicle is used to take dead body in unavoidable circumstances, the vehicle shall be washed and disinfected observing the protocol immediately after the service. In the present case the complainant has  not revealed the unavoidable circumstances. The opposite parties stated that vehicle accidents, Natural calamities and fire incidents are the unavoidable circumstances and at that time the ambulance used to take the dead body and seriously injured persons to hospitals. The allegations of the complaint could not coming under the category of unavoidable circumstances and the opposite parties are not liable to give the service of ambulance. The complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. There was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the opposite parties prayed that dismiss the complaint with cost.

Both parties filed the affidavit. Ext.A1 to A7 marked on the side of complainant. No documentary evidence produced by the opposite parties.

Matter heard.

Issues to be considered are

1.    Whether the complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act ?

2.    Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?

3.    If so what is the relief and cost ?

Issue No1

According to the opposite parties there was no service availed between the complainant and opposite parties. So the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. Sec 12(1)  of the Consumer Protection Act states that A complaint in relation to any goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or any service provided or agreed to be provided, may be filed with a District Forum, by

a)   The consumer to whom such goods are sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or such service provided or agreed to be provided;

b)   any recognized consumer association whether the consumer to whom the goods sold or delivered or agreed to be sold or delivered or service provided or agreed to be provided is a member of such association or not;  

Moreover the complainant is the Secretary of the consumer association. The complainant stated he called the service of ambulance. Society  of Catalysts Vs. Star Plus TV and ANR CPJ 2008 page No.1 (NC) the complainant filed  by the consumer association for the interest of numerous consumers the Hon’ble National Commission ordered punitive damages and accepted their highly appreciation of the efforts made by the complainant voluntarily consumer association. This is a fit case to apply the very same principle.

So the complainant is a consumer  under the Consumer Protection Act.   Hence the 1^st issue answered in favour of the complainant.

Issue No.2 & 3

We perused relevant document on record. Admittedly the complainant called the service of ambulance on 18/8/11 to take the dead body from the house to the crematorium. The other vehicles have not availed the service to take the dead body from house to crematorium. It is evident from Ext.A1 the copy of circular shows that received a complaint lodged by Mr.Haridasan, Padmalayam, Ottapalam regarding the usage of ambulance for shifting dead bodies to crematorium from the residence of deceased. Then the circular issued by the 1^st opposite party stating that in case of emergencies if the vehicle is forced to use for similar activities, the vehicle shall be washed and disinfected observing the protocol immediately after the service.

According to opposite parties unavoidable circumstances mean vehicle accidents, natural calamities and  fire incident. According to the complainant there was no ambulance service to take the dead body from house to crematorium is coming under unavoidable circumstances. No other vehicles take the dead body  from the house to crematorium. Only the ambulance is used to take the dead body to another place. In the present case the opposite parties stated that on  18/8/2011 a patient had taken into the Medical college,

Thrissur at 12.30 pm. No documentary evidence was produced by the opposite parties to show that  the patient had taken into the Medical college on 18/8/2011.

The 1^st prayer of the complainant is that direction given to avail the service of ambulance in the period of no other services. In Ext.A1 circular the 1^st opposite party had already given the direction in case of emergencies or under unavoidable circumstances. So we cannot considered the 1^st prayer.

The opposite parties have not produced evidence to show the ambulance has take one patient to medical college on the very same date.

In the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 2 & 3. In the result complaint partly allowed. We direct the opposite parties 2 and 3 jointly and severally liable to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the expenses and pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.

 Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 28^th day of April  2012.

                                                                             Sd/-

Seena H

President

    Sd/-

Preetha G Nair

Member

     Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K.

Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 –  Copy of Circular of DHS dated 25/10/09

Ext.A2 – Copy of letter dated 22/8/11 sent by Forum for consumer justice to

             Superintendent of Alathur Taluk Hospital

Ext.A3 –Copy of reply letter dated 13/9/11 sent by Superintendent of Alathur

            Taluk Hospital

Ext.A4 – Copy of letter dated 15/9/11 sent by Forum for consumer justice to

             Superintendent of Alathur Taluk Hospital

Ext.A5 – Copy of reply letter dated 17/10/11 sent by Superintendent of Alathur

            Taluk Hospital

Ext.A6 – Copy of letter dated 21/10/11 sent by Forum for consumer justice to

             Superintendent of Alathur Taluk Hospital

Ext.A7 – Copy of letter dated 03/11/11 sent by Forum for consumer justice to

             Superintendent of Alathur Taluk Hospital

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party

Nil

Cost Allowed

Rs.1,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings.