O R D E R

SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:

          The brief facts of the complaint filed by the complainant against the Ops are, that she had admitted her daughter Miss. Sushma for treatment in the Ops hospital as inpatient from 19/04/2010 to 26/04/2010.   That she as an attendant was attending the patient in the Op hospital.  On 20/04/2010 she went out from the ward to buy sanitary pads for her daughter from the medical shop situated in the ground floor of the hospital.   Then she slipped and fell down on the wet floor of the 5^th floor of the corridor and she could not see the slippery wet floor.   Due to that fall, she suffered segmental fracture of left humorous shaft with radial nerve injury and comminuted fracture of distal end of the left radius.   She was admitted to same hospital as inpatient and was on treatment from 20/04/2010 to 22/04/2010 and incurred certain expenditure.   It is further alleged that on the date of fall, the Ops staff while mopping the floor did not take any precautionary measures to alert the movers on the wet floor and had not displayed any sign board or security staff to alert the users and thereby attributing deficiency in the service of the Ops claimed to had got issued a legal notice on 09/06/2010 to the Ops claiming damages of Rs.5.00 lakhs and for reimbursement of medical expenditure but the Ops rejected her claim on the ground that she fell down while running towards lift and therefore, has prayed for a direction to the Ops to pay her damages of Rs.5.00 lakhs and to reimburse medical expenditure of Rs.32,398/- she incurred, with cost.

2. Ops have appeared through their advocate and filed version admitting the fall of this complainant in their hospital on 20/04/2010   then her admission to their hospital with fracture, treatment given and her dischargel from their hospital on 22/04/2010.   The Ops denying the allegations of the complainant that they did not display any caution board, security and had not taken any care to alert users of the floor have contended that the housekeeping staff while moping the corridor of the 5^th floor took all statutory caution sign boards were placed.  Inspite of caution, the complainant ran towards the service elevator which she wanted to use and when she neared the elevator, she was unable to stop herself, slipped and fell down and thereby denying allegations of the complainant that she fell down due to negligence of the Ops staff have further denying other allegations of the complainant have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and Dr. Umapathy Panyala, Chief Operation Officer of Ops have filed their affidavit evidence re-asserting what they have stated in their complaint and version.   The complainant along with the complaint has produced her discharge summary, copies of hospital bills, copy of the legal notice she got issued to the Ops and copy of the reply that the Ops sent through their advocate.   Ops have produced copy of the accident and incident report which is the outcome of the internal enquiry the Ops held regarding the incident.   Counsel for both parties have filed their written arguments reproducing what they have stated in the form of affidavit.

4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.

1. Whether the complainant proves that due to the negligence of Ops staff she slipped, fell down and suffered fractures?
2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

5. Our findings are as under:

Point No.1 : In the negative

Point No.2 : See the final order

REASONS

6. Answer on point No.1:  As narrated in brief above, we find no controversy between the parties with regard to this complainant falling in the hospital of Op and suffering fracture of her left arm at two places and undergone treatment in the Op hospital between 20/04/2010 to 22/04/2010 but the complainant has to prove that she fell in the hospital of Ops because of negligence of the staff of the Ops.

7.   It is the allegations of the complainant that the staff of the Op hospital while mopping the floor.  They did not take any precautionary measure to alert the movers on the wet floor nor they displayed any sign board to alert the users of the corridor.   As against this allegation, the witness of the Ops has filed an affidavit evidence denying the allegations of the complainant by stating that they always ensured that the staff displays the caution board before starting mopping or cleaning the corridor of the hospital and they have further contended as if the complainant started running towards the elevator with an intention to catch it but when she could not control herself at the elevator she fell down.  Here, we should bear in mind considering the allegations of the complainant it is not the complainant’s case that the Ops have caused any negligent act knowingly or that the incident of fall was the result of any action or omission directly having nexus to the incident.   It is not uncommon in hospital administration which is expected to maintain at most cleanliness and hygienic condition of the hospital by frequent mopping of the floors with aunty infective solution.   The attendants of the patient in the hospital or the patients themselves when they walk on the floor of the hospital normally there was no chance of falling.   As could be seen from the allegations of the complainant, the complainant has stated that the staff of the Ops while mopping the floor, she was walking in the 5^th floor on the wet floor.  Therefore she should have taken care to see that she should walk carefully when mopping was still going on and floor was wet.  Mopping of the floor cannot be held as negligent or deficient act.   Therefore, if the complainant was walking on the floor in a usual way with minimum care there could not have been any chance for her fall and to suffer multiple fractures.   Even otherwise, burden is on the complainant to prove that her fall is due to the negligent or deficient act of the Ops.   Merely because that the Ops have admitted the fall of the complainant one cannot presume that the complainant fell down because of negligence of the Ops.   The complainant who attributes negligence or deficiency to other party necessarily he/she has to prove such negligence or deficiency and that resultant loss or damages is due to such negligence or deficiency in the service of the Op.   Bearing this principle in mind, the forum cannot presume the negligence of the Ops on mere allegation or assertion of the complainant.   The complainant except making such allegation has not proved any other material or evidence to connect the Ops to her fall.  

8.   The learned counsel appearing for the complainant in the course of his arguments referred to three decisions reported in II (1993) CPJ page 801, III (2004) CPJ 106 (NC) and II (2005) CPJ page 163 Chhatisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur which are not based on similar set of facts as involved in this cases.   Hence, those decisions in our view are of no use to the complainant.   Hence, complainant has failed to prove her allegations against the Ops and thereby, we answer point No.1 in the negative and pass the following order.   

O R  D  E  R

          Complaint is dismissed.  Parties to bear their own cost.

          Dictated to the Stenographer.  Got it transcribed and corrected.   Pronounced in the Open forum on this the 6^th December 2010.

MEMBER                          MEMBER                               PRESIDENT