DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the 28^h day of February 2018

Present   : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President

              : Smt.Suma.K.P. Member                                          Date of filing:  02/03/2016

              : Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member

(C.C.No.31/2016)

Renjith (Mentally ill person),

S/o Kuttikrishnan,                                                       -        Complainant

Vattampadam House,

Chittilanchery,

Alathur Represented by father/guiardian

Kuttikrishnan, S/o Mallu.

(By.Adv.P.Sreeprakah)

 V/s

1. The Manager,                                                      -        Opposite parties

    Crescent Hospital,

    Alathur, Palakkad

    (By.Adv.M.Alimuthu)

2.  United India Insurance Company Limited,

    Surya Complex, Mission HSS Junction,

    Palakkad – 678 014.

    (By Adv.A.Raji Vijaya Sankar)

O R D E R

Smt.Suma.K.P. Member

          The complainant herein is a mentally ill person.  He is in capable of understanding facts or to take decision of his own.  Since, he cannot understand facts and is incapable of prosecuting, his father/guardian has filed this complainant on his behalf.  The opposite party is a hospital. 

          The complainant has been suffering from mental illness for the past so many years.  He was undergoing treatment for this illness at different hospital including the 1^st opposite party.  On 14.09.2014, complainant turned violent and aggressive and family members were not in a position to control the situation.  He was taken to the opposite party hospital and as per the advice of the Doctor he was admitted in the hospital as an inpatient.  Persons suffering from mental illness were normally were kept in the mental ward in the 3^rd floor.  This is an open varanda without grill.  So as to avoid an accidental fall or intentional jumping, grill is provided in the wall to prevent patients entering varanda.  On the above mentioned day the grill of the ward was kept open by the staff of the opposite party.  No attender’s or staff were there to prevent mental patient entering varanda through open grill.  The complainant who was totally abnormal and was in aggravated mental condition went to the varanda and thereafter fell down to the courtyard of the hospital.  It was either an act of fall or jumping by a person suffering from mental illness.  His right leg was broken and there was serious damage to the spinal code.  Due to multiple fractures on the leg and injuries to the spinal code he was immediately taken to Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur.  He was treated as an inpatient at Jubilee Mission Hospital for one month.  Even at the time of discharge there were serious fractures to leg and damage to the spinal code.  He was totally bedridden and was adviced to take complete bed rest for 5-6 months.  During this period also he was regularly taken to Thrissur for periodical check-up.  Even after the expiry of 6 months he was not in a position to move.  By the expiry of one year he manage to move with the help of walker that too suffering much severe pain.  Now he can walk using walking stick but only for a short time.  Standing continuously or walking for few minutes will cause unbearable pain.  All this problem were caused due to negligence on the part of the staffs of the opposite party hospital by leaving the grill of the mental ward open.  Complainant was otherwise ill-fated due to his mental illness.  But under medicine he was controllable and was obeying the direction of his father.  Even though he was mentally ill, family members were in a position to manage him.  Due to the incident he was treated as inpatient for one month, totally bed rest for 6 months and has recovered only after one year.  All this physical problem were caused due to the deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.  Even now he is not physically fit and is not in a position to take care of his day to day affairs.  No amount of compensation will be adequate considering the pain and suffering of the complainant.  The guardian of the complainant alleges that 3 lakh Rupees was already spend for his treatment.  Due to his mental condition it is quite difficult to keep him in bed continuously.  The complainant submits that for the mental and physical pain and sufferings he is entitled to get Rs.5 lakh as compensation.  Hence the complainant had approach before the Forum seeking an order directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- as compensation along with cost of this proceedings. 

          Opposite party entered appearance upon notice from the Forum and filed version stating the following contentions. 

          The above complaint is baseless and is a fragment abuse of process of law to harass the opposite party.  The opposite party admits that the complainant is a mentally ill person and was admitted in their hospital.  But they denied the allegation that there is an open varanda without grill in existence in the hospital.  It is admitted by the opposite party that the complainant who is a mentally ill person and who was totally abnormal and was in a aggravated mental condition went to the varanda and fell down to the court yard of the hospital and sustain serious injuries.  The incident was not happened due to the negligence of the hospital authorities.  The hospital is insured with the United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Surya Complex, Mission HSS Junction, Palakkad – 678 014.  The complainant filed the complaint without impleading the insurance company.  Hence the complaint is bad for non jointer of necessary parties.  For the above reason also the complaint had to be dismissed.  The amount claimed as compensation for mental and physical pain and sufferings is very high and without any basis.  Hence the complaint is not entitled to get that much amount as compensation.  Hence the complaint has to be dismissed with the cost of opposite party. 

          Complainant filed applications as IA 256/2016 to implead the 2^nd opposite party and IA 267/16 for consequential amendment of the complaint.  Applications were allowed and notice was issued to supplemental opposite party 2.  Supplemental opposite party 2 entered appearance and filed their version stating the following. 

          The 2^nd opposite party contended that complaint is not maintainable and the 1^st opposite party has not covered the risks of nurses, staffs and hospital authorities.  No policy is issued to the crescent hospital.  The policy issued by the 2^nd opposite party is to M/s Crescent Medical Centre Ltd. and not to the opposite party 1 herein.  Hence, the policy of 1^st opposite party is denied here by.  The 2^nd opposite party is not having any personal information regarding the claim petition of the complainant, because no claim form is submitted and no claim intimation is given by anybody and demand notice is also not issued by the claimant.  The company has not issued any policy covering the risk of hospital staffs, peons and nurses.  Similarly the risk of attendants were also not covered by the policy.  As per the complaint the incident was due to the negligence of the staffs of the hospital as if the attending bystanders have no responsibility over the patient.  The patient was under the care and custody of the bystander of the patient and it is his duty to look after the patient and inform the hospital staff from their nursing station whenever the help of them are needed.  The policy issued to the Crescent Medical Centre Limited is with limited coverage.  The Crescent Medical Centre submitted a proposal form signed by Managing Director with a request to cover limited risk.  The professional negligence of the Doctors are covered to Rs.3,75,000/- per accident.  In order to get this amount the concerned doctor is a necessary party and he should be impleaded and his negligence should be clearly established.  If not the complaint is having the defect of non jointer of necessary parties subject to the loss suffered by him.  The incident was on the date on which he was admitted in the hospital.  The treatments were not started.  It was immediately after admission.  The patient was under the care and custody of his relatives and the hospital staffs were not having any control over him.  The negligent acts of staffs are not covered by the policy issued by the 2^nd opposite party.  The negligence of the hospital is also not covered.  The coverage is for fire and allied perils burglary and house breaking damage to the electrical and mechanical appliances, electronic appliances and other minor risk and professional negligence of doctors to an extend of Rs.3.75 lakhs per accident.  Complainant is not having disability and the claim made under various heads are without any basis.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of the doctors and the claim is not allowable.  This is a collusive claim and hence the complaint had to be dismissed. 

          Complainant filed chief affidavit.  2^nd opposite party filed application as IA 500/16 for cross examination of complainant and opposite party 1.  Since no counter was filed application was allowed.  Opposite party also filed affidavit.  Ext.A1 was marked on the side of the complainant and Exts.B1 was marked from the part of the opposite parties.  Complainant filed IA 275/17 to direct the Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur to produce the treatment records and medical bill details of the complainant.  Applications was allowed and accordingly documents were produced before the Forum.  Exts.A2 series  and A3 series were marked from the side of the complainant.  Evidence was closed and the matter was heard. 

The following issues that arise for consideration are.

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties?

2. If so, what are the relief and cost?

Issues No.1 & 2

          We have perused the documents and affidavit produced before the Forum.  It is admitted by the 1^st opposite party that the complainant was admitted in their hospital as inpatient and he sustained injuries from the hospital as alleged in the complaint.  They had also submitted that the hospital is insured with the 2^nd opposite party. 2^nd opposite party states that negligence of the hospital is not covered under the policy. The company has not issued any policy covering the risk of hospital staffs, peons and nurses.  In the light of the above submission it is to be presumed that the 1^st opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for the alleged incident.  Since the alleged incident was admitted by the 1^st opposite party, it can be inferred that the accident happened due to the negligence on the part of the attendor’s or hospital staffs.  Hence we attribute deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and the liability to compensate the complainant is the bounden duty of the 1^st opposite party.  Hence the complaint is allowed and we direct the 1^st opposite party to pay Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) as compensation and treatment expenses to the complainant along with Rs.5,000/- as cost of this proceedings. 

This order shall be executed within one month from the date of receipt of this order; failing which the complainant is entitled to realize 9% interest p.a from the opposite party on the total amount due to him from the date of this order till realization. 

Pronounced in the open court on this the 28^th day of February 2018.

    Sd/-

                  Shiny.P.R

                   President 

                       Sd/-        

                   Suma.K.P

                    Member

     Sd/-

    V.P.Anantha Narayanan

                    Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1          -  MRI scan report of the complainant issued by Jubilee Mission Medical College,

             Thrissur

Ext.A2          series -  Medical Record of the complainant issued by Jubilee Mission Medical

                      College, Thrissur

Ext.A3 series -  Inpatient Bill-detailed (duplicate) issued by Jubilee Mission Medical

                      College, Thrissur

Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties

Ext.B1 -  Photo copy of Compact Insurance Proposal Form of United India Insurance

             Co.Ltd

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Nil

Cost   

          Rs.5,000/-