KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Common order in Appeal Nos. 94/2004 and 143/04 Judgment Dated: 22.7.08 Appeal filed against the order passed by CDRF, Pathanamthitta in OP 183/2001 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER APPEAL NO.94/2004 1. Jessy, Vattayathil Melemuri, : APPELLANTS Kaipuzha North.P.O., Kulanada village, Kozhenchery Taluk, Pathanamthitta. 2. Sijo(Minor). -do-do- (represented by the Mother, the first appellant as next friend) (By Adv.Rajeev.S.S) Vs. The Medical Superintendent, : RESPONDENT St.Gregorious Mission Hospital, Parumala.P.O., Mannar, Pathanamthitta.
APPEAL NO.143/2004
The Medical Superintendent, : APPELLANT St.Gregorious Mission Hospital, Parumala.P.O., Mannar. (By Adv.M.K.George ) Vs. 1. Jessy, W/o late Varghese Mathai alias Saji, Vattayathil Melemuri, : RESPONDENTS Kaipuzha North.P.O., Kulanada village and one other, Pathanamthitta. 2. Sijo(Minor). S/o late Varghese Mathai Aged 3 years, -do-do- (represented by the Mother, the first respondent as next friend) (By Adv.Rajeev.S.S) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellants in Appeal 94/04 are the complainants ie, the wife and three year old child of the deceased husband of 1st complainant and the appellant in Appeal 143/04 is the opposite party hospital, in OP 183/01 in the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta. 2. The appellants in Appeal 94/04 has sought for enhancement of the amount of compensation and appellant in Appeal 143/04 has sought for setting aside the order of the Forum. 3. The Forum ordered the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.2,75,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of the order and thereafter with interest at 6% per annum and also granted a sum of Rs.15,000 to the minor child to be received by him on attaining majority. 4. It is the case of the complainant that the 1st complainant named Mr.Varghese Mathai @ Saji was admitted in the opposite party hospital for psychosis and Ganja addiction on 3.5.2000. On 8.5.2000 the above Varghese Mathai committed suicide by hanging in the hospital ward. The deceased was a manual labourer aged 24. The allegation is that the opposite party failed to take care to the patient and hence is liable as the death was occasioned on account of their negligence. The deceased had an earning of Rs.2500/- per month. The complainants have claimed a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- as compensation with 12 % interest. 5. On the other hand the opposite parties have denied any liability. It is admitted that the patient was admitted as alleged. The problems were smoking of Ganja, change of behaviour for past 6 to 7 months and not sleeping adequately and showing unusual gestures in the past two weeks. The Psychiatrist had a detailed examination of the patient and diagonosised as psychosis NOS(Not Otherwise Specified) and Ganja abuse. The patient was put on the following medicines: tab zymacalm Plus, Tab Tranchlor 100mg and Tab natravet 10mg. It is the contention that 1st complainant the wife was strictly instructed to be with the patient and the same is also noted in the case sheet. She was also instructed to closely observe any change in behaviour of the patient and inform the duty staff promptly as the patient was allowed freedom of movement in the hospital to create a homely atmosphere. There was gradual improvement during the treatment. On 8.5.2000 at 2.25 PM he committed suicide by hanging with his own lunky. Accoridng to the opposite party 1st complainant/wife left the hospital without informing the duty staff and at the time the patient committed suicide. The opposite party has sought for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost of Rs.10000/-. 6. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DWs 1 and 2; Exts.P1 to P9 and R1 series. 7. PW1 the 1st complainant/wife has testified that there was no direction from the hospital authorities that she should to be in the hospital as a bystander and should observe the patient etc as alleged. She has stated that her husband was admitted in the general ward. It is her case that the deceased was quarrelsome before admission and he was taken to the hospital by herself and the brother of the deceased. According to her she was allowed to see the patient only at a particular period in the morning and thereafter nobody was permitted to visit the patient. She has flatly denied the contention that she was instructed to be with the patient etc. 8. DW1 the Medical Superintendent and DW2 staff nurse have testified in support of the case set up by the opposite party. The Forum disbelieved the version of the above witnesses. It was found and rightly so that the writings in Ext.R1 case sheet that wife was instructed to be with the patient is written in different ink. DW1 has admitted the above but according to him there is only a slight difference in the colour of the ink. 9. The case sheet shows that he was admitted 11.15 AM on 3.5.2000 and the diagnosis is psychosis in relation to drug addiction. The instruction as to the presence of the wife is written in a different ink. On 7.5.2000 it is noted that the patient is not taking food for 3 days. At 2.30pm on 8.5.2000, it is mentioned that the patient has been lowered on to the bed and there is no response to noxious stimuli and pulse faintly felt and BP not recordable. At 2.45pm it is noted that the patient is declared expired. In Ext.P9 reply to the legal notice issued by the petitioner the opposite party has denied that the deceased was treated at the hospital. 10. We find that there is no patent illegality in the appreciation of evidence by the Forum. Admittedly the deceased was treated for psychosis and narcotics addiction. The opposite party could not establish that there was direction that the wife should be present with the patient. Nothing was brought out to disbelieve the version of PW1 that she was not allowed to remain at hospital along with the patient and that no one instructed her to be with the patient. In the circumstance we find that the opposite party has failed to take adequate care of the patient left in their custody. Hence the finding that the opposite party is negligent is only to be confirmed. It is not disputed that the deceased was aged 24 and was a manual labourer. There is nothing to show that the deceased was suffering from any other disease. It was contended by the appellant that there was contributory negligence on the part of the 1st complainant. We find the above contention can not be sustained in the light of the evidence adduced. We find that the compensation awarded can not be treated to be exorbitant or excessive. All the same we find that the amount of compensation awarded is to be consolidated. The order of Forum is modified to the effect that the complainant shall be entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,90,000/-. 1st complainant shall be entitled for 50% of the above amount. The 2nd complainant minor shall be entitled for the remaining 50%. The amount due to the minor shall be deposited in fixed deposit in a nationalized or scheduled bank and the interest can be withdrawn by the 1st complainant towards maintenance of the 2nd complainant. The direction as to the interest and cost is sustained. The appellant in appeal 94/04 has not made out any case for enhanced compensation. Hence both appeals are dismissed with the modifications as above. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR | | 
