BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER

       DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BAGALKOT.

COMPLAINT NO.31/2016
 

Date: 30^th day of November, 2016

   P r e  s e n t: 

01) Smt.Sharada.K.                                                    President…

     B.A.LL.B. (Spl) 

02) Smt. Sumangala.C.Hadli.                         Lady   Member…

                            B.A (Music)

03) Shri.Shravanakumar.D.Kadi                               Member…

                        M.Com.LL.B.  (Spl)

                V/s

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SMT.SHARADA.K.PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this Complaint u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred in short as OPs) seeking direction to OP No.1 to furnish supply the documents related to the death of Somappa S/o Nagappa Hiremani to OP No.2 and after receiving documents from OP No.1 to issue death registered certificate of Somappa N Hiremani to the complainant, Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony, torture and travelling expenses, Rs.40,000/- towards compensation, Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation and other relief as the Forum deems fit under the circumstances of the case.

2.    The brief fact of the case are as follows:

The complainant is the wife of deceased Somappa S/o Nagappa Hiremani residence of Navanagar, Bagalkot and OP1 is the doctor running his hospital in the name and style “”DANUSH HOSPITAL” and the OP No.2 is the C.M.C., Bagalkot. The husband of complainant Somappa N Hiremani on 28.03.2015 met with an accident and he was admitted to the OP No.1 and the complainant paid total expenditure including bed charges, medicines and doctor fees more than Rs.13,000/-, but unfortunately the doctors not saved him and due to said accident, the husband of complainant died and after formalities with OP No.1-Hospital authorities handover the body of Somappa to the relatives of the complainant. The complainant stated that she is under impression that the OP1 send the report related to the death of her husband to the OP No.2-CMC, Bagalkot in at Birth and Death Section to registered the death entry of complainant’s husband Somppa. The complainant further stated that on 14.01.2016, the complainant given the request letter through counsel to the OP No.2 to furnish the Death Registered Certificate of her husband. But the OP No.2 had given the endorsement on 27.01.2016 that there is no documents were furnished or supplied by the OP No.1 related to the husband of the complainant.

3.      Thereafter complainant with an endorsement issued by the OP No.2 approached to the OP No2, but the OP No.1 had not furnished or supplied any documents and also heeded her request. Due to this, complainant has again approached to the counsel, the counsel suggest that she has to file suit to declared the death of her husband and she has to expense advocate fees and miscellaneous charge and due to no available of the death registered certificate, the complainant not received the amount from S.B. account to her husband and also fixed deposited amount due to the negligence of OP No.1. Due to this, complainant has suffering harassment and mental agony and now she has to bear expense to file a suit to declared her husband death and to Civil Suit also she needs the death certificate issued by OP No.1. The complainant has issued a legal notice through his counsel to OP No.1 and 2 also on 01.02.2016 and 3.02,2016, Notices were served to the Ops, but till today no action or steps were taken by OP No.1 in favour of complainant. Hence, complainant has filed the present Complaint seeking direction to OP No.1 to furnish supply the documents related to the death of Somappa S/o Nagappa Hiremani to OP No.2 and after receiving documents from OP No.1 to issue Death Registered Certificate of Somappa N Hiremani to the complainant, Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony, torture and travelling expenses, Rs.40,000/- towards compensation, Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation and other relief as the Forum deems fit under the circumstances of the case.

4.      After receipt of notice, OP No.2 has not appeared before this Forum. Hence placed Exparte. OP No.1 appeared through his counsel and filed Objection denied the entire averment made in the Complaint is false and baseless one. The complainant had filed present Complaint only to harass the OP. OP No.1 further submitted that the contents of the Par No.3 of the Complaint that, complainant had paid total expenditure including bed charges, medicines and doctor fees more than Rs.13,000/- is false. It is false to state that after the death of husband of complainant and after formalities with the OP No.1 handover the body of Somappa to the relatives of the complainant.

5.      OP No.1 further submits that the contents mentioned in Para No.5 to 7 are all false and the complainant be put into strict proof the same. It is submitted that present OP No.1 had telephonically informed the said death to the OP No.2. and the present OP had further submitted that after the death of the said Somappa the present complainant or his relative are not there at the time of death and this OP had informed the said death to the present complainant through police. The present complainant had not at all made any efforts to take back the body for two days and the OP No.2 had informed the said fact to the Police and the Police have asked the present complainant to take the body and this OP had kept ready the death intimation to the OP No.2 by this OP had no knowledge of deceased permanent address and his wife name and other particulars which are required for registration, but the present complainant had not made any single attempt to give details to the hospital. Bu as per the law, the hospital authority has sent the intimation to the OP No.2 as well as orally and documentarily.

6.      OP further submitted that the complainant had not approached this Forum with clean hands. When the deceased Somappa was admitted he was severely injured and the OP-Authority had asked the complainant that the patient must undergo surgery and it will cost more and the complainant had agreed the same and as per the direction of the complainant this OP treated the deceased consultation with other doctors and the total charge of the treatment Complaint around Rs.1,20,500/-, but till today the complainant had not paid. To avoid the payment of amount, the complainant had come up with this false Complaint. Now the OP No.2 had already issued the death certificate as per the detailed furnished by the police authority to this OP and said death certificate is annexed with this objections. Hence, this OP further submitted to dismiss the Complaint with heavy cost of Rs.25,000/- and to issue direction to the complainant to pay the bill outstanding with this OP No.1 in the interest of justice and equity.     

7.      To prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself examined as PW-1 and she has got marked the documents as per Ex-P1 to Ex-P8 and closed their side evidence. The OP No.1 himself examined as RW-1 and got marked documents as per Ex-R1 and Ex-R2 and closed their side of evidence.

8.      On the basis of the above pleadings the following points that arise for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant proves that the Ops have committed deficiency in service as alleged in the Complaint?
2. Whether the OP No.1 proves that the complainant has not paid the hospital bill after the death of deceased Somappa?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief as sought for?

4. What order?

9.     Heard the arguments of counsel and perused the records.

    10.          Our findings on the above points are as under:

          Point No.1:-         In the Negative,

          Point No.2:-         In the Affirmative,

          Point No.3:-         In the negative,

          Point No.4:-         As per the final order for following.

-: R E A S O N S :-

          11.    POINT NO.1, 2 and 3 :- As these issues are interconnected each other, hence they are taken together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts, evidence, documents and arguments.

          12.    On perusal of the pleadings, evidence coupled with the documents of respective parties on record, there is no dispute that the complainant’s husband was admittd in the hospital to the OP-Hospital. There is no dispute that he died I the hospital of the OP. Further it is also admitted that the complainant husband met with an accident and was admitted in the OP-Hospital.

          13.    To prove the case of the complainant, the PW1 has reiterated the Complaint averments in his examination in Chief and in support of his case he has produced the documents pertains to request letter to the OP No.2. He has further averred that for this request letter, the OP No.2 has given an endorsement to the complainant i.e. EX P2 and EX P1. EX P1 and EX P2 clearly reveals that the complainant had requested the OP No.2 for issuing the Death Certificate of her husband on 19.12.2015 and for that letter the OP No.2 has sent an endorsement stating that there was no documents produced for verification and the same is not entered in the records of the Municipality in the Death register. To substantiate the same that he was admitted in the Hospital, PW1 has averred and produced the medical bill of the OP and the prescription bill of the OP-Hospital i.e. EX P3, EX P4 and EX P5. Therefore, as per EX P3 to EX P5 it is crystal clear that he was admitted and treated in the OP No.1-Hospital.

          14.    PW-1 further averred that the OP No.1 has not furnished or supplied any documents i.e. death certificate. He has further averred she has to file suit to declare the death of his husband and she has to expense advocate fees and miscellaneous charges and due to non-availability of the death registered certificate, the complainant has not received the benefits of her husband and it was the bounden duty of the OP No.1 to send the intimation of the patient who died at their hospital.

          15.    Further with respect to Point No.1, the RW-1, OP No.1 he has deposed as per this specific defense set up in his Written Version that he had telephonically informed the said death to the OP No.2 and at the time of the death of the said Somappa, the present complainant or his relatives are not there at the time of death and the OP No.1 had informed the said death to the complainant through police. RW-1 further averred and deposed that the complainant did not take the body for two days and the said fact was intimated through police to the complainant and by this the OP had no knowledge for deceased permanent residence and as per law the hospital authority have sent the intimation to OP No.2 orally as well as documentary i.e. EX R1. It is further averred that the complainant has not paid the hospital bill of Rs.1,20,500/- till today. To substantiate the same, OP produced. Therefore, as per the Municipal Commissioner Order dated: 31.03.2016 the death late entry has been made and the Death Certificate is issued on 18.05.2016. But, to disprove the said entries in EX R1, the complainant has not produced any other cogent and corroborative evidence except putting suggestions that the death certificate is not issued. Therefore, on perusal of EX R1, it can be presumed that the OP No.1 has informed the OP No.2 regarding the death detail of the deceased Somappa.

          16.   Further for the documents which have been relied by the complainant more specifically with respect to EX P-1 the endorsement issued by OP No.2, this itself clearly goes to show that later on in the month of March, the Municipal Commissioner made an Order for the entry and then Certificate is issued. Further the OP No.1 deposed that EX R1 clearly reveals that Death Certificate of the deceased Somappa is issued on 18.05.2016 as per the notary certificate dated: 19.03.2016. 

        17.    EX R2 the Hospital bill, it is admitted by the complainant that her husband was admitted in the hospital after he met with an accident and was severely injured. It is also admitted by PW-1 that the body was handover to the relatives of the complainant this itself clearly goes to show that the complainant was not present in the hospital after the death. PW-1 has further averred that she had spent nearly RS.13,000/- for the treatment of her husband and to substantiate the same she has produced few medical receipts and bill i.e. EX P3, EX P-4 and EX P-5. On perusal of EX P3 and EX P5 it clearly reveals that Rs.5,402/- and Rs.4,850/- is paid.

          18.    So also n perusal of EX R2 the doctors bill, it is crystal clear that Rs.1,20,500/- ha been charged in respect of the deceased Somappa and there was no any documentary by the complainant to show that the hospital bill has been paid. Under these circumstances an adverse inference can be drawn holding that the complainant purposely left the hospital and was not available in the hospital and the body was handed over to the relatives of the complainant by police.

          19.    No doubt, the OP No.1 has not adduced any evidence to show that he contacted the police and with their help the body was handed over to the relatives after the death of two days. But, the said weakness of the OP No.1 cannot be made up by the complainant for her case. Apart from this, that through the complainant had the knowledge of the treatment, the complainant ought to have denied the contents of the bill i.e. EX R2. Such being the fact what prevent her to be silent on EX R2. Hence, if these factors are taken into the complainant case because the allegation of the complainant that Death Certificate is not issued is totally false. Though the OP No.1 has not given evidence it does mean that what are all stated by the complainant has to be accepted.  Therefore it can be presumed that the complainant has not paid the hospital bill and to escape from her liabilities. She has filed a false Complaint. Hence, we are of the opinion that the Complaint is hopelessly barred. We do not have any hesitation to say that the complainant is not entitled for the relief sought for. Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 and 3 in the negative, and Point No.2 in the affirmative.         

          20.    POINT NO.4 :-    In the light of the discussion made on the above point No.1 and 3 holding them in the negative and Point No.2 in the affirmative findings, we proceed to pass the following;

:: ORDER ::

1. The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed.
2. The complainant is directed to pay the hospital charges of Rs.1,20,500/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand five hundred) to the OP No.1 along with interest at 09% p.a. on Rs.1,20,500/- within one month from the date of this order, failing which 12% p.a. of interest will be given to the OP No.1, till realization.
3. Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) towards compensatory costs.

    4) Send a copy of this Order to both parties free of cost.  

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court 30^th day of November, 2016)