Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

CC/16/47

SMT.SANTOSH BHATI - Complainant(s)

Versus

UNION OF INDIA (RAILWAYS) - Opp.Party(s)

SH. AMARPAAL SINGH

16 Nov 2016

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                                         

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 47/2016

                                                                    FILED ON       10.06.2016

                                                                             DECIDED ON  16.11.2016

 

 

1. SMT. SANTOSH BHATI,

    W/O LATE SHRI PRADEEP BHATI.

2. RAHUL BHATI

    S/O LATE SHRI PRADEEP BHATI.

3. KU.PAYAL BHATI,

    D/O LATE SHRI PRADEEP BHATI,

    THROUGH GUARDIAN SMT. SANTOSH BHATI,

    W/O LATE SHRI PRADEEP BHATI,

ALL R/O NEAR TRIPTI HOSPITAL,

SHYAMPUR, DISTRICT-SEHORE (M.P.)                               ...        COMPLAINANTS

 

Versus

 

UNION OF INDIA,

THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER,

WESTERN CENTRAL RAILWAY,

JABALPUR (M.P.)                                                                 …       OPPOSITE PARTY.       

                                 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA    :    PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE SHRI SUBHASH JAIN                           :       MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES:

          Shri Amarpal Singh, learned counsel for the complainant.

             

                                            O R D E R

                                  (Passed On     .11.2016)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Shri Subhash Jain, Member:

           

                   Complainants Smt. Santosh Bhati, her son Rahul Bhati and daughter Ku. Payal Bhati have filed this complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party Western Central Railway, Jabalpur alleging deficiency in service in not providing medical aid to husband of complainant no.1 and father of complainant no.2 and 3 Late Shri Pradeep Bhati (hereinafter referred to as patient) while travelling from Bhopal to Delhi.  They claimed Rs.20,00,000/- along with interest.  

2.                     The brief facts of the case as narrated by the complainants are that the patient Pradeep Bhati had fallen seriously ill in December-2015 and

-2-

hospitalized on 11.12.2015 at Tripti Hospital, Lalghati Chouraha, Bhopal from where he was referred to J. K. Hospital, Kolar Road, Bhopal.  On 12.12.2015 J. K. Hospital referred to patient for treatment at AIIMS Delhi. On advice of J. K. Hospital complainant no.1 and 2 along with other family members Satyanarayan and Pradeep took the deceased to Delhi by train no. 12155 Bhopal Express (Habibgunj-H.Nizamuddin) after getting reservation of four berths vide PNR No. 8529801500.  When the train left Vidisha Station condition of patient deteriorated, the attendants informed the TC who informed him that there is no doctor in the coach and assured that he will inform the Bina Station to get medical aid.  At Bina Station also no medical aid was provided. Railway employees and TC told them that we will inform the next station Lalitpur through message to provide medical aid.  So on their assurance the complainants moved to Lalitpur along with the patient but at Lalitpur Station also no medical aid was provided.  There it is informed that Jhansi is a big railway station and they will get medical aid at Jhansi definitely. It is further alleged that when the train reached at Jhansi neither any medical aid was provided nor any doctor came then they pulled the chain.  After a long time doctor came who after examining the patient declared him dead. They thereafter provided death certificate.

3.                     It is further alleged that the doctor who examined the patient at Jhansi station told them that the patient died before the train reached Jhansi.  If the patient could have got medical aid at Bina or Lalitpur, he could have been survived. The complainants therefore filed this complaint stating that after the death of the patient the whole family became helpless.  They claimed a total sum of Rs.20,00,000/- with interest @ 12%.

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for complainant on the question of admission.

5.                     After hearing counsel and on going through the complaint and the documents filed on record we find that the patient/deceased Pradeep Bhati was seriously ill and was admitted in Tripti Hospital, Bhopal on 11.12.2015 where he

-3-

was diagnosed as Long Segment Aortic Dissection and given some treatment.  Angiography was also performed. Looking to the serious condition of the patient they referred him to Higher Centre for further management on the same day i.e. 11.12.2015.  Family members of deceased took him to J. K. Hospital, Bhopal on the same day where also some investigations were done and treatment was given. On 12.12.2015 looking to the condition of the patient the hospital referred him to AIIMS, Delhi making a note “Patient could not be operated here because of complex nature of disease then patient referred to higher center AIIMS Delhi CTVS Department for further management.”

6.                     From the hospital notes made on different investigations and discharge cards it is evident that the condition of the patient/deceased Pradeep Bhati was critical and his family members chose to travel Delhi by Bhopal Express instead of any other means and they also did not took any medical person/doctor or nursing staff with them to look after the patient or to manage him in such a critical condition.  Instead they tried to blame the Railways for not giving him medical aid.  It is not a case of the complainants that Pradeep Bhati was healthy and hearty and all of sudden he fell ill in the train and despite repeated requests no medical aid was provided to him.  The complainants and other family members very well known about the condition of the patient/deceased. Looking to the condition of the patient especially when he was referred to higher center for treatment, the complainants ought to have arrange to take him Delhi by any other means so that he could have got better treatment as early as possible, but they failed to do so.

7.                     Even otherwise on our repeated queries made to learned counsel for complainant, he failed to place before us relevant provisions of Railway Act/Rules to show it is the responsibility of the Railways to arrange/provide medical aid to passengers in the train especially to such a critical patient.

8.                     In such circumstances, we find that the complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the Railways in not providing medical aid

-4-

to deceased Pradeep Bhati especially when his condition was already critical and he was referred to AIIMS Delhi.

9.                 In view of the above discussion we decline admission of the complaint and the same is dismissed at the admission stage itself.