State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Indian Red Cross Society, vs T.V.Surendran, on 28 January, 2012
Daily Order
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Vazhuthacaud,Thiruvananthapuram First Appeal No. A/11/529 (Arisen out of Order Dated 02/07/2011 in Case No. CC/09/215 of District Kannur) 1. SECRETARY,INDIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY KANNUR DISTRICT BRANCH,DISTRICT HOSPITAL,KANNUR KANNUR KERALA ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. T.V.SURENDRAN SAMANNUAYAM,CHOVA.P.O KANNUR KERALA ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU PRESIDENT PRESENT: ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NO.529/2011JUDGMENT DATED:28.01.2012 PRESENT:
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Indian Red Cross Society, Kannur District Branchm District Hospital, Kannur, : APPELLANT Rep. by its Secretary. (By Adv:M/s Lal George & Induja.M.J) Vs. T.V.Surendran, Samannuayam, Chovva.P.O, : RESPONDENT Kannur-6. (By Adv:Sri.R.P.Ramesom & M.Rajendran Nair) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
Appellants are the opposite parties in CC.215/09 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.2500/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost. It is also directed that the opposite parties shall print and publish the rules accepted by the General Body regarding the deployment of home nurses within 3 months of the order.
2. It is the case of the complainant that he availed the services of the opposite party for deputing a home nurse to look after his mother aged 84 who was laid up consequent on an operation as she fell down and sustained fracture to the hip bone. He paid Rs.400/- as registration fee and Rs.200/- as service charge and Rs.2000/- as deployment fee on 18.7.08. It is his case that the opposite parties deputed one Preetha on 18.7.08 and she left after at about one month without intimation. The complainant again approached the opposite parties who deployed another home nurse by name Omana who left after 10 days. Thereafter on further request another home nurse was sent on 19.10.08 by name Sajitha who left within a couple of days. The 2nd home nurse attended his mother only for 10 days. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party, the Honorary Secretary of the opposite party/Indian Red Cross Society, Kannur branch recalled the nurses as the complainant did not pay money (bribe) to him. He had complained to the District Collector who is the Chairman of the Red Cross Society. He has stated that he is a Gandhian and he was the only son of his mother and that the opposite party in the reply notice has raised serious allegations against himself and his wife that they used to behave in a cruel manner and man handle the mother and deny food and water to the mother. According to him his mother died on 29.2.08 as he could not look after the mother properly on account of the absence of the services of a home nurse. He has filed a complaint for refund of the amount paid by him to the opposite party and compensation of Rs.10,000/- and for a direction to frame proper guidelines regarding the deputation of home nurse.
3. Opposite party filed version alleging that the first home nurse had filed a complaint in writing dated:19.8.08 that she was unable to continue residence in the house of the complainant as he used to ill-treat the mother. In the complaint it is stated that she used to be sent out of the room and thereafter there was noises from the room and thereafter could find that the patient had hemorrhage on the face etc. The 2nd home nurse also has stated as to similar atrocities. The 3rd home nurse also have stated that after the nurse were sent out of the room and when returned that she used to see hemorrhage on the neck of the aged mother. It is also mentioned that the complainant slapped on the face of the mother and did not permit to give food and water in time. She has also given a written complaint on 11.8.08. It was in such circumstances, the service of the home nurse was not provided to the complainant.
4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DWs1 to 4, Exts. A1 to A9 and B1 to B11.
5. The Forum on examining the evidence adduced has pointed out a number of contradictions in the evidence of DW1, the 1st opposite party and DWs2 and 3 the home nurses Preetha and Sajitha. The points particularly noted is that in Ext.A2 dated:21.1.09 the reply notice specific allegations made by the nurses is not mentioned (we find that the above finding as such is not exactly correct as it is mentioned in the reply notice that the nurses refused to continue on account of the atrocities committed by the complainant and his wife on the aged mother etc.
6. The Forum has noted that in Ext.A4 notice dated:9.2.09 the opposite parties have alleged that the nurse, Preetha had stated that the aged mother was beaten up in front of her. The same is not mentioned in Ext.A2. Ext.B4 is the alleged letter written by Preetha where she has no case that the mother used to be beaten up in front of her. Further in Ext.A2 reply notice there is no mention about the complaint in writing submitted by Preetha. In the evidence of DW2 Preetha also there is no case that the mother used to be beaten in front of her. On the other hand, her testimony is to the effect that she is used to be sent out of the room and the room closed and she could hear the complainant scolding the mother. The mother used to say that the complainant used to beat her. DW2 could not recollect the date when the mother told that she was beaten. She has further stated that when she opened the room she could see blood on the lips of the mother. There is no such case in the written complaint. The evidence of DW3 also contained contradictions as mentioned in the order of the Forum. It has also came out in evidence that the aged lady was not in a position to stand up. DW2 nurse had stated that DW1 had told her that she need only to provide a little support when she found that it is difficult to nurse such a patient. The Forum has noted that DW1 has stated that Preetha has mentioned that it is difficult to nurse the old lady as she was laid up and fat and he had advised her only to give a little support.
7. The other aspects in evidence that render the case of the opposite parties infirm is that PW1 was not specifically questioned as to the particular instances of violence allegedly made on the deceased by him and his wife. It has also to be noted that the opposite party institution did not raise a little finger against the atrocities allegedly committed by the complainant against the old lady. DW1 did not even question the complainant when himself, his wife and another relative allegedly came to the office and even threatened the opposite party. The Forum has noted that in the absence of clear cut evidence it is not possible to believe the wild allegations. It is noted that the lady was aged 85 years and the family also seems to be a well to do family and the complainant was the only son. The evidence indicated that the documents are fabricated subsequently. The opposite party has not taken any steps even to enquire as to the alleged atrocities committed on the aged lady by the complainant. It was in the above circumstances that the Forum disbelieved the case of the opposite parties. We find that there is no patent illegality in the above findings of the Forum.
8. The Forum has noted that Ext.B1 print out as to the terms regarding the provision for home nurse did not contain the name of the printing press and hence the same was disbelieved. The bye-law was also not produced. It was in the above circumstances that the Forum directed the opposite parties to frame proper rules in this regard. We find that no interference in the order of the Forum is called for. In fact a higher amount of compensation ought to have been ordered. In the circumstances the order of the Forum is sustained and the appeal is dismissed.
Office will forward the LCR along with a copy of this order to the Forum.
JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT VL.
[HONARABLE MR. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU] PRESIDENT