State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Deeksha Merchant vs G.Madegowda Super Speciality Hospital on 4 March, 2022
1 CC/137/2020
Date of Filing : 02.07.2020
Date of Disposal : 04.03.2022
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 04th DAY OF MARCH 2022
PRESENT
HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT
Mr. K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mrs M.DIVYASHREE : LADY MEMBER
CC-NO.137/2020
1. Deeksha Merchant
aged about 24 years
D/o Late K.L.Ramesh,
C/o Pushpalatha,
R/at No.102,
Kishore Residency,
3rd Cross, New
Saptagiri layout,
Uttarahalli,
Bengaluru-61.
Currently R/at
Lermentora 259,
Flat no.42, Stavropol,
Stavropol Krai,
Russia-355017.
Rep. By GPA holder
Vismaya Merchant.
2. Vismaya Merchant,
Aged about 20 years,
D/o Late K.L.Ramesh,
C/o Pushpalatha,
R/at no.102,
Kishore Residency,
3rd cross, New
Saptagiri layout,
Uttarahalli,
Bengaluru-61. . ..Complainant/s
2 CC/137/2020
(By Sri.C.V.Srinivas, Advocate)
VS
1.
G.Madegowda Super Speciality Hospital,
No.1889, Bharathi Education
Trust Complex, Maddur-
Malavalli main road,
Bharathinagara (KM Doddi),
Mandya-571422. ..Opposite Party/s
ORDER
BY Mr. K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. This is the complaint filed U/s.17 of CPA 2019 with a prayer to direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.40 lakhs as damages for causing hardship and injury due to their act of rendering deficiency in service and to pay Rs.5 lakhs as damages for causing mental harassment.
2. This complaint is received on 02.07.2020 through learned advocate. The Commission heard on admission. We have gone through the contents of the complaint and documents listed at sl.no.1 to 24.
3. According to the Complainants.1 & 2 who are daughters of deceased Mr.K.L.Ramesh who was brought in to the hospital of OP at 8.30pm on 02.10.2019 after he met with an accident near Madenahalli gate, KM Doddi, Halaguru road, Maddur taluk, Mandya District, but OP hospital did not care to attend to late 3 CC/137/2020 K.L.Ramesh. Only after repeated requests, at 9.06pm they began to attend him and made vague entries in the history sheet without conducting related tests to verify the veracity of the same, thereby rendering deficient service. According to the Complainants: doctors of OP hospital are not clear about the consumption of alcohol by the deceased and that it was only the smell and have said 'you can go through the post-mortem report' and there is nothing mentioned in the past history column; alcohol smell could even have emanated from a cologne (cologne/perfume/shampoo which smells like booze/alcohol is available in the market and alcohol is an ingredient in making cologne) probably late K.L.Ramesh was wearing; even if the oral hygiene, if poor, could emanate 'alcoholic breath smell'.
4. This complaint is raised by the daughters of late K.L.Ramesh alleging OP hospital has made vague entries in the history sheet without conducting related tests to verify the veracity of the same and said to go through the post-mortem report. According to the Complainants, K.L.Ramesh was not under the influence of alcohol, the doctors at the OP hospital agreed that the smell of alcohol could have come from either the perfume that the deceased was wearing or the shampoo he had used.
4 CC/137/2020
5. The main grievance of the Complainants would be that late K.L.Ramesh while was alive, had availed several insurance policies from different insurance companies like Motor vehicle insurance, Health insurance, Life insurance etc., for several lakhs of rupees for which the Complainants were nominees and legal heirs. Unfortunately, his father/K.L.Ramesh died in a road accident on 11.10.2019 near Madenahalli gate, KM Doddi, Halaguru road and OPs have made vague entries in the history sheet which was affected their claim under Motor vehicle insurance, Health insurance, Life insurance etc., In this regard, Commission to opine that, whether such entries made by the OPs are vague entries, whether it is just a suspect and they have not done any related investigations or whether such entries made by the Ops in the history sheet are relevant and the final findings recorded in the post-mortem report are relevant, are to be examined by the authority concerned, pursuant to the claims to be made by the Complainant either pursuant to Motor vehicle insurance or Health insurance or else Life insurance as the case may which are not to be examined in this complaint. The scope of the commission is limited and they cannot be examined in this complaint on the allegations made against Ops. In this regard, it would be appropriate to make mention herein that Review Article on the 5 CC/137/2020 subject 'Medico-legal implications of alcohol consumption' by Harish Dasari, K.H.Chavali and Yogender S Bansal, have following opinion:
After performing a complete and thorough clinical examination of the accused and collecting the requisite samples, the examining doctor can frame the following three different opinions based solely on his clinical assessment of the patient:
1. There is no smell of alcohol in the breath and all the clinical findings are normal - The individual examined has not consumed alcohol.
2. There is smell of alcohol in the breath, but all the clinical findings are normal - The individual has consumed alcohol but is not under its influence.
3. There is smell of alcohol in the breath and the clinical examination reveals abnormal findings - The individual has consumed alcohol and is under its influence.
6. Thus, with the above discussions, this Commission is of the considered view that, the relief sought by the Complainants could not be entertained by this Commission as to their claim concerning Motor vehicle insurance, Health insurance, Life insurance etc., The authority concerned shall have power to decide on the allegations now made in this complaint and they are subject to rebuttal or proof. Even the insurer in those policies are not the parties here in this complaint. Even we could say 6 CC/137/2020 complaint raised against the Ops still a pre-mature. Thus, with such conclusion complaint raised by the Complainants.1 & 2, is not admitted.
7. Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.
Lady Member Judicial Member President
*NS*