State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M.K. Kunhammed vs 1. M/S. Baby Memorial Hospital, ... on 21 January, 2013
Daily Order
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Vazhuthacaud,Thiruvananthapuram First Appeal No. A/11/846 (Arisen out of Order Dated 25/08/2011 in Case No. CC/09/441 of District Kozhikode) 1. Kunhammad Munnamkandathil House,Vallikkad,Vatakara,Kozhikode Kozhikode Kerala ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. M/s Baby Memorial Hospital Kozhikode Kozhikode Kerala ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: SMT.A.RADHA PRESIDING MEMBER PRESENT: ORDER KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO. 846/11
JUDGMENT DATED : 21.`01.2013
PRESENT:-
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER
SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
APPELLANT
M.K. Kunhammed,
Munnamkandathil, P.O. Muttungal,
Vallikkad, Vatakara Taluk.
(Rep. by Sri. Adv. V. Ramadasan)
Vs
RESPONDENTS
M/s. Baby Memorial Hospital, Kozhikode
General Manager,
M/s. Baby Memorial Hospital, Kozhikode
(Rep. by Sri. Adv. Mathew B. Kurian & others)
JUDGMENT
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER On dismissal of the complaint the complainant/appellant preferred this appeal against the order passed in C.C. No. 441/09 on the file of CDRF, Kozhikode.
2. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant had to be with his daughter who was admitted in Baby Memorial Hospital had a fall in the ramp of the hospital and sustained fracture in his wrist. The allegation of the complainant is that the accident happened due to the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and filed the complaint for compensation. The complainant had undergone temporary treatment in the opposite party's hospital thereafter he had to consult OrthoPaedician and incurred an amount of Rs. 20,000/-for treatment charges and also incurred loss of income and mental agony for which the complaint was filed for Rs. 84,000/-
3. The opposite parties filed version denying the allegations of the complainant. The complainant is not a consumer defined under the Consumer Protection Act. He had not availed any service for consideration from the opposite party. No allegation is put forth by the complainant for any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in providing medical treatment to him. It is admitted that the daughter of the complainant was a patient in the opposite party hospital. The complainant was only a visitor in connection with the admission of his daughter for treatment. It is also clear that the complainant while walking through the ramp had a fall and sustained injuries. It is merely because of the carelessness of the complainant. It is also stated in the version that sufficient number of staircases as well as lifts and corridors for moving from one floor to the other was provided in every wing of the hospital. It is also admitted that there were sufficient warning near the Corridors by display of caution sign boards. wherever any slippery or undulated service exists. In the instant case, warning notice regarding the slippery condition of ramp was clearly exhibited at the site. It is also stated that there were also sufficient railings provided for the purpose of avoiding any untoward incident of falling by slipping, It is the carelessness of the complainant that caused the accident discarding the warning and also without using the railings. It is also denied that the ramp is not the only way to go from one building to another. The ramp of the hospital was being used daily by patients, bystanders, doctors and staff of the hospital. The ramp also was used to carry the patients in stretches and wheel chairs. There is no technical defect in the construction of the building and the building was constructed as per the Building Rules. The opposite party is not responsible for the carelessness of the complainant and for the alleged accident of the complainan, the opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation.
4. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as Pw1 & Rw1 documents marked on the side of the complainant as Exbts. A1 to A61. Though the Forum found that the complaint comes under C.P. Act, the fall of the complainant was not considered due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
5. The counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that the C.P. Act being a welfare Act it includes service of any description other than the service rendered free or under the contract of personal service. In the instant case the complainant's daughter was admitted in the hospital for paid service and her father is a beneficiary being a bystander. The complainant's daughter was brought to the new block from the labour room at 11.P.M. and the accident happened at 11.45 PM. The complainant went through the impugned ramp near the labour room by about 11.45 PM. The ramp was constructed in such a way that it is hazardous for movements because of its slop and slippery surface. Due to the fracture the complainant who was conducting cool drinks and tea stall could not continue his work and sustained financial loss which resulted in the mental agony also. 'The appellant also had to undergo an operation for the fracture and incurred expenses and the medical bills were also produced. It is also an admitted fact that the respondent's hospital is having ramp with the slippery surface which is clearly visible from the sign boards. The fracture to the complainant happened in the ramp where it is having the slippery surface and the loss incurred by the appellant/complainant is to be compensated appropriately.
6. The argument put forth by the counsel for the respondent is that no service was rendered to the complainant by the respondents. It is admitted that the rooms to accommodate patients are in the new block and the labour room, gynaec operation theatre, consultation rooms of doctors, Pharmacy are functioning in the old block. Both the blocks of the hospital are connected through steps and ramps. The ramps are used for the purpose of bringing patients from new block to the other block and vice versa in stretchers and wheel chairs. There is no need for the by- standers to go to the old block unless there is necessity to go to the labour room or to the theatre or to the consultation rooms. The stair case/ lifts were working day and night. But the entry of bystanders or other persons are restricted by pass. One lift is also provided in the old block for entry and exit. The accident occurred in the ramp connecting the new block and the old block. There is no necessity for the appellant to go to the old block from the new block. After shifting the patient from the labour room, at the time of accident, the appellant's doctor was in her room in the new block. It is also pointed out that there had no necessity for the appellant to go to the old block in connection with the treatment of his daughter. The counsel also pointed out that the ramp is not the only way to go to the down stairs. There were lifts and staircases available in the hospital. It is also argued that Exbits A61 photographs produced by the appellant it is clear that the respondent hospital had exhibited sufficient clear notice for the users of the ramp. Moreover railings are provided on both sides of the ramp. The accident occurred as the appellant discarded the warnings and carelessly slipped without using the railings. The allegation of the complainant was strongly opposed that the ramps are unscientifically constructed. No technical expert opinion is on record to show that the ramp was constructed in an unscientific manner. The report of the Advocate Commissioner is also not sufficient to prove that there is deficiency in service on the part of respondent. The accident occurred only due to carelessness and negligence of the appellant and not using the normal stair case or lift which could have avoided the accident. The lower Forum rightly observed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
7. Heard both sides in detail. On going through the records and on hearing the rival contentions raised by the parties we find that the accident happened to the appellant while his daughter was admitted in the opposite party hospital. The appellant's daughter was under treatment and paid consideration for the service. The appellant was a by-stander of his daughter. As per the Consumer Protection Act he comes under beneficiary as a consumer. The appellant was passing through the ramp after his daughter was brought to the room in the new block from the labour room in the old block at about 11.P.M. The accident happened at about 11.45 P.M. It is true that there were lifts and stair case from the one block to the other. It is an admitted fact that the ramp was used by patients, doctors and staff of the hospital and also the ramp was used for bringing stretchers and wheel chairs. The accident happened due to the slope and the slippery floor of the ramp. After the accident the appellant had to undergo an operation for the fracture. As per Ext. 60 (3 in number) produced by the appellant it is written Which is not disputed, points that even after the slippery nature was known to the respondent, they were least bothered to cure the defect of the floor. This was not denied by the respondent rather it was admitted by the respondent in their version that there had sufficient notice written for the attention of the users of that area. From this we have to infer that the respondents are well aware of the condition of the surface of the floor area or else there might have some accidents like this in the same place. We are also considering the fact that the patient was brought to the room at late by 11.00 P.M and the by-stander passing through the ramp by 11.45 PM cannot be restrained or insisted to use with utmost care while walking through the ramp. The ramp or the floor should be in perfect condition and should not be in a slippery position. It is the primary responsibility of a hospital to see the welfare of the patients as well as for the by-standers to offer facilities. It is also notclear whether there had proper lights at that point so as to read the notice. Publishing a notice to beware of the slippery floor is not a relief for the accidents that could have happened in order to ensure the human life.
8. Hence we find negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party for not providing the ramps for the convenient use of the people who come to the hospital. It is an admitted fact and it is very clear from the documents that the floor is slippery and hence the opposite parties are liable to compensate, the appellant/complainant.
In the result appeal is allowed. The respondent/opposite party is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- and Rs. 1000/- as cost of the proceedings to the appellant/complainant. This order is to comply within 30 days on receipt of this order. The non compliance of this order, the appellant is entitled for interest @ 12% from the date of receipt of this order.
The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Forum below.
A. RADHA ; MEMBER
K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
st
[ SMT.A.RADHA] PRESIDING MEMBER