State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
R. Vijay Kumar vs 1. Serenity Foundation, on 3 January, 2023
CONSUMER DISPUTES
TELANGANA STATE
BEFORE THE
REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.
CC.NO.71 OF 2016
Between:
R. Vijay Kumar, S/o Rajendra Prasad,
Aged about 44 years, Indian,
Occ: PVT.Employee,
R/o Flat No.304, H.No.3-2-844,
Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan,
Kachiguda, Hyderabad-500027,
Rep. by his Father & GPA Holder,
Sri R.Rajendra Prasad.
....Complainant
And
1. Serenity Foundation,
157/6, APVHA Premises,
Near Diamond Point,
Secunderabad-500009,
Rep. by its Managing Trustee,
Mr.Chetan Manohar Vaidya.
2. Mr.Chetan Manohar Vaidya,
Managing Trustee,
Serenity Foundation, 157/6,
APVHA Premises, Near Diamond Point,
Secunderabad-500009.
3. Dr.A.Rahul Cater, MBBS, DPM,
Psychiatrist, Serenity Foundation, 157/6,
APVHA Premises, Near Diamond Point,
Secunderabad-500009.
4. Mr.P.Vijayan, S/o Late K.Narayanan,
Councilor, Serenity Foundation, 157/6,
APVHA Premises, Near Diamond Point,
Secunderabad-500009.
.Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainant :M/s V.Gourisankara Rao
Counsel for the Opposite Parties : Mr. A. Madhyala -
Op1,2& 4
M/s. Jemi Justus -
OP3
MEMBER
QUORUM: HON'BLE SRI V.V.SESHUBABU, HON'BLE SMT R.S. RAJESHREE, MEMBER TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY THREE ******* Member-Non -Judicial) (Per Hon'ble Smt.R.s.Rajeshree, Order:
1. This is a complaint filed by the Complainant under Section 17(1) (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying this Commission to direct the Opposite Parties:
To pay the compensation ofRs.25,00,000/ inconvenience, hardship and mental agony. T o pay the costs of Rs.50,000/-
2.The brief facts of the case are as follows The Case of the complainant is that, he being a MBA graduate was working for a software company at Bangalore and due to work pressure he got used to consuming alcohol and over a period of time he had been addicted to the same which has adversely efflected his family life and his two minor children due to which his family members i.e., his father, mother and wife have decided to join him in to a De-addiction Centre to get rid of the alcohol addiction. In view of the same the father of the complainant was searching for some De-addiction Centres in and around Hyderabad and through just dial he came across Opposite party No.1 De-addiction Centre and upon enquiry he was informed that the foundation was a registered trust represented by Opposite party No.2 Chetan Manohar Vaidya which was located near Diamond point, Hyderabad and was running since 2004 and Dr.A.Rahul Carter Opposite party No.3 was a full time psychiatrist at the Centre. And when the father of the complainant visited the Centre Opposite party No.4 representing himself as a counsellor of the Centre had informed that it is a non-profit organization and it was established in the year 2004 and had cured a number of alcohol addicts under the supervision of the psychiatrist and several other visiting doctors that apart there was a list of Doctors displayed at the reception, and he was also informed that the treatment would continue for a minimum of 120- 150 days and during the said stay, the patient would get professional help particularly aimed to improve his personality and for behavior modification and further stated that the treatment would include psycho-educational input, individual counselling, group counselling, life skills development, marriage and family counselling, emotional development, yoga-mediations, gymnasium entertainment ete., and had given and physical exereise, games and in the Centre trom 5.45 schedule ofactivities that would take place that there would be routine AM to 10. 15 PM, and also assured cardiac prolile, diabetie madical test done such as HB perventage, prolile, VDRL, urine protile, heatic profile, renal protile, panereatic test ete given by Opposite Being attractod by the said assurances 3 of the ENarty No.4 on behalf of Opposite party No.1, the family No.1 the said Opposite party complainant decided to admit him to was reluctant the rehabilitation Centre. Though the complainant for in the said rehabilitation Centre family had decided to join him No. 1 informed to the Opposite party his well being and the same was that they have a procedure to as such Opposite party has assured Centre reluctant to join rehabilitation pick up the patients who are and on night of 13/14-01-2013, 4 members of Opposite party No.1 and came in a Maruti Van and forcibly took the complainant their legs and took him dumped him into the van by pressing with the to the De-addiction Centre, initially the family members of the procedure followed for complainant thought that, that was reluctant to join the Centre, picking up the patients who were had informed subsequently after the complainant was discharged the family members about the ordeal he has undergone at the Centre of the have realized about the 3rd degree methods complainant adopted by the Opposite party No.1 Centre.
The father of the complainant had paid the following amounts
4.
13-01-2013, Rs.15,000/ on 14-01-2013,
RS.5000/- on
on 14-02-2013 in this
Rs.13,000/- on 17-01-2013, Rs.34,345/
-
way paid a total some of Rs.67,345/- as charges for the treatment.
5. The complainant further submits that for more than a month none of the family members were permitted to meet the complainant except from showing him on CCTV on two occasions when he was along with 40 other members and after one month whenever the complainant was visited by his family members he was always accompanied with the counsellor i.e., Opposite party No.4 due to which he could not inform his family members with regard to the rude behavior and the way he was treated in the Centre to his family 4 members and even before Opposite party No.4 brought e complainant to meet his family members he was threatened to not disclose any internal things about the Centre and was also warned that he had to continue his stay for another 120 to 150 days and was threatened of dire consequences and whenever the father of complainant wanted to meet Opposite party No.3 psychiatrist, Opposite party No.4 had always informed that the Opposite party No.3 doctor is busy with the patients as such not even a single time thetreating psychiatrist had meet the family members of the complainant.
During the end of February 2013, the father of the received a call from Mr. Patnaik complainant who claimed himself to have been discharged from the said Centre and informed that the was going through severe torture and ill treatment and complainant them to see that the requested complainant is discharged at the earliest, upon such information the father of the complainant had immediately approached the Opposite party No.1 Centre and enquired about the phone call but the father of complainant was informed that there was no such patient in the Centre and he was further assured that the complainant would be taken care of by the centre, after the said incident in February Opposite party No.4 developed grudge against complainant and started mentally torturing him and abusing him in filthy language and de motivating him by saying that none of the family members were willing to take him back and by uttering such words developed hatred in the mind of the complainant towards his wife, children and parents.
6. After receiving a call from the said Patnaik the family members of the complainant sought permission to take the complainant for the birthday celebration of his eldest son and brought the complainant back home on 07.03.2013. But after reaching home the complainant had informed all the ordeal that he has undergone at the rehabilitation Centre, that he was tied to 4 corners of the bed for 4-5 days from the date of pick up and he has developed some swelling in his right hand and was crying in pain but the opposite party never stopped torturing him but had continued to manhandle him and also abused him in filthy language and the Ayurvedic tablets which were given for skin ailment were thrown in the toilet from mouth conmplainant was sufering and hushed and when the and some food and sought for medication uleers and could not eat doctor Centre in spite of taking him to a fruits and milk, but the fruits and food and denied providing any foreed him to eat the spicy rehabilitation facts of the to know all thesce milk Having come not to send the members have decided Centre the family such acts of the opposite back to the Centre. Due to all complainant the with regard to all the complainant filed a police complaint arty Centre he had faced in the Opposite party torture and ill treatment a Crime No. 235/2014. Where and P.S Tirumalagiri had registered have given their the s a m e Centre patients of in several other section 342 under were booked statements and the opposite parties released on bail.
w e r e arrested
and subsequently
and 352 of 1PC and
whose
the Opposite party No.3 on
7. It is further submitted that was never in the hospital obtained the license name the Centre has ill-treated by the the patients who were and was n e v e r protecting hand he was practicing at Nellore by opening a Centre, on the other never as such he was clinic as "Rahul Neuro Psychiatry Centre"
doctors to nor w e r e there any other visiting available in the Centre No. 1 the Centre. That apart the Opposite party attend the inmates in Centre but on the contrary they a 10 bedded had license to run only sufficient facilities for the Centre without having have 40 inmates in shifted the the family had and without informing so many inmates, at R.K.Puram, Railway over another branch. And complainant to this unauthorized branch bridge, the opposite party had opened s a m e as such, the father of without having any license to open the concerned authorities made complaint to the the complainant had constituted and inspection done on and an inspection team w a s that no Centres and a report was filed stating various unauthorized to open a new branch at R.K.Puram and also such license was given sufficient at Tirumalagiri branch was that the permission granted only for 10 beds.
Due to all such acts of the opposite party the father of the
8. No.2 on 15- a letter to Opposite party complainant had addressed with Opposite party No.4 to get 06-2013 to arrange for a meeting information with regard to the treatments done and lapses in the no response from Opposite parties, he treatment and as there was 6 had sent a registered post on 29-10-2013 to Opposite party No.2 to provide papers of treatment done along with detailed name and addresses of pick up team, doctors working in Opposite party Centre, visiting doctors, medical prescriptions. As the Opposite party failed to reply to the same the father of the complainant has sent one more letter on 15-11-2013 seeking the same information and on 28-11-2013, one Mr.Victor working in Opposite party No.l had handed over three papers consisting of form and the information prescriptions, admission furnished by the family members and took the acknowledgment of the same. On perusal of the said prescriptions it is revealed that there was no doctor who has attended the complainant and the medicines which were given were only multivitamin injections, sedation tablets etc., and with to the details of regard pick up team on 31-10-2013 replied stating that he cannot Opposite party No.2 provide the names and address of the pickup team since they do not have a available regular team, and whoever is at that time they were sent for pick up and the prescriptions given were of Dr. Prabhakar Korada who Serenity foundation prior to the grant of license to resigned the the Centre and on RTI application by the father of the complainant it was that Dr.Prabhakar Korada was revealed not on the records of foundation and the lab Serenity reports and the prescriptions were of January 2012 whereas the complainant was admitted to the Centre on 13-01-2013, due to such fraudulent acts of the the father of the opposite parties, complainant approached the Hon'ble Human Rights Commission in May, 2014 and filed a complaint in which the commission has directed the father of the complainant to approach the appropriate forum. Subsequently a revision petition was filed in the month of June 2014, again the human rights commission had directed the complainant therein to approach the appropriate forum.
9. The father of the complainant had also submitted a representation to the Hon'ble Minister of Medical Health, Government of Telangana by way of RPAD Letter dated:
02-07-2014.
But however there was no action taken nor any reply given, as such having no other alternative the complainant is before this commissions seeking compensation for all the deficient, illegal and 1 trade and also for the unfare fraudulent acts of opposite party the opposite party.
practices adopted by Ex-Parte No.1,28& 4:- Remained Written version of opposite party Remained Ex-Parte Written version of opPposite party No.3:-
were set Ex-
to mention here that opposite parties It is pertinent IA vide party No.3 has filed an Parte and subsequently opposite filed an IA vide and opposite party No.1,284 has No.104/2016 Ex-Parte orders and with prayer to set aside the No.105/2016 however this to file written version, but seeking permission both the dated 01.02.2017 has dismissed commission vide orders review its commission has no power to petitions holding that this maintainability.
the ground of
own order and dismissed on
order the opposite parties
But however inspite of dismissal their
evidence affidavit and got marked continued to file their amount of evidence filed in the documents but however since any evidence act.
admissible under the absence of pleadings is not evidence affidavits and both the written version, Hence, the parties that are available in documents on behalf of opposite considered as said Supra. record are not being marked evidence affidavit and got
10. The complainant has filed Ex.Al to A33.
the record, the points that arise Heard the complainant perused for consideration a r e :
11. Points for consideration:
have humiliated, ill-treated and
1. Whether the opposite parties and mentally?
tortured the complainant both physically in their
2. Whether the opposite parties have been deficient services and have adopted any uníair trade practice?
3. Whether the is entitled for the reliefs sought in complainant the complaint?
4. If yes, to what extent?
12. Point No.1:
The grievance of the complainant in a nutshell is that, he bein a MBA graduate was working in a softwre company at Bangalore, and due to the work pressure fell victim to alcohol and gradually became an addict. Due to which his family members with an intention to get rid of the habit of alcohol consumption had got the complainant admitted into opposite parties No.I rehabilitation center by paying sum of Rs.67,345/-, But at the rehabilitation center he was ill-treated, humiliated and tortured both physically and mentally as under.
No proper facilities provided. The Centre was over crowded with very limitcd washrooms and no water supply for 20 hours.
No 24 hour's psychiatrist services provided as promised in the terms and conditions of No proper admission medication given in spite of the complainant suffering in pain due to fracture in right wrist. Only one person attending all the inmates who was abusive and at times man handled and threatencd the inmates of dire consequences in case anything is revealed to family nmembers. .
No regular doctor or nurse to take care of the inmates.
Not allowing to meet the family members though the terms provide for it after 25 days of admission. Having an unqualilied doctor i.c., who is not a psychiatrist but general physician and who would a never be present at the Centre and was a resident of Nellore and was running a clinic in Nellore.
13. In this way the opposite parties failed to provide the services as promised and had adopted unethical, illegal and unfair trade practice. Hence, the complainant needs to be compensated. In support of his case the complainant got marked Ex.Al to A33.
14. At the outset the issues related to humiliation, use of abusive language, physical and mental torture, tying the hands and legs of the complainant to bed for 4 days after admission etc., are mere statements made by the complainant and no proof filed to that effect, and more over these are the acts which are criminal in nature, hence 9 have to be investigated and concluded. That apart the complainant had already given a police compliant which is evident from Ex.A16 FIR, hence we are not concerned with these issues.
15. The scope of this commission being limited to ascertain with regard to deficiencies and unfair trade practices we would restrict ourselves only to that extent. Therefore now the point that arises is whether the opposite parties being a service provider to rehabilitate an addicted person had provided the same as per terms of admission and had followed provisions of law and guide lines issued by the concerned authorities or had violated the same.
16. Point No.28%3:
A perusal of Ex.A1, reveals the treatment that is provided to the conditions patients at opposite party No. 1 Centre, and terms and and also has a list of activities and the daily routine that is to be followed by the patients and as per unnumbered clause which is extracted here under, Once the client is admitted the family will not be allowed to meet the clientfor minimum period of 25 days to a month"
17. As per the above clause the patient is not allowed to meet with his family for the initial 25 days of admission. Then in such case when such serious allegations are made by the complainant with regard to the ill treatment, torture, manhandling etc. It is for the opposite party who has imposed such strict condition to disprove the contention of the complainant.
But in the instant case in the absence of any rebuttal evidence the statements made by the complainant shall stand proved and an adverse inference can be drawn against the opposite parties.
18. The same Ex.Al has a list of mandatory medical test to be done to the new patients admitted, and having collected Rs.67,345/ from the complainant which is evident under Bx.A3, the opposite party is duty bound to conduct these tests, but the same were not done.
19. It is the contention of the complainant counsel that the opposite parties Centre though obtained the license by showing the 10 opposite party No.3 i.e., Dr.A.Rahul Carter as the psychiatrist and is a full time doctor who will be available at the Centre to attend the inmates, but actually the said Dr.Rahul Carter is a resident of Nellore who is running a full-fledged clinic at Nellore and to substantiate the same complainant filed Ex.A24 (set of 8) photographs which is evident that opposite party No.3 is clinic at Nellore.
a running
20.
Being aggrieved by such
of
unethical, illegal and unlawful acts opposite parties the father of the doors of the concerned complainant had knocked all the authorities and as said Supra filed a criminal case, in which the Deputy Commissioner letter to Director of of Police had addresseda Medical Education regard the subsistence of license seeking information with and also whether and obtained by opposite license was party to open another branch at Asha oficers colony, Tirumalagiri vide letter dt.02.05.2015 which is marked as Ex.A19, to which the Director Medical Education had preliminary investigation under Ex.A21 and had stated conducted a as under, "Visited Serenity Foundation on 15.09.2015. License valid up to 16.12.2014 is verified. Centre has applied for renewal of license on 11.09.2014, inspection was probably done on 8th renewal January 2015 but of license is not yet received by them.
Medical Officer in-
charge Dr.Rahul Carter was present and responded to enquiry. Part time clinical psychologist, part time general duty doctor, staff nurse, medical attendants, were present. Ward space adequate for 10 inmates, dining and recreation place for 10 inmates in the same ward is present. Pharmacy, laboratory were present.
They have expressed they are not running the rehabilitation under the same name anywhere else in the twin cities." And also replied by way of a letter dt.03.07.2015 under Ex.A20 and confirmed that there was no license issued to Serenity foundation and psychiatry centre, secunderabad at H.No.C-1, Asha officers colony, near R.K.Puram Bridge, Tirumalagiri, secunderabad.
21. And further the father of the complainant had addressed a letter to opposite party No.3 under Ex.A22 for which opposite party No.3 had given the reply under Ex.A23 stating that he has no authority to issue the said documents and that the said documents 11 are in the custody of the foundation i.e., opposite party No.1 which again establishes the irresponsible attitude of opposite party No.3 which amounts to negligence.
The father of the complainant had also made a complaint before Human Resource Commission under Ex.A11 to A14, but the commission had disposed of the _complaint by directing the complainant to approach the appropriate authority/forum. Similarly the father of the complainant had made a complaint before the Medical Council of Telangana.
case was
22. It is pertinent to mention here that while the present booked a case and pending the Medical council of Telangana had conducted a detailed enquiry and had removed the name of opposite party No.3 from the medical register for a period of six months by of misconduct for the following holding opposite party No.3 guilty acts.
Number APMC 48477 is Dr Rahul Carter bearing Registration acts:
found guilty of misconduct for the following and not seen Neglecting the patient having admitted 54 days him during the entire stay of the patient for (Total stay of the patient).
alternate He has admitted that he has not made arrangements to see the patient. He is also not aware of the Rules and Regulations of Mental Health Act, 1987 being the License holder of the Serenity Foundation.
Based on the above acts he is liable for punishment and Medical disciplinary action under Regulation 8.2 of Indian Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 and the Council decided to remove his name from the Medical Register for a period of six months.
No.3
23. Subsequent to the above said orders opposite party of India. Under preferred a n appeal before the Medical council Ex.A28 but however as the said appeal was time barred the same was dismissed at the admission stage by confirming the order of the Medical council of Telangana.
12Ex.A27 & A28 coupled with the findings given by the Medical council of Telangana are the conclusive proof to conclude that the opposite party No.3 was not only deficient in his services but also negligent and irresponsible toward his duties.
24 And issuance of medical reports under Ex.A29 to A32 by opposite party No.1 which are dated 19.01.2012 while the complainant was admitted to opposite party No.1 Centre 13.01.2013 speaks volumes issuing lab reports of one year prior to the admission of the patient itself shows the gross negligent attitude and unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite party No. 1852. By not having a regular psychiatrist and not having sufficient consultant doctors, and having obtained the license for 10 inmates admitting more than ten patients, and running an additional branch without any permission and not having suficient supporting staff to take care of the patients all these acts of opposite parties not only amount to deficiency of services and unfair trade violation of practice but also guidelines and regulations issued by the concerned government authorities.
25. As far as liability of opposite party No.4 is concerned he being the employee of opposite party No.l was also involved in all the illegal and inhuman acts of opposite party No.1 to 3 as such he is equally liable for all the acts of the opposite party No. Ito3.
In view of the above discussions we are of the view that opposite party No.1 being a rehabilitation Centre is expected to render the services by full time attention and care to the patients, as the patients admitted to their Centre are addicts who needs lots of counselling with specialized persons. But on the contrary the opposite parties were very rude, inhumane, and have neglected the complainant which had compelled him to run around the several authorities seekingjustice. Hence we hold the opposite parties liable for the deficient services and also find that the opposite parties have adopted unfair trade practice by running a rehabilitation centre without proper facilities and psychiatrist to take care of the patient.
Hence the complainant who has undergone severe physical sufferance and mental agony at the hands of opposite parties and 13 also suffered mental agony due also the family of complainant had Therelore the complainant needs to the acts of the opposite parties.
to be suitably compensated.
26. Point No.3: In theresult, the complaint is allowed partly directing the opposite parties 1 to 4 jointly and severally, deficient To pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the caused to acts and physical sufferance and mental agony the complainant.
T o pay cost of Rs.20,000/-.
of Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt this order.
Dictated to steno; transcribed and typed by him; corrected and 2023.
pronounced by us in the open court on this 3rd day of January