Capt. V.P. Mohan vs M. Shantha Kumar Medical

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the impugned order dated 24.08.2007 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 1100/2005 - Capt. V.P. Mohan (Retd.) Vs. Dr. M. Shantha Kumar & Ors. by which, while allowing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was set aside and complaint was dismissed.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner ''s daughter Ms. Seena was going on scooty with her sister ''s son Abhishek on 4.10.2003 and met with an accident due to negligence and rash driving of four wheeler. Seena and Abhishek sustained injuries. Public gathered over there and Seena was taken by public in bleeding condition to the nearest Sathya Hospital. Injured Abhishek gave telephone number to other persons who informed to the complainant. Then, complainant along with his friends and relatives went to Sathya Hospital and all of them requested the security staff to allow admission of Seena for immediate treatment, but security staff refused and stated that no doctor is available, though, injured reached Hospital at about 2.55 P.M. Then, Seena was taken to Santhosh hospital, who allowed the victim for treatment but she succumbed to death due to loss of blood. It was further alleged that behaviour of security staff was indifferent due to instructions of the authorities of Sathya Hospital to not allow accidental cases without their permission. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs/respondent, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. OPs resisted complaint, filed written statement and submitted that injured was not brought to the Hospital and complainant does not fall within the purview of consumer. It was further alleged that Sathya Hospital has got a separate legal entity, as such, the Medical Director or the Administrative Officer are not right persons to represent it. It was further alleged that Mr. Muthappa is not the proprietor of M/s. Mag Security Services; hence, complaint may be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. Learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed OP to pay 3,00,000/- jointly and severally with cost of Rs.10,000/-. OP filed appeal which was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. Respondents did not appear; hence, they were proceeded ex-parte.

HEARD Learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused record.

PERUSAL of complaint reveals that security staff of the OP/Respondent hospital did not permit the victim to enter inside the hospital. When the victim herself was not admitted to the hospital and was not provided any treatment and no consideration was paid or agreed to be paid by the victim or her relatives, complainant does not fall within the purview of consumer and learned State Commission has not committed any error in passing impugned order and dismissing complaint. Record further reveals that complainant has improved his complaint by filing affidavits of complainant and other witnesses depicting the fact that even request to nurses for allowing victim to the casualty was disallowed on the pretext that no doctor was available to provide medical treatment. There is no averment in the complaint that nursing staff also refused entry of victim in the hospital. It has clearly been mentioned in Paragraph 7 of the complaint that security staff bluntly refused to allow victim in the hospital on the ground that no doctor was available. When only security staff refused entry of victim in the hospital, Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 cannot be held responsible in any perspective, as neither they, nor their nursing staff refused entry of injured Seena in the hospital. As per affidavits of witnesses, doctor was not available at that time. As per complaint, security staff also apprised that doctor is not available in the hospital. In such circumstances, there was no occasion to allow entry of victim in the hospital, who was in critical condition and who succumbed to death while taking to another hospital. Statement of Ravi Kumar recorded by police under Section 161 Cr.PC filed by the complainant as Annexure P-5, clearly reveals that he took injured first to Sathya hospital where she was not given any treatment and then he took her in the same auto to Santosh Hospital. In such circumstances, there was no occasion for the complainant and other witnesses to affirm this fact in their affidavit that in their presence nurses on duty did not allow victim in the casualty ward of the hospital and no reliance can be placed on the statement of complainant and other witnesses. Learned District Forum also dismissed application for cross-examination of these witnesses, though, District Forum ought to have allowed this application in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

WHEN the doctor was not available at the hospital, security staff even if refused entry of victim in the hospital has not committed any deficiency, as in the absence of doctor, there was no occasion to allow entry of patient in a critical condition to the hospital because no medical assistance could have been provided even if admitted in the hospital. It is unfortunate that victim died while taking to Santosh Hospital. In such circumstances, there is no deficiency on the part of security staff also.

OPS specifically stated in their written statement that M/s. Sathya Hospital has got a separate legal entity and Medical Director or the Administrative Officer are not right persons to represent the Hospital. It was further alleged that Mr. Muthappa is not the Proprietor of M/s. Mag Security Services. Petitioner has not filed any evidence to prove the fact that OP Nos. 1 & 2 represent Sathya Hospital and they are responsible for any deficiency on the part of Sathya Hospital. Petitioner has also not filed any evidence to prove the fact that Shri Muthappa is the Proprietor of M/s. Mag Security Services and M/s. Mag Security Services was providing security in the Sathya Hospital. In such circumstances, complaint was liable to be dismissed against OP and learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint, but learned State Commission has not committed any error in allowing appeal and dismissing complaint. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in impugned order pass by learned State Commission and revision petition is liable to be dismissed at admission stage. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to costs.