ELIZABETH RANI vs A.N.HARILAL

THIS action came before us for admission today. We heard the arguments of learned Counsel Mr. S. Parthasarathy appearing for the complainant. We perused the averments in the complaint and other materials placed on record.

A tender child named Jasmine, aged about 12 months, the daughter of the complainant Elizabeth Rani, it is said, was suffering from fluid accumulation in the head. The said child, it is said, was admitted in the hospital of the opposite parties for surgery. The complainant would allege deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in performing the surgery and consequently the child died.

The complainant would allege that they hired the services of the opposite party for consideration and consideration consisted of payment of Rs. 2,250/- for C.T. Scan brain and Rs. 300/- towards anaesthetist consultation. It appears that the C.T. Scan had been taken independently by the complainant in a separate scanning centre not having any sort of a connection to the opposite parties. This apart, no material worth the name had been placed on record for the payment of this Rs. 2,250/- for C.T. Scan of brain and also for the payment of Rs. 300/- to the anaesthetist consultation. The other materials placed on record shows that even the Shunt Tube costing Rs. 1,500/- had been purchased by the hospital of the opposite parties at their own costs on humanitarian ground and no charge for the operation was collected. This apart, the said child was suffering from brain-stem dys-function and the complainant was also indicated of the factum of such dys-function besides stating that there was every likelyhood of the perilous consequences ensuing to the life of the child consequent on the operation. Top of all, no prima facie material had been placed on record to point out that the death of the child was due to the negligence attributable to the opposite parties in the performance of the operation.

SUCH being the case, we are of the view that there are no prima facie materials available on record either to point out that the complainant hired the services of the opposite parties for consideration or that there was any sort of a negligence on the part of the opposite parties in the performance of the operation. In this view of the matter, the complaint deserves to be rejected in limine and we accordingly do so. Complaint dismissed in limine.