Nihal Devi vs Ravi Hospital Delhi Gate

CHALLENGE in this revision petition is to the order dated 13.1.2009 passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, the State Commission) in appeal No. 3037 of 2006.

BRIEFLY stated, the complainant No. 3, namely, Jaswant Singh, had been admitted at the opposite party/hospital on 30.06.2000 for the operation of bone of his leg. On 7.7.2000, he was operated for which, his father, Amar Singh paid Rs.10,000/- as fee to the opposite party-hospital. As Jaswant Singh/complainant was in the hospital, his father, Amar Singh was putting up in the opposite party-Hospital as attendant to look after his son. The opposite party-hospital has provided facility of water cooler for the patients/attendants etc. According to the complainant, the father of the patient, who was with his son in the hospital at the relevant time, went to bring some drinking water from the water cooler. When he was taking water, there was electric shock from the cooler as a result of which, Amar Singh, father of the patient died on 9.7.2000. The deceased person was sent to the Medical College, Agra by the opposite party where he was declared dead by the doctors. A written report was given to the concerned police station upon which, the police made panchnama of the dead body and thereafter the dead body was handed over to the complainants. Eight complainants including complainant No. 1, who is the widow of deceased, Amar Singh and complainant No. 3, son of the deceased, who was taking treatment in the opposite party-hospital, are legal heirs of the deceased person. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party-hospital, they filed a consumer complaint with the District Forum claiming a compensation of Rs.4,90,000/- from opposite party No. 2-Dr. Ravi Pachauri, who is reportedly the owner of the hospital. Upon being noticed, the opposite parties resisted the complaint and in the reply filed, it was denied that there was any electric current passing through the water cooler. It was also submitted that the deceased, Amar Singh had neither remained under treatment in the opposite party-hospital nor he was a consumer and hence the complaint was not maintainable and liable for dismissal.

On appraisal of the evidence and after hearing the parties, the District Forum allowed the complaint holding that the opposite parties were liable for deficiency in service in as much as the death of the father of the patient was due to electrocution on account of leakage of electricity in the water cooler of the hospital. Vide its order dated 19.09.2006, the District Forum awarded a compensation of Rs.3 lakh to the complainants who are all legal heirs of the deceased consumer, within 45 days and also to pay interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint on the amount of compensation. On an appeal by the opposite party-hospital, the State Commission vide its impugned order dated 13.1.2009 reversed the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint. It is against this order of the State Commission that the present revision petition has been filed by the complainants before this Commission.

WE have heard Mr. Shiv Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocate for the respondents. WE have also perused the documents placed on the paper book. WE find that the District Forum, after going through the facts of the case and the reports available to it, came to the conclusion that Amar Singh, who was in the hospital alongwith his ailing son had died because of the electric current flowing in the water cooler. It also held the deceased person as a consumer on the basis of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M/s Spring Meadows Hospital and another vs. Harjit Ahluwalia (AIR 1998 SC 1809). The State Commission vide its impugned order has, however, reversed the finding of the District Forum by holding that it was the son of the deceased-Amar Singh, who was undergoing treatment in the opposite party-hospital and admittedly, there was no allegation of medical negligence or deficiency in service committed by the opposite party-hospital in regard to his treatment. In such a situation, when the deceased-father of the patient was neither doing a job in the opposite party-hospital nor was himself a patient under any doctors guidance, no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 could be attributed to the opposite party-hospital with reference to his death. In its impugned order, the State Commission has made following observations in support of its view:- Allegation in regard accident commenced due to electric shock because electric current is running in any cooler which kept in Hospital, burden of proof of above allegation was goes on complainants, and this case could not disposed by the Ld. Forum in summary proceeding. For the above judicial scrutiny should be necessary of the detail evidence, which was possible in civil court. Not only this, report of First Information, Post mortem report or death certificate issued by any doctor would not supplied/produced to the appellant and without given opportunity to him for cross examination there is no propriety for admitting the complaint. Not only that in this case when first information report has drafted and lodged then investigating officer has conclude the investigation and hence on the basis of this investigation any conclusion could not drawn that such accident had committed in the hospital area or not and from such conclusion if complainants were not agree or aggrieved then it has to be require by him that they should avail and follow the criminal procedure code for getting justice, but above procedure did not adopted. Ld. Forum has passed the order in regard to awarding of compensation amount with any basis and against the provisions of consumer protection act, which is liable to be set aside after the judicial observation and consideration of above facts. Therefore, Appeal is liable to be admitted.

It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the deceased father of the patient who was with the patient is covered by the definition of consumer in the light of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the M/s Spring Meadow Hospital case (supra). The District Forum had, therefore, rightly held the opposite parties liable for payment of compensation on account of the negligence on their part in not maintaining the water cooler properly, which caused flowing of the current in the water cooler thereby causing the death of the father of the patient. So far the cause of death of Amar Singh is concerned, learned counsel submitted that when the death took place in the opposite party-hospital, it was for the opposite party-hospital to declare as to what was the cause of his death. The plea taken by the opposite parties-hospital that the post mortem was not carried out at the request of the heirs of the deceased, cannot be accepted because the hospital is owned by opposite party No. 2 and the signature of the complainants were fraudulently taken on the statement by opposite party-respondent No. 2. The statement of the witness and the report submitted by the police to the National Human Rights Commission, which closed the case because the matter was already pending before the consumer forum, should not leave any doubt in anybodys mind that the father of the patient died in the hospital while taking water from the water cooler and simply because there is no formal post mortem carried on the deceased person, it should not create doubt in this regard. In any case, he argued that the responsibility in this regard was much more on the opposite party-hospital to provide and declare the cause of the death of the person within its premises. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has reiterated that there is no evidence that the father of the complainant died of electrocution. He further submits that the post mortem was not carried out on the request of the complainants.

SO far as the question of deceased-Amar Singh being covered by the definition of consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is concerned, we find that the ratio laid down by the Apex court in M/s Spring Meadows Hospital case is squarely applicable to the present case and hence we agree with the view taken by the District Forum in this regard. The State Commission gravely erred in ignoring the same while reversing the order of the District Forum vide its impugned order. As regards the cause of death, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we agree with the finding of the District Forum and absence of formal post mortem report cannot create any doubt in this regard in the present case. We, therefore, allow the revision petition and set aside the impugned order. The order dated 19.9.2006 of the District Forum is upheld and confirmed. The parties shall bear their own costs.