NEEL KAMAL Vs. VIDYA NIKETAN BIRLA PUBLIC SCHOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS complaint has been filed by a minor Neel Kamal through his guardian and Kishan Lal his father and Smt. Alka, his mother under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties claiming a total compensation of Rs.19,10,000/ - as detailed in para 22 of the complaint.

(2.) THE case of the complainants is that Neel Kamal was admitted in the O. P. educational institution i. e. , Vidya Niketan Birla Public School, Pilani in the year 1995 in Class I Junior. After being declared passed in the said class, he was promoted and admitted to the Class I Senior in the teaching session of 1996 -97. That for getting the education in the aforesaid two classes, he was charged by the OPs a total amount of Rs.41,350/ - in the teaching session of 1995 -96 and Rs.23,000/ - in the teaching session of 1996 -97. It is further the case of the complainants that Neel Kamal was also admitted in the hostel of the said institution and that it was the duty of the management of the institution to teach as well as of the hostel; to look after his welfare and also of his boarding and lodging arrangements. According to the complainants, Neel Kamal fell sick on 18.8.1996 whereupon he was taken to the sick -room of the Hostel and there he was given an injection in one of his legs. The complainants alleged that after the injection, Neel Kamal felt severe pain but the attendants and management -personnel of the O. Ps. did not pay any attention to the severity and illness of the child and when after 7 days, an information was received by some employee of the O. Ps. on telephone; to the effect that some injury has been caused to Neel Kamal, they should, therefore, meet on 26.8.1996 in J. K. Lon Hospital (Mother and Child Hospital), Jaipur. It is the grievance of the complainants that when they reached J. K. Lon Hospital, they found the child Neel Kamal in severe pain and crying and was told that the OPs have not paid any attention and heed to his illness and that no proper treatment was made available to him. The parents of Neel Kamal i. e. , complainant Nos.2 and 3 thereupon took the matter of the treatment of their child in their hands and got him treated in SDM Hospital, Jaipur. According to the complainants, it was opined by the SDM Hospital's Doctors that Neel Kamal was not given proper and adequate medical treatment and that has resulted into the deterioration of the condition of the child and ultimately resulted in his inability to even walk properly whereas he has been an intelligent and athletic child and has won many prizes. The complainants, therefore, alleging that not only they have to spend lakhs of rupees on the treatment of their child Neel Kamal but also that child has become virtually incapable for whole of his life because of the carelessness, negligence and improper treatment afforded by the OPs to him at Pilani and also not giving timely intimation to them about the illness of the child on 18.8.1996 itself. The complainants, therefore, have sought a compensation at Rs.10 lakhs on account of physical suffering and mental agony for the rest of the life of the child Neel Kamal ; 4 lakhs on account of physical and mental agony suffered by the parents i. e. , complainant Nos.2 and 3; Rs.1 lakh spent as Misc. expenses for travelling and stay in the hotels, etc. and Rs.10,000/ - as cost of litigation to be realised from the O. Ps.

(3.) THE O. Ps. have resisted the complaint by filing a written version. The stand of the O. Ps. has been that the child Neel Kamal was properly attended to and treated after he complained of his illness on 18.8.1996 itself and when even after being admitted in the local hospital at Pilani, he could not be cured he was directed to be taken to J. K. Lon Hospital, Jaipur and due intimation was sent to the parents of the child through one of the friends of the child since in the admission form of Neel Kamal, there was no Telephone No. given by the guardians. It has also been denied that the complainants are entitled for the compensation sought for by them in the complaint mainly because as per terms of agreement particularly term No.4 of the agreement entered into between the parties at the time of getting the child admitted, the O. Ps. could not be held responsible for indemnification in case of any injury, illness, accident or loss to the child. It has, therefore, been urged that the complaint is false and baseless and should be rejected with costs in their favour.