SHANMUGA HOSPITALS Vs. B JAGADESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant herein met with an accident while riding his two -wheeler. He was admitted in a hospital viz., the hospital of the opposite party. According to the complainant, the opposite party hospital has medico -legal facility and they have held out that immediately if a victim of accident is brought to the hospital they would take steps to get the case registered at the Police Station and also would arrange for the services of lawyers if necessary for pursuing insurance claim. Therefore, it is contended by the complainant that in his case the opposite party, who have held out that they have accident care and medico -legal centre or facility, have failed to inform the Police or report about the accident to the Police with the result that the complainant could not file a case before the Accident Claims Tribunal claiming compensation. Therefore, in that context, it is alleged that there is deficiency in service.

(2.) THE complainant relies upon the FIR relating to another case where such intimation was sent by the opposite party to the Police. Admittedly in this case, the opposite party has not chosen to send any intimation to the Police. The brochure and pamphlet issued by the opposite party clearly mentions of the fact that they have medico -legal facility and that they would inform the Police and also take necessary steps if so required by the injured for consultation with lawyers for making insurance claim or for preferring a case. Thus it is clear from the pamphlet produced by the complainant and from the facts of the case which are non -controverted that the complainant who was injured in an accident was rushed to the hospital of the opposite party for treatment where he was given treatment and later discharged. The opposite party has failed to intimate the Police Authorities though they have promised to do so. The contention of the opposite party that the complainant was not admitted for treatment in the hospital is belied by the documents Exs. A -1 to A5. Therefore, there is deficiency in service as pointed out by the lower Forum. The lower Forum has taken into consideration the relevant facts and has concluded that a sum of Rs. 2,000/ - would meet the ends of justice and accordingly granted the compensation. In the circumstances, the amount granted cannot be also be held to be on the high side.

(3.) THEREFORE , in such circumstances, we confirm the order passed by the lower Forum and dismiss the appeal but without cost.