LAWS(NCD)-2012-1-21

NIHAL DEVI Vs. RAVI HOSPITAL DELHI GATE

Decided On January 10, 2012
NIHAL DEVI Appellant
V/S
RAVI HOSPITAL DELHI GATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.