SAROJ DIKSHA Vs. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal has been filed by Smt. Saroj Diksha (Appellant No.1), widow of Late Dr. Prashant Kumar Vedalankar (hereinafter referred to as the Patient) and their children (Appellants No.2 and 3) and original complainants before the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) being aggrieved by the order of that Commission which had dismissed their complaint of deficiency in service against International Airports Authority of India and others (Respondents herein).

(2.) In her complaint before the State Commission, Appellant No.1 contended that her late husband alongwith a group of about 100 persons was to travel by Air India Flight No. AI-112 on 01.12.1993 to participate in the Fourth World Hindi Conference at Mauritius between 2nd to 4th of December, 1993. Appellant No.1 accompanied her husband alongwith some relatives to see him off at the Airport. After checking in and near the immigration counter, the Patient fell down on the floor gasping for breath and a doctor arrived after 15 minutes and after examining the Patient administered two injections and also directed for an ambulance and stretcher to take him for further treatment to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi. Appellant No.1 and some relatives accompanied the Patient in the ambulance alongwith a Medical Assistant. However, when the attendant in the ambulance wanted to administer oxygen to the Patient, he could not do so because there was no oxygen in the cylinder. The attendant, therefore, tried to give him oral resuscitation, which was not effective. On arrival at the AIIMS, the Patient was examined by doctor and after 15 minutes he was declared dead. According to Appellant No.1, her husband's premature death occurred because of the negligence on the part of Respondents, who did not ensure that the required medical facilities are available to the passengers and visitors. Therefore, alleging that the Respondents were jointly and severally liable for the death of the Patient due to their negligence and deficiency in service, Appellants filed a complaint before the State Commission and requested that she be given a compensation of Rs.13,10,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing the complaint as also cost and damages of Rs.50,000/-. It was specifically stated that her husband was drawing a consolidated salary of Rs.10,902/- as also other perquisites, as indicated in the salary certificate placed before the State Commission.

(3.) The allegations of the Appellants were denied by the Respondents. It was contended that on receipt of information that a passenger had fallen on the ground, the Medical Officer on duty alongwith a Medical Assistant fully equipped with a first aid kid rushed to the site within 2 to 3 minutes and on examination of the Patient it was noted that neither his blood pressure nor pulse was recordable. Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation, which was already being given to the Patient by co-passengers, was continued by the Medical Officer with the help of a Medical Assistant for about 15 minutes. In between, two life-saving injections were also administered and though the Patient was clinically dead, on the insistence of the Patient's relatives, it was decided to shift him to AIIMS. An ambulance was immediately summoned by the Respondent (Airports Authority of India) and the Patient was taken to AIIMS in the ambulance accompanied by a qualified Medical Assistant. It is not correct that the oxygen cylinder was empty and even in the ambulance all efforts were made through oral resuscitation to revive the Patient. The Patient was declared dead at AIIMS although, as stated earlier, he was clinically dead by the time the Medical Officer had attended to him within minutes of his having fallen down near the immigration counter. In view of the above facts, there was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of Respondents.