SIR DORABJI TATA TRUST Vs. RAJESWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 31.08.2011, passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission ') in FA No. 279/2005, ''Sir Dorabji Tata Trust Aided Hospital Chottanikkara versus Rajeswari, '' vide which, while partly allowing appeal, the order dated 10.01.2005, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam, allowing the consumer complaint no. 294/2003 filed by the present respondent, was modified.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent is the widow of deceased Hariharan who is stated to have died due to rat fever (leptospirosis) on 16.12.2002. It is stated in the complaint that Hariharan, 50 years old, had body pain and fever on 10.12.2002, after he returned from work. He felt severe pain and high fever on 13.12.2002, whereupon he was taken to the petitioner hospital and admitted as inpatient. However, his physical condition deteriorated day by day. On 15.12.2012, the complainant wanted discharge of the patient for admitting him in Amrita Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre (AIMS). However, OP -4/Petitioner - 3 told his relatives that he did not find any reason to discharge the patient to be referred to Amrita Hospital. On 16.12.2004, after testing urine, blood and spit at about 1:30 AM, OP -4/Petitioner - 3 informed the complainants ' relatives that Hariharan was suspected to be infected by jaundice, for which there was no facility for treatment at their hospital. The complainant got the patient discharged at about 1:00_PM and brought him to Amrita Hospital around 2:00 PM on the same day. He was taken to the medical intensive care unit of the hospital, where after various tests, the patient was detected to be inflicted by rat fever (leptospirosis). His liver and kidney had been damaged irretrievably due to non -treatment for rat fever, and the patient died that very day at 10.05 PM. The complainant alleged that death could have been avoided, had the disease been detected at the petitioner hospital and treated in time. She filed the consumer complaint in question, requesting directions to the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lakh to the complainant, alongwith the cost of litigation.

(3.) THE District Forum, after taking into account the evidence of the parties before them, allowed the complaint in question. The present petitioners, who are OPs 1, 2 & 4 in the complaint were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2 lakh, jointly and severally, as compensation to the complainant alongwith Rs. 2,000/ - as cost. OP -3 Dr. Thanky was discharged, saying that she was a paediatrician and had not treated the patient. OP 1, 2 & 4 filed appeal before the State Commission against the order of the District Forum and the State Commission vide impugned order, modified the order of the District Forum and reduced the amount of compensation from Rs.2_lakh to Rs. 1 lakh, while retaining the cost of Rs. 2000/ -. It is against this order that the present petition has been made.