PRABHAKAR SETHI Vs. BIRDHI CHAND MEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the opposite parties is directed against the order dated 21.5.2002 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rajasthan, Jaipur partly allowing the complaint filed by the respondent with direction to the petitioners to pay compensation of Rs. 3 lakh within a period of three months from the date of the order failing which interest at certain rate was to be further paid on the awarded amount.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this appeal lie in a narrow compass. Smt. Gyarsi, wife of the respondent who was suffering from acute diarrhoea, was admitted for treatment in appellant No. 2-Nursing Home run by appellant No. 1 during the intervening night of 26th and 27th June, 1998. Appellants charged Rs. 1,000 towards advance. Respondent alleged that appellant No. 1 did not attend to his wife after checking in the morning on 27.6.1998. On inquiry why appellant No. 1 had not attended to his wife after the morning on 27.6.1998; Kana Ram, compounder told that appellant No. 1 had gone to the market. On 28.6.1998, the condition of the wife of respondent became serious. She stopped urinating and her stomach swelled. Kana Ram and Chhitar, compounders of appellant No. 1 went on administering medicines to her. Watchman informed the respondent that appellant No. 1 had gone out of station. At about 9.30 p.m. on 28.6.1998, Smt. Gyarsi became unconscious. Compounders told the respondent that she would recover after the medicines given, start showing their effect. However, her condition started deteriorating further. Therefore, on 30.6.1998 she was taken in a jeep to Bhandari Hospital and Research Centre where she died on 1.7.1998. Respondent also stated that he was not permitted to take his wife earlier to some other hospital by the said compounders. Alleging negligence, complaint was filed claiming compensation of Rs. 6 lakh against both the appellants. In the written version, it was admitted that Smt. Gyarsi was admitted in appellant No. 2 Nursing Home by her relatives around 3.30 a.m. on 27.6.1998. She was suffering from severe dehydration four+ and her condition was highly critical. She started responding to the treatment given by appellant No. 1. Appellant No. 1 examined her at 2.00 p.m. on 27.6.1998 and as he was to leave for Jodhpur in the evening, he discharged her and referred to SMS Hospital, Jaipur. On return from Jodhpur on 30.6.1998, appellant No. 1 learnt that the relatives of Smt. Gyarsi had taken her from the Nursing Home on 28.6.1998. They had left a person to look after the belongings lying in Nursing Home. Those belongings were collected after making payment of Rs. 1,000 leaving a balance amount of Rs. 240 on 30.6.1998. It was denied that there was any negligence/deficiency in service on the part of the appellants as alleged.

(3.) It is admitted by both the parties that Smt. Gyarsi was admitted in appellant No. 2 Nursing Home for treatment on the intervening night of 26 and 27th June, 1998 and appellant No. 1 left for Jodhpur sometime in the evening on 27.6.1998. Respondent alleged that in the morning of 30.6.1998, Smt. Gyarsi was shifted to Bhandari Hospital and Research Centre where she died on 1.7.1998. There is dispute between the parties at what time on 27.6.1998. Smt. Gyarsi was examined by appellant No. 1; if she was discharged and referred to SMS Hospital on 27.6.1998 and whether she continued to receive treatment in appellant No. 2 Nursing Home till she was shifted to Bhandari Hospital and Research Centre on 30.6.1998. Respondent alleged that his wife was lastly examined by appellant No. 1 in the morning on 27.6.1998. However, the appellant No. 1 alleged that he examined her at about 2.00 p.m. on 27.6.1998. Further, the respondent alleged that in the absence of appellant No. 1 his wife was treated by two compounders of the appellants. However, the appellants alleged that Smt. Gyarsi left the Nursing Home in the morning on 28.6.1998. In regard to payment of Rs. 1,000 admittedly received from the respondent on 30.6.1998, the explanation given by the appellant was that as the dues were not paid at the time of shifting Smt. Gyarsi some of the belongings of respondent were retained and those were returned on making payment of the said amount. In para 10 of his affidavit filed by way of evidence, the respondent has averred that appellant No. 1 while going out of station had left his wife at the mercy of the compounders who continued to give medicines to her and her condition further deteriorated and Exhibit A-4 collectively is the slip prescribing medicines issued by the compounders and Exhibit A-5 collectively is the bills for purchase of medicines. Copies of slips are placed at pages 62 and 63 while that of the bills at pages 64 and 65 on the paper book. It was pointed out by Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellants that the slips Exhibit A-4 are not on the stationary of Nursing Home nor the bills Exhibit A-5 are signed on behalf of the medical store and some of them even do not bear the date of issue. To be noted that Kana Ram Choudhary and/or Vimal Kumar Pradhan @ Chhitar, compounders have not denied in their affidavits that the slips Exhibit A-4 are not in their handwriting. In absence of such a denial, there seems to be no reason to disbelieve the averment made in said para 10 of the affidavit in regard to slips being issued by these compounders. Said bills (numbering 5) issued by White-cross Medical Agencies wherein the name of the patient is noted as Gyarsi, pertain to the period upto 29.6.1998. Out of 5 bills, only a bill bearing serial No. 931 does not bear the date. Bill subsequent to this bill bearing serial No. 932 bears the date as 28.6.1998. Thus, no importance can be attached to the non-mentioning of date on said bill bearing serial No. 931. These bills are printed and have the complete address of the said medical store. In case the appellants doubted purchase of the medicines mentioned therein, it was open to them to have applied for issuance of summons to seek presence of the proprietor of the medical store for the purpose of verification of genuineness thereof which course of action was not adopted by the appellants. This covers the objection of the bills not being signed.