INSCOL TERTIARY CARE HOSPITAL vs RAVI GHAI

THIS is an appeal filed against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh [hereinafter, for short, referred to as District Forum-II], dated 18.8.2004 in Complaint Case No. 406 of 2003, Dr. Ravi Ghai v. INSCOL Tertiary Care Hospital and Others.

THE complaint in brief is that Dr. Ravi Ghai and his wife Dr. Sarita Ghai took his mother to the O.P. Hospital when she suffered cardio pulmonary arrest at about 1.30 a.m. on the night intervening 22/23.6.2003. THEy took her in their car to the O.P. Hospital where she was declared ''brought dead'' by the doctor on examination. THE complainant hired an ambulance of the O.P. Hospital to shift the dead body to his residence at Panchkula. THE O.Ps. assured the complainant that due care and respect will be shown while transporting the dead body to his residence. It was also assured that the dead body will be covered with neat and clean bed sheets and it would be handled properly by two attendants/employees of the O.P. It was also assured that the driver would drive the ambulance carefully showing all respect to the dead body and the deceased family. However, the complainant, his wife and other members of the family of the complainant were shocked to see that no respect to the dead body, as promised, was shown. It is averred that there was only one attendant of O.P. Hospital, who tried to shift the dead body to the ambulance but since he could not handle the dead body properly the complainant and his family members had to lend a helping hand. It is also alleged that the driver of the ambulance rashly and negligently hit the ambulance into the car of the complainant''s wife, which was parked in front of the O.P. Hospital and when the complainant pointed out this to O.P. No. 3 (driver) he misbehaved, insulted and humiliated the complainant by blurting out that "AISA TO HOTA REHTA HAI". This remark, the complainant averred, injured the feelings of the complainant and his family members. It is also alleged that the driver of the ambulance i.e., O.P. No. 3 was not holding a valid driving licence and did not have adequate experience of driving. Terming the conduct of the O.Ps. as deficiency in service, the complainant has filed the complaint praying for the following reliefs: (a) Payment of Rs. 50,000/- for not providing assures services and causing humiliation, tension, mental pain, suffering, inconvenience and hurting the sentiments etc. (b) Payment of Rs. 11,000/- as litigation cost.

In their version the O.Ps. did not deny that the mother of the complainant was brought in dead. It was also not denied that the complainant hired the ambulance of the O.P. for a payment of Rs. 500/- for carrying the dead body to the complainant''s house. It is, however, stated that on knowing about the death of his mother, the complainant lost control and balance of mind. It is stated that the dead body was shifted with due respect and extra care in the ambulance to the residence of the complainant. It is also stated that O.P. No. 3 is not a driver but is a supervisor in the O.P. Hospital.

Learned District Forum-II while analysing the evidence observed that whereas the complainants had affirmed on oath their version, the O.Ps. on their part filed only the affidavit of Sh. Daljit Singh Gujral, Managing Director of O.P. No. 1. Even though all the material allegations are against Sh. Girish (O.P. No. 3), no affidavit of O.P. No. 3 has been filed and hence learned District Forum-II drew strong presumption against the O.Ps. It also observed that the complainant and his wife are respectable doctors and have no animus or oblique motive against the O.Ps. It also observed that the version of the O.Ps. that the complainant lost control and balance of his mind on hearing about the death of his mother is not plausible because the incident took place on 23.6.2003 whereas the complaint was filed on or about 8.10.2003. Thus believing the version of the complainants, learned District Forum-II held that deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. is proved and consequently directed the O.Ps. to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for deficiency in service and under all heads of compensation claimed by him along with Rs. 2,000/- as costs of litigation.

AGGRIEVED by this order, the O.Ps. have filed this appeal. The appeal was admitted only for the limited issue of discussing the amount of compensation being excessive. Record of the complaint case was summoned and notice of this limited issue was sent to the respondent. Mr. Rakesh Bhatia, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants/O.Ps. whereas Mr. Kasturi Lal, Advocate represented the respondent/complainant. Mr. Rakesh Bhatia, Advocate for the appellant submitted that the compensation awarded is on the higher side. He further submitted that the damages to the car of the wife of the complainant have been claimed by the complainant from M.A.C.T. and in view of the payment of the same, the award of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- is on the higher side and it should be reduced.

MR. Kasturi Lal, Advocate for the respondent/complainant in response submitted that the case does not pertain to the claim of damages to the car of the wife of the complainant and it pertains only to the disrespect shown to the dead body by the O.Ps. He justified the order being just, fair and legal and prayed for it being upheld. A perusal of the complaint clearly indicates that the prayer, at para 7 of the amended complaint, is for seeking compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000/- for non-provision of the assured services and causing humiliation, tension, mental pain, suffering, inconvenience and hurting the sentiments of the complainant. In addition litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 11,000/- have also been prayed. Under the circumstances, therefore, the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that damages for the repair of car of the wife of the complainant have been paid through M.A.C.T. case has no relevance. The claim regarding damage to the car of the wife of the complainant is entirely a separate issue and is not covered under the circumstances of this complaint. From the record we find that the O.Ps. have not been able to show by evidence that the following allegations made by the complainant are false or wrong. The deficiency in service pertains primarily to the following four points: "(i) Dead body was not covered properly as assured. (ii) Only one attendant/employee was provided to carry the dead body instead of two as assured by the O.Ps. (iii) The alone attendant could not properly handle the dead body in the process of shifting. (iv) O.P. No. 3 misbehaved, insulted and humiliated the complainant by his remarks "AISA TO HOTA REHTA HAI."

WE hold the similar view as that of the District Forum that because of the aforesaid actions of the O.Ps. due respect to the dead body was not shown by the O.Ps. and that it hurt the sentiments of the complainant and his family members. Though there is no mathematical yardstick to measure the compensation for such a deficiency in service, we are of the considered view that the compensation awarded by the District Forum, keeping in view the sensitive nature of the case, is just, fair and legal under the circumstances. WE, therefore, find no reasons to modify the compensation awarded or in any other manner to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. Consequently, the impugned judgment is upheld and the appeal is dismissed as it lacks merit. The parties are left to bear own costs of litigation. Copies of this order be communicated to the parties free of charges. Appeal dismissed.