P.S. GOVINDARAJAN vs GENERAL MANAGER, INTEGRAL COACH FACTORY

THIS is a complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

THE substance of the complainant''s case is this : THE complainant is a retired Shop Superintendent in the Integral Coach Factory, Madras. He lives in the Railway Colony. On 18-2-1988, his wife Smt. Hemavathy suffered a heart attack. On telephonic information, the ambulance attached to the Railway Hospital came to his residence at 4.50 p.m. and picked her up. THE Van reached the hospital at 5 p.m. THE complainant''s wife was given intensive treatment in the Intensive Care Unit for 15 minutes, but she collapsed at 5.15 p.m. THE grievance of the complainant is that the ambulance van did not have Oxygen Respirator and if the complainant''s wife had been put on Oxygen in the Van, she would have survived. He has there corne forward with this claim for compensation. The opposite parties resisted the claim. It is contended that the complainant''s wife died on 18-2-1988 and this complaint filed on 13-7-1992 is hopelessly barred by time. On merits it is averred that the complainant''s wife was a known Diabetic for 15 years, Hypertensive for 5 years developing Diabetic Neuropathy subsequently for 3 years and Hyper Cholestyalaemic for 2 years, before her demise. The complainant''s wife took ill at 4.40 p.m. on 18-2-1988 and on the advice of the doctor staying in the Railway Quarters, ambulance reached her house at 4.50 p.m. and took her to the Intensive Care Unit of the Railway Hospital at 5.00 p.m. Her condition was critical with acute Myocardial Infraction and Pulmonary Oedema. A panel of doctors and nurses made all their efforts by providing Oxygen intra venous injection, artificial respiration etc. to revive her, but she expired at 5.15 p.m. It is denied that the non-provision of Oxygen cylinder in the ambulance van was the cause of her death. The Oxygen cylinder in the Van was removed for replacement and repair of leak in the flow meter, and as the call was so urgent the ambulance left for the patient''s house without waiting for the cylinder. There has been no deficiency of service or negligence.

Exhibits A1 to A3 and B1 are marked. No oral evidence has been let in.

THE first question that arise for determination is whether the claim is in time. THE complainant''s wife suffered a massive heart attack on 18-2-1988 and died soon after on that day. THE claim against the opposite parties is that they sent an ambulance van without the Oxygen cylinder and this amounted to gross deficiency of service and negligence. Under the residuary Article 113 of the Limitation Act of 1963, the suit has to be filed within 3 years from the date when the right to sue accrues. THE right to sue has accrued in this case on 18-2-1988 and the complaint filed in July, 1992 is hopelessly barred by time. THE complaint must fail on this sole ground. On merits too the claim is totally unsustainable. The complainant''s wife who is a known Diabetic has suffered a massive heart attack at about 4.40 p.m. on 18-2-1988. The Ambulance Van of the Railway Hospital has been sent for and it has arrived at her residence at 4.50 p.m. She has been taken in the Van and admitted in the Intensive Care Unit of the Hospital at 5 p.m., within 10 minutes. A panel of doctors has struggled to revive her, but in vain and she passed away at 5.15 p.m. The only allegation is that the Ambulance Van was not fitted with Oxygen Cylinder and had she been put on Oxygen Cylinder while in the Van, she would have survived. This contention itself is not acceptable, for within 10 minutes she has been taken to the hospital, where the best available treatment has been meted out to her, but in vain. The explanation offered by the opposite parties for the non-provision of Oxygen Cylinder in the Van is that the cylinder was leaky and was therefore removed for repairs and it is at this time the call for the Van has come and because of the urgency of the matter, the Ambulance Van was sent to the house to pick her up. It cannot therefore be said that there was negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in sending the Ambulance Van without the Oxygen Cylinder. The claim must therefore fail.

IN the result the complaint fails and is dismissed, but without costs. Complaint dismissed.