SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. Balagangadharan Nair, President;
Mr. R. Ramachandran Nair & Smt. C.G. Sethu Lakshmi, Members
A.K. PIAS—Complainant
versus
KARITHAS HOSPITAL—Opposite Party
Complaint No. 44 of 1990—Decided on 23.1.1991

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12/18 - Alleged death of patient as result of doctors negligent treatment - Deceaseds brother filed complaint, claiming compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs - Opposite party detailed treatment and disowned responsibility for death - No case of negligence made out against doctors who attended deceased - Complainant fails to prove his case - Whether com plaint liable to be dismissed? (Yes). (Paras 1 & 3)

       Result: Complaint dismissed.

ORDER

Mr. Justice G. Balagangadharan Nair, President — The complaint’s brother one Jacob was bitten by a poisoness Cobra (Anali) on 17.9.1989 at about 12.45 PM. He was admitted to the opposite party’s hospital, by name Karithas Hospital, Thellakom P.O., Kottayam District at about 2.30 PM the same day. Despite the treatment given to him there he died in the Hospital itself. The complainant alleges that the death was due to the negligent treatment given to him by the doctors in the Hospital. According to him Jacob was the sole supporter of the family consisting of himself, his father and sister and by his premature death (he was only 21) the family has been rendered destitute. He therefore claims compensation of 10 Lakhs of rupees from the opposite party. Pursuant to the notice the opposite party entered appearance and filed his version denying the negligence attributed to him and the hospital. He was detailed the treatment given to Jacob and disowned responsibility for Jacob’s death.

2. The case was thereafter posted for evidence. After taking two adjournments the case came up for hearing on 8.1.1991. At the hearing it was represented by the complainant that he might be given a chance to examine witnesses and to engage a counsel. By way of indulgence we granted this request and posted the case to 21.1.1991. On that day he appeared and filed a statement that despite his best efforts he was not able to procure the assistance of any competent doctor to give evidence, that the doctors whom he contracted were reluctant to give evidence against their brother doctors and a medical institution. He also submitted that he was unable to engage any counsel.

3. In these circumstances we have to dispose of the case on the materials on record. There is nothing to show that the doctors who attended on Jacob were in-different or negligent in the treatment or that Jacob died on account of their professional negligence. The complainant on his showing was unable to establish the case of negligence. We have thereafter to hold that he has not proved his case and that the complaint has only to be dismissed.”

4. We dismiss the complaint. No costs.

Complaint dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top