IMPORTANT POINT
Trial of criminal cases against Opposite Party is no ground for stay of proceedings before Consumer Fora.

D.K. Jain, J. President—All these sixteen complaints u/s 21 (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, “the Act”), against AMRI Hospital, Kolkata, arise out of the same incident of fire, in which a large number of human lives were lost and perhaps equal number of the patients had suffered grievous injuries. Therefore, all these complaints are being dealt with by this common order. However, in order to appreciate the controversy, the facts are taken from CC No. 383 of 2013.

2. As per the averments in the complaints, filed by the Legal Heirs/Authorized Representatives of some of the patients, who perished in the fire, on 09.12.2011, at around 02.00 a.m, there was fire in the basement of the Annexe Building of the Hospital, meant for car parking. However, it was being used for storage of highly combustible items, like chemical waste, diesel, oxygen cylinders etc. Because of such inflammable material, the fire spread, emitting poisonous smoke, which got circulated in the entire Building through the Air Conditioning ducts. The fire could not be controlled by the security personnel on duty. On being informed, the night administrator, instructed the security to close the collapsible door at the entrance of the Annexe Building; on being contacted by some patients, the fire brigade reached the spot around 4.00 a.m.; neither the relatives of the patients were permitted to enter the Hospital nor the patients were allowed to leave the Hospital as they were required to clear the outstanding bills before leaving the Hospital. A large number of patients died due to Asphyxia caused by the poisonous gas. The bodies were brought out of the building by the fire brigade, around 6.30 a.m. and were sent for post-mortem.

3. It is alleged that there were gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Hospital because: i) the security personnel on duty did not immediately call the fire brigade for assistance; (ii) the fire brigade reached the spot after two hours of noticing of fire and that too when a call was made to them by a patient; iii) the fire alarms and sprinklers, mandatory in such kind of multi-storeyed buildings, did not function at the time of fire as these were either switched off or were not installed properly; iv) insistence of the staff of the Hospital in clearing the outstanding bills at that crucial stage before leaving the Hospital, was not only inhuman, it resulted in loss of human lives; v) the hospital staff, including the nurses on duty, did not make any attempt to take care and guide the patients, some of them being in critical condition and unable to move; and (vi) to facilitate some fresh air coming in and emergency exit for those trapped inside, the glass panes were not broken by the staff.

4. For the sake of ready reference, break up of amounts claimed in the Complaints as pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages under different heads, with details of the age, source of income, complainant’s relationship with them, in respect of each of the victims.

5. Upon notice, Written Versions have been filed on behalf of the Hospital/Opposite Party refuting the allegations made in each of the Complaints on merits. By way of preliminary objections, the Hospital has raised the question of the maintainability of the Complaints before this Commission, inter-alia on the grounds that: (i) various other proceedings, civil and criminal in nature, arising out of the same set of facts are under adjudication before other courts of law and therefore, disclosure of its defence in the Complaints would cause serious prejudice to the rights of the Hospital and (ii) the claims made are highly exaggerated, fanciful, without any basis, vague and artificially jacked up so as to bring the Complaints within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. It is, thus, pleaded that the Complaints are liable to be dismissed on these short grounds.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of admission of the Comp