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

WEST BENGAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Manojit Mandal, President and Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Pratibha Deepti and Ors. —Complainants
versus
Amri Hospitals —Opp. Party
Complaint Case No.CC/129 of 2013
Decided on 18.10.2022

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainants:Mr. Avik Das and Mrs. Koyeli Mukhopadhyay, Advocates
For the Opp. Party:Mr. Atish Ghosh, Mr. Souvik Ghosh, Sovanlal Bera, Ahish Ghosh and Arandum Chandra, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Deemed admission - The deemed admission of the opposite party hospital in their written version includes the admission of the plea in the plaint regarding negligence committed by the opposite party hospital.
(2) Quantum of Compensation - In the medical negligence cases, the quantum of Compensation is highly subjective in nature as the human life is most precious.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.17[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 —S.47(1)] – Services – Medical Negligence – Death of deceased - Deemed admission – On part of Opposite Party – Proof of absolute Negligence - Quantum of Compensation awarded - The brief facts of the case are that all the complainants are the legal heirs of the deceased, who suffered an untimely death and lost his precious life at the utter negligence and deficiency in service rendered by the opposite party – On facts, there is no specific denial of the complaint averments in the written version filed by the opposite party. The deemed admission of the opposite party hospital in their written version includes the admission of the plea in the plaint regarding negligence committed by the opposite party hospital. Therefore, it may clearly be concluded that the opposite party has admitted the case of the complainant by not denying the same specifically in their written objection. Therefore, it is proved beyond all reasonable doubts that the opposite party hospital was absolutely negligent in their duties towards the deceased – Thus, such negligence was palpable in nature. It is also proved by way of admission that the deceased had suffered tremendously as the loss of the patient to the complainants can never be fulfilled - In the medical negligence cases, the quantum of Compensation is highly subjective in nature as the human life is most precious - In the instant case, the Complainants claimed Rs. 46 lakh on the basis that the deceased was 45 years old and was working as a subordinate engineer in Bharat Cooking Coal Limited - The deceased left two minor daughters and one married daughter who were deprived of paternal care, love and affection. The wife ( complainant No. 4) lost consortium. Thus, Commission is of the considered view that the Complainants in the ends of justice will get Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees forty five lakh) only which is just and proper compensation - Opposite Party hospital is directed to pay a total sum of Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees forty five lakh) only to the complainants. The Complainant No. 4 shall keep Rs.22,50,000/- in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank in the names of two minor daughters (complainant No. 1 and complainant No. 2) in equal portions till they attain the age of 18 years – Compliant allowed. [Paras 35 to 40]

Result: Compliant allowed.

ORDER

Manojit Mandal, President—By this complaint case, the complainants who are the legal heirs of the deceased Siya Ram who suffered an untimely death, claiming the following reliefs:—

(i) The opposite party hospital be directed to pay a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- as compensation for the negligent service provided for by the opposite parties.

(ii) The opposite parties be further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for the mental pain, physical pain the complainants had suffered and will suffer through life.

(iii) Cost of Rs.11,000/- to the present complaint.

(iv) Any further order or orders as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper.

2. The brief facts of the case are that all the complainants are the legal heirs of the deceased Siya Ram, who suffered an untimely death and lost his precious life at the utter negligence and deficiency in service rendered by the opposite party. The said Siya Ram, since deceased, was suffering from some neurological problems and, as such, was admitted at AMRI, the opposite party hospital, on 5th December, 2011, as per the advice of the Doctors. The necessary prescription and test reports were deposited with the opposite party hospital for their reference and further treatment and the same has not yet been returned by the opposite party hospital till date. The complainants had paid hospital charges. The deceased Siya Ram was allotted in room no. 2353 of the annex building, which was constructed in the year 2004, after 8 years from the date of commencement of the operation of the main hospital building. The opposite party started the operation of the hospital service in the annex building from 2004 but without any proper safety measures. The said annex building had a huge garage space of 6000 sq. ft. approximately on the ground floor but the same was used as storage space where medical equipments and highly combustible items like medical wastes, diesel, oxygen cylinders, cotton etc. were stored. Most of the said items were inflammable and were highly prone to cause disaster at the time of fire.

3. Further case of the complainants is that the annex building hospital of the opposite party neglected to obtain the fire license which had expired on 29th September, 2011. The opposite party was carrying out the hospital services with a total bed capacity of 160 patients and highly inflammable chemicals stored at the basement of the annex building without any fire license. The continuation of the functioning of the hospital without any fire license is a prima facie act of negligence. The construction of the building was as such that there were no ventilators, ducts in the area to pass through in case of air conditioner malfunctions. The opposite party hospital ignored these rules as a result of which all the 92 victims at the hospital choked to death. It is further stated that the floor below the ground floor had no access through stairs and can only be accessed by lift, as the only small stairs were permanently locked. In the opposite party hospital the stairs leading to the floor below the ground floor were permanently locked which is an act of negligence on the part of the hospital. The opposite party hospital was carrying out hospital services and rendering medical treatments to critical, surgical, immobile as well as normal patients in a construction / building without any legal sanction and was running the same without proper license which is itself an act of unfair trade practice as the patient and their relatives had got their patients admitted, believing that the opposite party hospital had proper license to run the hospital.

4. Further case of the complainants is that on 9th December, 2011, at around 2 a.m. there was a fire at the ground floor garage space below the annex building of the opposite party hospital. Due to the deliberate negligence of the opposite party, inflammable objects caught fire and released poisonous gases and got circulated throughout the annex building via the a

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