By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
1. The complaint in short is as follows: -
The complaint was filed by Pathummu who met with a road traffic accident on 21/02/2018 at Thalakadathur by hitting a car bearing registration No. KL/10/60 A-5660. She died on 09/08/2021 due to ailments and the sole legal heir Mr Mohammad Ali impleaded in the complaint. Immediately after the accident the original complainant Pathummu was taken to opposite party hospital and treated their as inpatient for 12 days. She sustained huge expenses on various accounts during the period of treatment. The complainant was not totally recovered from injuries at the time of discharge and so she was taken to the residence with the help of bystanders. She could not receive treatment records while she was discharged from the hospital. Actually, she was not aware of the necessity of treatment records.
2. While the complainant was preparing an application to get compensation under Motor Vehicles Act the lawyer concerned asked about the documents and only that time, she came to know importance of the documents above mentioned. She was in need of the documents to file claim before the concerned Authority. The complainant approached opposite party several times but refused to issue the documents.
3. The complainant submits that she had paid consideration properly during the period of treatment. She claims that she is entitled for the original as well as duplicate copies of documents from the opposite parties. The denial of the same by the opposite party is against the spirit of Consumer Protection Act and also against directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court.
4. The complainant was being highly tired due to age and ailments; she was not able to go and collect documents from the opposite party. Hence the complainant issued notice on 9/10/2018 demanding the documents. But the opposite parties did not issue reply to notice nor issued documents. The complainant is afraid of the fact that her claim for compensation may be dismissed want of documents and non-availability of documents results huge loss to the complainant. The delay in obtaining documents causes inconvenience and hardships to the complainant. Hence the prayer of the complainant is that she may be given discharge card, medical bills, treatment certificates and also compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only).
5. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party and the opposite party entered appearance and filed version.
6. The opposite party denied the entire averments and allegations in the complaint.
7. The opposite party admitted that the complainant was treated at their hospital as inpatient for 12 days. But denied that, she omitted to receive discharge card, e-cash bills, treatment certificate and records are not correct and so denied. The opposite party submitted that all the treatment records including bills and discharge card was issued to the sister of the complainant and the complainant wilfully hiding the fact. It is submitted that the contention of the complainant that she approached opposite party several times and refused to issue the documents are baseless. It is submitted that the duplicate copy of discharge card is not possible to issue to the complainant. The opposite party is prepared to issue copy of e cash bills. The statement of the complainant that after receipt of documents which has not received is a statement without any bonafide. The opposite party submitted that they are not liable for missing of the documents from the complainant. The filing of complaint after receipt of discharge card and e-cash bill is not legally maintainable. The opposite party is not legally liable to issue duplicate copies even then they are prepared to issue a duplicate copy to the complainant. But it is the practice that not keeping the copy of discharge card in the hospital and so it is not practical to issue a duplicate copy to complainant and the same was duly informed to the complainant.
8. The statement that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is not correct and there is no such deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. There is no basis for the statement of the complainant that she is entitled for duplicate or original of treatment documents. The statement of the complainant that due to absence of documents complaint will be dismissed from M.A.C.T Court is not correct. There is no basis for the claim and complaint, hence complaint be dismissed.
9. The complainant and opposite party filed affidavit and documents. The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A8 and documents on the side of opposite party marked as Ext. B1 to B5. Ext. A1 is Photocopy of cheque worth Rs. 40,000/- dated 3/3/2018, Ext. A2 is lawyer notice issued by Advocate Abdul Ahad K dated 08/10/2018, Ext.A3 is reply notice issued by Advocate Haris Nediyodath dated 12/10/2018, Ext. A4 is lawyer notice issued by Advocate Abdul Ahad dated 25/09/2018, Ext. A5 is Lawyer notice issued by Advocate Sankaran T.R Dated 1/10/2018, Ext. A6 is copy of FIR No. 502/2018, Tirur Police Station, Ext. A7 is Wound Certificate of Pathummu dated 21/2/2018, Ext. A8 is Notice issued by Pathummu dated 09/10/2018. Ext. B1 is copy of petition with proceedings in PLP No.733/2017 of Tirur Taluk Legal Services Committee. Ext.B2 series are medical bills issued by opposite party, Ext.B3 is the photocopy of reply notice dated 25/09/2018, Ext.B4 is the copy of duplicate discharge card, Ext. B5 is the copy of e-cash bill issued by Al-Noor hospital.
10. The grievance of the complainant in short is that the opposite party did not issue discharge card, medical bills and treatment certificate of the complainant on repeated demands. The case of the opposite party is that they had provided the original bills, discharge card and other documents pertaining to the treatment to the bystander who was learned to be the sister of the petitioner. The opposite party expressed their willingness to provide duplicate copy of the documents as prayed. The opposite party stated that they are unable to provide duplicate copy of the discharge card as they never used to keep duplicate copy of the same. But the opposite party has taken an effort to re-create a hand written duplicate of the discharge card and has produced before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
11. The vehement contention of the opposite party is that the original petitioner who subsequently died pending the complaint was not in good terms with the present complainant Mr. Muhammed Ali, but they were in inimical terms also. The opposite party produced Ext.B1 document which is pertaining to PLP 733/2017 preferred by deceased Pathummu against the present complainant Muhammed Ali. The prayer in the petition was to restrain the present complainant and his wife from evicting Pathummu from her house and the allegation was Mr. Muhammed Ali and his wife forcefully entered into her house. The perusal of proceeding sheet discloses the several date of posting commencing from 14/01/2018 to 28/6/2018. On 28/06/2018 it is noted in the proceedings that both parties present, matter discussed and not settled. It is also noted therein that no scope for settlement, hence closed. It can be seen that the deceased complainant Pathummu met with an accident on 21/2/2018. So, it is certain that during the period of accident and treatment of diseased Pathummu, the complainant Mr. Muhammed Ali and deceased Pathummu was not at all in good terms, but was in inimical terms. So Mr. Muhammed Ali is not expected to be along with Pathummu during the Period of treatment. There is no averment in the complaint that who was maintaining the complainant during the period of treatment and who was providing support to the deceased Pathummu. The opposite party also stated that the complainant Pathummu never turned to appear physically before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The complaint seen filed with thump impression. It is to be noted that the physical appearance before this Commission is not necessary and there is no defect in filing a complaint putting thump impression. Mr. Muhammed Ali the present complainant submitted before the Commission that deceased Pathummu was suffering from serious ailments which led to her last breath.
12. The entire facts and circumstances shows that the complainant was not aware of the transactions took place during the hospitalisation period of deceased Pathummu. The specific case of the opposite party is that they were issued the original documents to the bystander of the complainant. If that being the position, we do not find merit in the contention of the Muhammed Ali that, the opposite party never issue original documents of treatment. It can be also seen that the diseased Pathummu was cared bystanders like Cherattayil Salma and like others. So, it can be seen that the contention of the complaint and the notice B3 issued by the complainant to the so called salma is contradictory regarding the issuance of treatment records.
13. In the light of facts and circumstances we do not find merit in the complaint. The complainant Mr. Muhammed Ali is at liberty to get duplicate, hand written discharge copy and e-cash bills from this Commission on proper application within reasonable time. We are of the view that a patient is entitled for the treatment records from the hospital as stated by the complainant. But in this complaint, we do not find that the opposite party has not issued treatment records, discharge card and medical bills as stated in the complaint and also, we do not find deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence, we dismiss the complaint.
Dated this 19th day of January 2022
