Date of Filing:12.01.2021

Date of Disposal:08.05.2023

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BENGALURU

1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027.

ORDER

SRI CHANDRASHEKAR.S.NOOLA, MEMBER

1. In accordance with Section 35 of the 2019 Consumer Protection Act, the complainant has submitted this complaint. The complainant requests this Commission to direct the opposite party to reimburse the complainant for Rs.5 lakh in medical expenditures, plus interest from August 30, 2018, until the day of realization, at a rate of 9%. To pay Rs.15 lakhs as compensation for the complainant's and her family members' suffering, as well as Rs.40,000/- as court costs.

2. The following are the complaint's key facts: 

According to the complaint, CADABAM's Amitha Centre for Psychosocial Rehabilitation, which was established and organized to assist people with mental disabilities, On October 28, 2017, the complainant admitted her husband, Shri Nelson Anthony Braganza, to the rehabilitation facility of the opposite party (hereafter referred to as "OP"). Shri Nelson Anthony Braganza is an elderly person with a behavienced disability. After the patient was admitted, the complainant began paying the OP Rs.39,000/- per month for the patient's lodging and other expenditures. The complainant's daughter had contributed Rs. 1,00,000/- for the patient's admission.

3.  The center's personnel informed the complainant on August 24, 2018, that her husband had suffered burns while carrying a hot water bath. In an email sent to the complainant's daughter by the centre, it was mentioned that a caretaker was required, but when the daughter inquired as to the reason no response was given. Furthermore, it is claimed that the complainant's spouse was admitted to the hospital for basic care on August 30, 2018, or six days after the incident. It is further claimed that a member of the center's staff told the complaint that although her husband's injury was relatively minor and only resulted in burns to his hand, it also severely burned his stomach.

4.  Due to his mental disability, the complainant’s husband has a low IQ and is incapable of managing his own household duties. The Centre acted negligently, failed to perform its obligation, and disregarded the complainant's spouse by permitting him to carry hot water for a bath. The Centre had not given the complainant any information regarding the treatment or the hospital. The cost of the treatment after the complainant's husband was admitted to Manipal Hospital was Rs.5,00,000/-, which was also covered by the complainant. Even though the OP was negligent, the complainant paid the medical expenditures. The complainanat admitted  her spouse to the OP with an expectation that they would give him the best care possible. The complainant had to endure severe financial loss and mental anguish as a result. There was no response to the complainant’s legal notice, which was issued.

5.  Denying the complainant's allegations, the OP states that the complainant's husband was admitted to the OP's facility on October 26th, 2017 for psychological rehabilitation, which was diagnosed as bipolar affective disorder, which manifested in excessive speech, anger, and irritability, inviting random people to the house for lunch or dinner, excessive spending of money, stealing items from neighbors, claiming that he works for the FBI or Dubai Police.  The complainant initially placed him in the OP's dormitory during his stay, but his psychic manifestations of stealing and continuously squabbling with his roommates prompted that he be placed in a single room. He showed signs of progress. The records show that the patient was occasionally hostile and experienced relapses of his manic symptoms but was otherwise healthy.

6.  According to the op, on August 24, 2018, about 7:15 p.m., after dinner, he strolled out of his room and into the boiler room. The boiler room is restricted and locked access. The patient entered the boiler room after breaking open the access door. The patient in question tapped out some hot water in a bucket and was hurrying to his room when he slipped, and the hot water spilled, which he did not disclose to anybody, and he proceeded to his room, covering himself with a blanket. The next day, late in the morning, the OP's staff noticed scalds on his hand when he was drinking his coffee. The op immediately called the complainant on his phone and informed him of the patient's accidental fall and injury caused by hot water poured on the complainant’s husband. The Op had the said patient examined by a doctor, who recorded the injuries as they were evident and were shown to the doctor by the said patient. In his prescription dated August 25, 2018, the concerned doctor stated his observation and advice. On August 30, 2018, the stated patient was not feeling well and was having difficulties breathing; thus, he was promptly transferred to Manipal Hospital for evaluation, and the complainant was informed. The third-party hospital diagnosed him as septic and hypovolemic shock, indicating that he was not responding to the treatments administered at the OP's facility. He was treated for his wounds as well as other medical issues. According to the OP, the complainant stated that they could not afford the hospital charges and wanted the patient discharged despite medical advice. The patient was released on September 7, 2018, and he was stable at the time. The editorial emphasizes that the unintentional fall and injuries were not the result of a lack of care or supervision.

7. The points that arise for our consideration are;

1. Whether the Complainant prove that there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs as alleged in the complaint and thereby prove that he is entitle for the relief sought?
2. What order?

8. The findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1               :       Partly in Affirmative

Point No.2               :       As per final order

REASONS

9. POINT NO.1:- According to the complaint, CADABAM's Amitha Centre for Psychosocial Rehabilitation, which was established and organized to assist people with mental disabilities, On October 28, 2017, the complainant admitted her husband, Shri Nelson Anthony Braganza, to the rehabilitation facility of the opposing party (hence referred to as "OP"). Shri Nelson Anthony Braganza is an elderly person with a disability. After the patient was admitted, the complainant began paying the OP Rs.39,000/- per month for the patient's lodging and other expenditures.

10.  The center's personnel informed the complainant on August 24, 2018, that her husband had suffered burns while carrying a hot water bath. In an email sent to the complainant's daughter by the centre, it was mentioned that a caretaker was required, but when the daughter inquired as to the reason no response was given. Furthermore, it is claimed that the complainant's spouse was admitted to the hospital for basic care on August 30, 2018, or six days after the incident.

11.  This case pertains to the admission of the complainant's husband, aged 62 years, to a rehabilitation center to address behavioral issues, including stealing and making claims about connections with law enforcement agencies. It is noted that the husband exhibited a mixed character, being both friendly and quarrel some. The complainant alleges that her husband sustained burn injuries when hot water from a boiler fell on him while at the rehabilitation center. To substantiate her claim, the complainant has submitted photographs of the affected areas as evidence. However, the opposite party contends that the husband broke open the locked door of the boiler room, a restricted area, and spilled hot water on himself while attempting to move unnoticed.

12. Subsequently, due to the severity of his injuries, the complainant's husband was admitted to the hospital after six days. It is on record that the complainant, incurring a financial burden, personally paid Rs 5 lakh for the hospital bills related to her husband's treatment.

13.  Upon careful consideration of the arguments and evidence presented by both parties, the following observations are made:

a.    The complainant has provided photographs of the burn injuries, which serve as prima facie evidence that the injuries did occur.

b.   The opposite party contends that the husband's actions caused the incident, claiming that he broke open the restricted area. However, it is noted that no concrete evidence, such as CCTV footage or eyewitness testimonies, has been presented to substantiate this claim. 

c. When the complainant is receiving treatment from the op and it is recognized that the complainant has behavioral disorders and is admitted in a rehabilitation and care centre, the op is obligated to undertake preventative measures for the complainant. The complainant's husband is an elderly person who is having trouble with the behaviour problems, and the complainant has admitted her husband to the op centre in the hope that op can cure and attend to these issues. When this occurs, it is the responsibility to provide medical attention to the patient.

14. The complainant submitted over receipts totaling Rs.3,51,616/- for the admission on August 30 and September 7, 2018, which was also the day of discharge, as detailed in Annexure 3. There is another bill of Rs.1,28,519/- for the  period from 15.09.2018 to 19.09.2018.

 15. In light of the above evaluation, the commission came to conclusion that the opposite party, as the entity responsible for the rehabilitation center, owes a duty of care to ensure the safety and well-being of patients under their care. It is established that the complainant's husband sustained burn injuries while at the rehabilitation center. However, the exact circumstances leading to the incident remain disputed due to the absence of concrete evidence. Based on the principle of res ipsa loquitur, which states that the occurrence of an accident implies negligence, the opposite party is held liable for the hospital bill of Rs.3,51,616/-,  and again admitted to the hospital on 15/09/2018 and discharged on 19/09/2018 and paid a hospital bill amount of Rs.1,28,519/-  (Doc. submitted by OP in R-12) totaling an amount of Rs.4,80,135/- which the complainant personally paid for her husband's treatment. Therefore, it is ordered that the opposite party shall reimburse the complainant for the hospital bill within 45 days from the receipt of this order.

16. The case has been received on 30.08.2019 in State Commission well within the limitation period. Later due to pecuniary jurisdiction it has been returned to the complainant with a liberty to file a fresh complaint in District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

17. Considering the forgoing discussion, the complaint is allowed in part. As a result, we have an affirmative answer to this question.

18. POINT NO.2:- In the result, we passed the following:

ORDER

1. The complaint is partly allowed.
2.  Opposite party is directed to refund Rs.4,80,135/- with 6% interest from the date of this complaint till the date of refund of the amount to the complainant.
3. OP is also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.  

4. Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Commission on 8^th May 2023)

(RAMACHANDRA M.S.)

PRESIDENT

(NANDINI H KUMBHAR)             (CHANDRASHEKAR S.NOOLA)       

         MEMBER                                        MEMBER

 Witness examined on behalf of the complainant by way of affidavit:

Sri Herick Fernades-who being the SPA holder of complainant

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witness examined on behalf of the OP by way of affidavit:

Sri Ananth Rag Yalamuri-Who being the Director OP

Documents produced by the OP:

(RAMACHANDRA M.S.)

PRESIDENT

(NANDINI H KUMBHAR)          (CHANDRASHEKAR S.NOOLA)

         MEMBER                                     MEMBER

SKA*