PARVATI DEVI & ANR Vs. GHANSHYAM BINANI INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCE & ORS
LAWS(UPCDRC)-2007-12-2
UTTAR PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on December 20,2007

Parvati Devi And Anr Appellant
VERSUS
Ghanshyam Binani Institute Of Management Science And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS complaint has been filed by the parents of the deceased Sri Udai Kumar who was in service of Canara Bank, Mirzapur and simultaneously taking education as a student of M.B.A. degree course in an institution known as M/s. Ghanshyam Binani Institute of Management Science, Mirzapur. The complainants have alleged negligence on the part of the management of the institute as well as doctors of Heritage Hospital Limited, Varanasi.
(2.) THE facts in brief may be narrated as below: The deceased Sri Udai Kumar besides being serving as a clerk at Canara Bank, Katrabaji Branch, Mirzapur was getting education in the aforesaid institute for MBA course. On 9.11.2000 at about 9.30 a.m., Sri Udai Kumar while going through the entrance gate of the institution suffered injuries caused by the fall of the glass door on him. The glass door was already broken and when Udai Kumar pushed it to get through, it fell on him causing a punctured wound on the inner side of his left thigh and an incised wound in the right side of his face in front of the ear. Due to these serious cut wounds blood started oozing out of his body and soon he fell unconscious on the ground. He was immediately rushed to the District Hospital, Mirzapur. The bleeding continued throughout he was on the way from the institute to the hospital. The opposite party No. 2 Dr. S.D. Misra who was medical officer on duty failed to provide to him the requisite medical aid and in spite of the fact that it was a serious case beyond his control he kept the injured unnecessarily under observation for two hours. Dr. Misra could not stop the bleeding nor he tried to conduct requisite surgery or call any surgeon to do the needful. However, after an interval of about two hours Dr. Misra referred the case of Udai Kumar to Heritage Hospital. The students and teachers who were present with the injured, took him to the Heritage Hospital and got him admitted at 2.30 p.m. on the same day. The claimants petitioners also reached there in the meantime and they followed all the directions of Dr. J. Tappadar, Medical Officer of the Heritage Hospital, Lanka, Varanasi. Dr. Tappadar informed the petitioners after 9.30 p.m. that the operation conducted upon the patient was successful. The petitioners, however, were not allowed to see the patient. On 12.1 1.2000 at about 2.30 a.m. the petitioners and other persons present at the hospital were informed that Udai Kumar could not be saved and he had lost his life. The petitioners paid a sum of Rs. 72,035 to Heritage Hospital. In this way Dr. Misra of the Government Hospital and Dr. Tappadar as also the management of the Heritage Hospital committed medical negligence by not providing adequate treatment and medicines to Udai Kumar. There was deliberate delay on the part of the doctors in setting control over the continuous bleeding which eventually resulted in his death.
(3.) THE complainants have claimed a sum Rs. 18,00,000 as damages for the medical negligence of the doctors, besides refund of Rs. 72, 035 from the Heritage Hospital. The opposite party No. 1 M/s. Ghanshyam Institute of Management Science filed their written statement with the allegations that the lobby across which the deceased student was passing on the fateful day has two exits/entrance doors each of about 63" width having two parts at the ends and in between the above two set of doors there is a fixed glass pane of about 3' 1.5" width. The deceased student was in extreme hurry and worry to find his way out to attend his duties and as such his reflexes were not sharp at the time of the accident and therefore instead of going through either of the doors whose glass panes were perfectly intact bumped against the fixed glass panes which too were intact and found his way out by breaking the glass panes causing injury to him. In this way it was a mishap of his own negligence. The answering opposite party was in no way negligent in fixing or maintaining the glasses of the exit/entrance doors which were intact and not broken. The deceased student in fact had not passed through these doors. Thus on account of the deceased student being himself negligent the answering opposite party cannot be held responsible or liable to make any compensation;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.