CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, JET AIRWAYS Vs. MATHEW THOMAS
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Chief Executive Officer, Jet Airways
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE appellant in 87/09 is the 3rd opposite party Jet Airways, the appellant in 88/09 is the 1st opposite party/Managing Director, Cochin International Airport, the appellant in 708/09 is the 4th opposite party/Airport Manager, Airport India Limited in C.C.516/06 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ - of which 50% is to be borne by 1st and 4th opposite parties/appellants in appeal 88/09 and 708/09 respectively and the balance by the 3rd opposite party ie, the appellant in A.87/09.
(2.) THE case of the complainant is that he is aged 60 years and has been suffering from Parkinson s disease in an advanced stage. He can move only in wheel chair and lacks coherence in speech. He had undergone Deep Brain Stimulation surgery at Jaslok Hospital in Mumbai in 2002. The surgery involved placement of electrodes in the diseased parts of his brain and then connecting these electrodes to a battery implant inserted surgically in the chest. The battery implant would get damaged if exposed to metal detector at security check at airports. Hence only manual security check can be conducted. On 27.12.2005 he traveled from Cochin to Mumbai in Jet Airways flight. The details of the health condition and that he cannot be exposed to metal detector was intimated to the concerned officials of the Jet Airways. So on his arrival of the airport , Jet Airways representative arranged for a wheel chair as well as a loader to take to the same to the aircraft. The representative was having a copy of the medical details of the petitioner. The above as well as the ticket was submitted by the complainant. But he was subjected to frisking inspite of the efforts of the petitioners to draw the attention of the official to the medical details. On reaching Mumbai, the petitioner had to be rushed to Jaslok Hospital. The Neuro Surgeon on examining him stated that the implant was damaged and had to be replaced. The petitioner has to undergo a major surgery for replacement of the damaged battery. He had to incur a sum of Rs.3.84 lakhs towards hospital expenses. The complainant has alleged negligence on the part of the opposite parties and has claimed a sum of Rs.6 lakhs as compensation and 3.84 lakhs incurred towards the cost of surgery.
(3.) THE 1st opposite party Managing Director, Cochin International Air Port has denied any liability in the matter as it is only providing infrastructural facilities to various Airlines and it has no control over the 2nd opposite party/CISF, Security personnel. It is also contended that the 1st opposite party was not at all aware of the accident.
The 2nd opposite party commandant of CISF has also contended that they were not informed of the medical history of the complainant or the request for manual security check. It is stated that there was no request either verbal or written from the petitioner or the ground handling agent Air India or Jet Airways. It is the practice that on such request received the Door Frame Metal Detector (DFMD) and Hand Metal Detector (HMD) will be switched off and Hand Held metal detector would not be used and the person will be subjected to frisking by hand only. No objection to metal detector test was raised by the complainant also. Hence they have denied any liability.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.