GREGORIOUS MISSION HOSPITAL Vs. JESSY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition arises out of the order dated 22.7.2008 passed by Kerala State Commission in Appeal No. 143/2004 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner -the Medical Superintendent, St. Gregorious Mission Hospital, was dismissed. The District Forum had allowed the complaint filed by Jessy & Anr. vide order dated 28.11.2003, in complaint No. 183/2001 and petitioner was directed to pay Rs.2,75,000 with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till date of the order and thereafter 6% p.a. till the payment is made along with costs of Rs.1,500. The State Commission while dismissing the respondents appeal for enhancement of compensation and the petitioners appeal by common order in Appeal No. 143/2004 slightly modified the order of the District Forum to the effect that first complainant shall be entitled to 50% of the amount and the second complainant (minor) shall be entitled for the remaining 50%. However, the amount due to the minor was directed to be deposited in a Fixed Deposit in a nationalized or scheduled bank and the interest accrued thereon can be withdrawn by the first complainant towards maintenance of the 2nd complainant. Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are as under:

(3.) SHRI Sanjeevu Mathew, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No. 1, Mrs. Jesse, the wife of the patient was instructed to be with the patient to observe closely for any changes in the behaviour of the patient and inform the duty staff promptly about the same, as the patient was allowed freedom of movement in the hospital in order to create a homely atmosphere. She failed to look after her husband and did not follow the instructions given by the petitioners, which resulted in this unfortunate mishap. Learned counsel referred to the documents, which have been admitted in the lower Fora. Special reliance has been placed on clause 9 of the Rules and Regulations of the hospital given to the patient, which were signed by the brother of the deceased, which clearly shows that ˜Only one person is allowed to be with the patient after 6 p.m. Further, the direction was given to the respondent No.1 in Ex. R1, which is a part of hospitals record in page 27 of Volume 2. Strong reliance has been placed on the instructions given to the respondent No.1 ˜to be with her husband and contended that she ignored the same and did not inform the duty nurse that she was not going to be with the patient.