Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has directed a Kerala hospital to pay Rs 25 lakh as compensation to complainants for handing over dead body of their father to somebody else who cremated his corpse.

A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Sandeep Mehta found the hospital liable for deficiency of service under the Consumer Protection Act.

The court set aside the order by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which directed appellants M/s Ernakulam Medical Centre and another to pay just Rs five lakh to complainant Dr P R Jayashree and another and to deposit another Rs 25 lakh with Consumer Legal Aid Account of the State Consumer Commission. 

"We are of the opinion that there was no justification for passing such an order. The SCDRC had applied its mind on entire conspectus of facts and the evidence produced by the parties and thereafter arrived at a conclusion that a sum of Rs 25,00,000 would be adequate compensation for the complainants", the bench said.

As per facts of the case, a patient by the named Lt Col A P Kanthy, was admitted in the appellant-Hospital for treatment on December 28, 2009. After two days, i.e. on December 30, 2009 another patient by the name of R Purushothaman, father of the complainants was also admitted in the appellant-Hospital for treatment. He expired in the night of December 30, 2009.

The family members of the deceased requested the appellants that the dead body be kept in the mortuary of the hospital. In the early hours of the very next day, Lt Col Kanthy also expired at the hospital. His dead body was also kept in the mortuary of the hospital. 

Few hours later, the dead body of Purushothaman was handed over to the family members of Kanthy and they cremated his body. 

Subsequently, on January 1, 2010, when family members of late Purushothaman (father of the complainants), came to the hospital for release of the dead body, they pointed out that the body in the mortuary was not the body Purushothaman. It then transpired that the corpse in question had been released to the family members of Kanthy who had by then cremated the dead body.

After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the records, the bench said, "We are of the opinion that there was no justification for the NCDRC to have interfered in the order passed by the SCDRC particularly in view of the fact that the complainants were wronged. There was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant-Hospital having handed over the dead body of the father of the complaints to another family who cremated the said body."

Therefore, court said, the appellants could not have avoided their liability on account of deficiency of service. "The order by the SCDRC is restored except for the interest component which in our opinion is on the higher side. We are of the opinion that instead of 12% interest awarded in favour of the complainants, interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. would suffice," the bench said.