NEW DELHI: A Kerala district consumer commission has held a home nursing agency guilty of deficiency in service after its nurse abruptly stopped attending to a bedridden elderly woman and the agency failed to provide a replacement despite repeated requests. The commission directed the agency to refund Rs 4,000, pay Rs 15,000 as compensation and Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs.What was the dispute about?The complainant, Sindhu Paul had approached Anna Matha Home Nursing Services for a nurse to look after her aged and bedridden mother, Leelamma Paul, according to the commission’s order dated August 6, 2026.Paul was employed and unable to personally take care of her mother, who had been staying at St Anne’s Sadan Old Age Home since August 16, 2024. She therefore engaged the home nursing agency to provide a nurse for her mother.The agency deputed a home nurse for a monthly payment of Rs 20,000 for 28 days at a time. Paul regularly paid the agreed charges.The problem arose during the sixth month of the service. According to the commission order, the nurse suddenly stopped working on February 15, 2025, without giving any prior notice.Paul said her bedridden mother was left unattended and even her basic needs could not be taken care of because there was no replacement.She repeatedly contacted the agency and asked it to send another nurse. However, the agency only assured her that a replacement would be sent shortly. No substitute nurse was provided.Paul also claimed that Rs 4,000 remained refundable for the period of service that she could not use. Despite repeated requests, the agency did not refund the amount, she said.She further alleged that she was subjected to rude and humiliating behaviour. She approached Viyyur police station and later Thrissur West Fort police station seeking help, but no effective solution was found.Paul then approached the Thrissur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, seeking Rs 75,000 as compensation for mental agony, financial loss, deficiency in service and litigation expenses.The agency did not contest the case. Although notice was served on it, it neither appeared before the commission nor filed a response. It was therefore proceeded against ex-parte.Why did the commission hold the home nursing agency liable?The bench comprising President C T Sabu and members Sreeja S and Ram Mohan R noted that Paul had paid the agency on several occasions and produced receipts showing payments of Rs 20,000 each. The agency did not produce any evidence to challenge her allegations.The commission found that the nurse had stopped providing service without prior notice on February 15, 2025, and that the agency failed to provide a replacement despite repeated requests.“The very object of engaging a home nursing agency is to ensure uninterrupted care to patients who are incapable of attending to themselves,” the commission said.The commission noted that the patient in this case was an aged bedridden woman who required continuous assistance. It held that failing to provide replacement nursing service after accepting payment amounted to a serious lapse.“Failure to provide replacement nursing service after accepting consideration amounts to a serious lapse in service,” the commission observed, holding that the conduct amounted to deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.The commission also accepted Paul’s claim that Rs 4,000 remained refundable for the unused period. It noted that the agency neither disputed the claim nor produced any material showing that the amount had been refunded.The commission further considered the hardship caused to Paul after her mother’s nursing care was suddenly discontinued.“The sudden discontinuance of nursing service left her bedridden mother unattended, causing immense anxiety and inconvenience,” the commission said.It also noted that Paul had to approach the police authorities seeking redress.However, the commission did not accept her entire claim of Rs 75,000 as compensation. It said the amount was on the higher side and that consumer commissions should award compensation that is fair and reasonable.The commission accordingly directed the agency to refund Rs 4,000 with 9% annual interest from the date of filing of the complaint until payment.It also directed the agency to pay Rs 15,000 as compensation for deficiency in service, mental agony and inconvenience, along with Rs 5,000 towards litigation costs.The amounts must be paid within 45 days from the date the agency receives a copy of the order. If it fails to comply, the compensation amount will also carry 9 percent annual interest from the date of default until realization.
