A. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD
C.D.34 of 2006
Between :
Sri Bijay Kumar Agrawal, aged about 46 years,
S/o late Satyanarayan Agrawal,
R/o J-47 Textile Market, Pandri,
Raipur ( Chatishgarh), PIN 492 001 .. Complainant
And
01. M/s. Care Hospital ( The Institute of Medical Science)
1 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, represented through
The Chief Executive Officer ( Management) Care Hospital
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
02. Dr. B. Somaraju, Managing Director, Care Hospital 1,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
03. Dr. M. Gopichand
M/s. Care Hospital, 1,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad
( Implied as opp. Party no. 3 vide I. A. No. 426/2013,
Dt. 11.06.2013 ) … Opposite parties
Counsel for the Complainant : Mr. M. Ramgopal Reddy
Counsel for the Opposite parties : M/s. A. Srinath for OP.1 & 2
M/s. M. Haribabu for OP.3
Coram ;
Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao… Hon’ble Member
And
Sri T. Ashok Kumar .. Hon’ble Member
Tuesday, the Twenty Nineth Day of October
Two Thousand Thirteen
Oral Order : ( As per Sri T. Ashok Kumar , Hon’ble Member )
****
01. This is a complaint filed by the complainant praying this Commission to direct the opposite parties to refund Rs.3,37,000/- spent towards treatment charges of his father along with interest @ 24% PA from the date of deposit, i.e. 29.07.2004 till the date of realization, Rs.1,86,000/- towards purchase of blood components and transport and lodging fooding along with interest @ 24% P.A, Rs.25 lakhs towards compensation for the death of his father, mental agony and loss of inconvenience and Rs.50,000/- towards costs in total Rs.30,73,000/-.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant’s father, by name, Satyanarayan Agrawal, aged about 66 years, who is hereafter called as the deceased or patient was suffering from Cardiac disease involving the repair of valves of the heart. Having attracted with the advertisement published by the opposite parties, the complainant got consulted his father on `15.6.2004 in the OP hospital and on the advice of second Opposite party the deceased was admitted in the hospital on 29.06.2004 for bypass surgery under the fixed package of Rs.1,07,000/- which included post-operative ward charges, medication, OT charges, Physiotherapy, surgeon fee, anesthetic fee, swab, gunz catheter, PA. Sheets, Heparin coated circular arterial filter, oxygen and food charges consisting of 12 days stay ( 2 days in the ward prior of operation, 3 days in CTICU after operation and 7days in the recovery ward ). But contrary to the advertisement the complainant was required to deposit more than three times of the amount i.e. Rs.3,37,000/- . The deceased was negligently handled by the doctors and the Ops hospital with a commercial intention to extract and squeeze money and the doctors went to the extent of injecting Sepcis Bacteria to the deceased patient to prolong his stay and to extract money in the shape of bills. The operation was scheduled on 1.7.2004 but it was conducted on 5.7.2004 on the ground that the operating doctor is needed for the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India and it was also informed that there was no vacant beds in CTICU. The detention of the patient was prolong from 29.6.2004 to 5.7.2004 prior to operation and during the said stay the patient was provided with normal routine check up. After operation on 5.7.2004 as per the advertisement the patient was required to be kept under CTICU for three days but the deceased was detained for about 10 days ie till 14.7.2004 without communication of any post-operative complications to the complainant. The visit of the complaint to his father was allowed for a minute in CTICU sterilization during the said ten days. The CTICU was not maintained properly and was having patches of water seepage, empty pouches of snacks which are prone for growth of bacteria and which affects cardiac patients. The diabetes of the deceased was not controlled by taking suitable recourse and on 21.7.2004 the patient was subjected for Hypoglycemia. The patient had developed bed sore of 5 cm X 5 cm X 1 mm and the patient was injected with Bacteria since after 1.7.2004 to 23.7.2004 the complainant did not deposit any money the doctors were in search of the reasons to prolong the stay of the patient and they also misbehaved with the patient. The patient was operated twice and no consent was given for second operation nor was any communication made to the patient or his attendants. The necessity for second operation was not disclosed to the complainant or his relatives. In order to overcome some negligence connected with the cardiac operation second operation was conducted to rectify the mistakes. On account of injected bacteria septicemia developed and the patient died on 29.7.2004. After the death while delivery of the dead body Rs.1,30,000/- was demanded and after depositing the said amount dead body was delivered on 30.07.2004. Ambulance was also not provided by the OP hospital for transporting the dead body to the airport and they also failed to provide papers pertaining to the entire treatment of the patient. On 18.11.2004, the complainant visited Hyderabad and on his application, hospital provided a booklet containing about 389 pages.A feeling of murder of his father by OP doctors cropped in the mind of the complainant so he lodged a report before PS Panjagutta but no action was taken by the Police. Then the complainant preferred a Criminal complaint before 23rd Metropolitan Magistrate Hyderabad and after recording the statement U/s. 202 Cr. P.C. the said court did not find it to be a fit case for proceeding with further and thus dismissed the complaint and as against it the complainant preferred a Revision before Hon’ble High Court of A P and the said Court declined to interfere with the order. As against it, SLP was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and it was also dismissed. The acts of opposite parties amount to deficiency in service, professional negligence and unfair trade practice and hence the complaint.
3. Since the complaint was dismissed by this Commission on 10.10.2006 the complainant preferred appeal in FA 706/2006 on the file of the Hon’ble National Commission and vide orders dt. 12.07.2012 the said orders of this Commission was set aside and remitted back the Consumer Complaint to this Commission to decide it afresh and to dispose of the matter preferably within a period of six months from the date of appearance.
4.. OPs.1 & 2 filed written version separately resisting the complaint and denying the allegations made in the complaint and the gist of the said written versions are as under :
There was no negligence whatsoever in the treatment provided to the father of the complainant so also deficiency in service nor malpractice and the death of the patient was due to his medical condition. Attendant with multiple problems. The father of the complainant was admitted in the packaged treatment, which provides surgery along with stay of fixed duration in the hospital and it was informed to the attendants of the patient but should the treatment require or necessitate additional period of stay/treatment at the hospital the same shall be allowed and rendered on additional costs. At no point of time, the attendants of the patient informed that the package cost was comprehensive that under no circumstances the cost incurred on the patient would exceed the cost of package. The treatment of the patient was under various treating doctors of the hospital under the specialist guidance of surgeon Dr. M. Gopichand and he has not been arrayed as parties to the dispute. The admission of patient and subsequent bypass surgery was performed on him and it is incorrect to state that more than three times of the amount included in the package was made to be deposited. Deposit demand was made for the surgery under the package for Rs.1,07,000/- till 1.7.2004 and it is only after 23.7.2004 when further treatment was required money was asked to; be paid by the complainant. the patient was in requirement of a bypass surgery coupled with valve replacement and thus he was a high risk patient and always there was a chance that things can go wrong in such a situation. A surgery was not postponed due to the visit of Hon’ble Prime Minister as alleged but due to the medical condition of the patient. It is incorrect to say that from 29.6.2004 to 5.7.2004 the surgery was planned but the patient was provided normal routine checkup. During the said period, extensive evaluation was required by the pulmonologist to readjust the medication and assess the response before taking up for surgery as it was noticed that the patient was affected with tuberculosis and he also complained of inability to pass urine and thus reference to a Urologist became necessary. After specialist evaluation by pulmonologist, endocrinologist, Urologist, the surgery was taken up . The shifting of the patient from One unit to the other is done as per medical requirement and condition of the patient as against any supposed agreement between the hospital and the attendants of the patient. The CTICU was maintained properly and it was not unhygienic and prone to infections. On 13.7.2004, there was a fall in sugar levels and they were brought under control by giving dextrose and once sugar level went up and again it was controlled by restarting insulin and thus the sugar levels were monitored the intermittent hypoglycaemia levels observed in the patient was due to his deranged liver function test and not due to lack of monitoring. Corrective action was always taken. The complainants reference to prolonged hypoglycemia fails to state that it was a suspicion of the doctor and not a diagnoses as can be seen from the question mark (?). hypoglycaemia will not have delayed damage and therefore to suggest that low blood sugar levels on 13th 14th and 15rth had led to unconsciousness on 21.7.2004 was devoid of logic . Dr. Kamalesh, Internal Medicine Consultant was regularly monitoring the patient. Necessary dressing and position changing was done as per routine protocol and bed sore can occur in spite of best of care and that prolonged lying in the same position cannot be the sole cause and much depend on the condition of the patient. It is ridiculous to say that patient was injected with bacteria and the alleged noting in the admission note is clearly an interpolation and it has not been made in the hospital. There was intimacy monitoring of the patient and the course of treatment adopted by the hospital was correct. Both during surgery and post-operative care appropriate treatment was rendered to the patient by giving appropriate drugs. Sepsis that developed worsened with science of haemodynamic instrubility marrow failure followed by acute renal failure in spite of haemodialysis the patient developed bradycardia and suffered cardiac respiratory arrest whereupon he was resuscitated in spite of the best of measures he could not be revived and died on 29.7.2004 a 7.00 PM. The OP hospital have provided to the patient the best professional care and never pressurized the complainant or any of the attendants of the patient to over pay for the services rendered. Absolutely there is no medical negligence involved in the treatment of the patient. The allegation of the complainant that injection of bacteria was given to the patient have been tested by appropriate criminal courts at all levels and dismissed the cases filed by the complainant including Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. The allegation that the dead body was not handed over to the attendants till Rs.1,30,000/- deposited on 30.07.2004 was incorrect\. The complainant was provided with all information regarding preservation of dead body and rendered necessary help. There was no dishonest or arbitrariness in raising the charges towards the treatment. Thus prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. As per orders in IA No 426/2013 dated 11.6.2013 , OP. 3 was impleaded and OP. 3 surgeon also in his written version had pleaded that due care was taken in respect of diagnosis, medical treatment and surgery conducted so also that post-operative care and that the surgery was conducted after obtaining consent taken from the patient and his family members duly explaining all the risk factors to them and that during the treatment patient was continuously monitored and the services of the specialists were provided and in spite of hemodialysis the patient developed bradycardia and suffered cardio respiratory arrest, there upon he was resuscitated and in spit of the best measures and affects made by him and the hospital and the patient could not be revived and died on 29.7.2004. He specifically pleaded that he possess requisite professional qualifications he performed the surgery to the patient and there is no negligence on his part and that standards diagnostic protocol was followed in treating the patient so also pre-operative tests were conducted before the surgery. There was no delay in diagnosis and conducting surgery. The unfortunate death cannot be attributed to any medical negligence on the part of the doctor who conducted the surgery. The complaint was filed in 2006 and implead petition was filed to implead the 3rd OP after seven years and thus the claim is time barred. Thus prayed to dismiss the complaint as devoid of merits.
6. Both sides filed evidence affidavit reiterating their respective pleadings and Ex. A-1 to A 56 were marked on behalf of the complainant and Ex. B -1 to B 16 were marked for the OP. For the interrogatories of the complainant, OP. 2 submitted reply to interrogatories. Perused the record including the above documents.
7. Now the points for consideration are
(i) Whether the complaint by only one of the sons of the deceased is maintainable ?
(ii) Whether the complaint against OP. 3 is barred by limitation ?
(iii) Whether there is any professional negligence on the part of the Opposite parties in treating Satyanarayan Agrawal for his ailment and rendered any deficient service ?
(iv) Whether the complainants are entitled for compensation and if so what would be the reasonable amount ?
(v) To what relief ?
8. Point No. 1:
The opening words of the complaint itself discloses that the complainant is one of the sons of the deceased Satyanarayan Agrawal and that he is filing this Complaint for and on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased. Thus, it is clear that all the legal representatives/heirs of the deceased are not parties to this complaint. There is no authorization in writing in favour of the complainant that he was authorized by all the LRs of the deceased to file the complainant on their behalf. None of the legal representatives of the deceased filed affidavits at least in this case to say that they have no objection in filing the complaint by the complainant on behalf of all the legal representatives of the deceased. In such circumstances, this Commission is convinced to hold that the complainant alone cannot file the complaint behind the back of other legal heirs of the deceased and knock away the money in the event of granting any compensation and thus point No. 1 is decided against the complainant.
9. Point No. 2:
Originally, OP. 3 has not been arrayed as a party to this complaint and admittedly he has been impleaded in this Case, as per orders in IA No 426/2013 dated 11.6.2013 and the complaint has been presented in this Commission on 18th June, 2006. The deceased Satyanarayan Agrawal, patient died on 29.07.2004. Thus, undoubtedly, it can be said that OP. 3 has been impleaded this case beyond the period of two years from the date of alleged cause of action and no delay condonation petition is filed to condone the delay. In the written version filed by the OP. 3, specially, he pleaded that complaint is barred by limitation against him. the complainant did not controvert the averment of OP. 3 by filing rejoinder nor explained as to how the complaint is within limitation against OP. 3 and thus we are satisfied to hold that the complaint is barred by limitation as against OP. 3. Accordingly, the point is answered against the complainant.
10. POINT No. 3 :
There is no dispute that the deceased Satyanarayan Agrawal who is the father of the complainant was admitted that in the OP hospital on 29.6.2004 vide registration No. 040 629119031 for bypass surgery and valve repair under fixed package of Rs.1,07,000/- which included treatment in post-operative ward, room charges, medication, O.T. charges consisting of 12 days stay including two days in ward prior to operation, three days in CITCU after operation and seven days recovery in Ward. EX. A1 copy of the advertisement, Ex. A2 Outpatient card and Ex. A3 copy of admission card reveals the same. According to the complainant, as against the said package a sum of Rs.3,37,000/- was collected from him towards treatment charges of the patient. The grievance of the complainant is that though patient was admitted on 29.6.2004 and on 1.7.2004 the operation had to be conducted it was not so done instead of it the operation was conducted on 5.7.2004 on the pretext that Hon’ble Prime Minister had visited Hyderabad and the presence of operating doctor is needed for the Prime Minister and that the doctors with a commercial intention to extract and squeeze more money from the patient injected sepcis bacteria in the patient to prolong his stay. Absolutely there is no dependable evidence from the side of the complainant to say that on the pretext of the visit of Hon’ble Prime Minister of India the operation on the patient was postponed to 5.7.2004 and no credence need to be given for it in this case. It is much more so when the Ops contended that it was so postponed due to the medical condition of the patient. The Care Hospital record filed in this case discloses that the deceased patient was suffering from Pulmonary TB since six months and was on treatment and that had also undergone CABG on 5.7.2004 certainly keeping in view of the health condition of the patient and also his age as 66 years and it is high risk case possibility of postponing the operation cannot be ruled out and thus we did not see any substance in the contention of the complainant in the said context.
11. Very serious and grave allegation is made against the doctors of OP hospital that they injected Sepcis bacteria to the patient to extract more money. Such kind of wild allegations are unheard so far. The complainant relies upon a note in medical record ( Ex. A 33 ) in the said context which is as follows :
“it is very very unfortunate that to draw more money from out state patient Dr. Raju and Gopi inject sepcis Bacteria into the patient in CTICU now the patient condition is critical and out of control. O’God. Help the Agrawals”.
The opposite parties contend that they are interpolations purposely made for wrongful gain and tarnish the image of the hospital and that they are highly derogatory. There is no dependable evidence that the said hand writing on the admission notes and medical report were made by the one and the same person and the said endorsement is totally different. The complainant filed a complaint before 23rd Metropolitan Magistrate vide S.R. No. 32832/2005 for the offences U/s. 420, 429, 440 , 491 , 304 , 328 r/w Section 34 IPC making similar allegations that are made in the present complaint and after making Section 202 Cr pc enquiry the said magistrate court vide its order dt. 31.3.2005 dismissed complaint U/s. 203 Cr. P C on the ground that the offences alleged in the complaint purely related to medical sciences mere allegation of causing death by injecting bacteria into human body by the doctor with a view to cheat the complainant is not sufficient material to make out a case against the doctor. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant filed Crl R C No. 810/2005 before Hon’ble High Court of A. P. after hearing the complainant Revision petitioner and the public prosecutor without giving notice to the OP hospital and the doctors at admission observing that
“ Observing that the manuscript in similar places placed situation differs from the manuscript endorsement relied upon by the Revision petitioner (complainant herein ) “ and following the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jacob Mathews Vs. State of Punjab and another, the Hon’ble High court of A P dismissed the Revision petition in Cr.l. R. C No. 810/2005 on 5.12.2005. As against the said dismissal it appears that the complainant filed SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and admittedly the same was also dismissed thus order of the Magistrate in dismissing the complaint wherein it is alleged that Sepcis Bacteria was administered to the deceased and that the opposite party hospital, doctors rendered deficient service was not believed by any of the Courts including the Apex Court of India. It is true that judgment of criminal court is not binding on this Commission but certainly it has persuative value and in the circumstances of the case the dismissal of the complaint which was confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of AP and Hon’ble Supreme Court of India cannot be brushed aside. In such circumstances there is acceptable force in the contention of the opposite parties that it is a misleading and forged document is believable as true. When the complaint was dismissed the allegation that to squeeze money the doctors of OP hospital injected Sepcis bacteria even for this case could not be appreciated and on the other hand we came to a conclusion that the complainant is not a believable and reliable person and hence no credence need to be given for his evidence in this case.
12. The complainant very much harped upon with regard to the bed sore to the deceased Ex A7 discloses that there is bed sore to the deceased. The complainant had submitted a decision of Hon’ble National Commission in First Appeal No. 739/94 between D R Janak Kranthimathinathan Vs. Muralidhar A Kanth Masani and argued the bed sore was developed on account of proper lack of care by the hospital authorities and the same amounts to deficiency in service. in the said decision the fact disclose that a boy of 13 years old was admitted in the hospital of the appellant therein suspecting epilepsy on 6.1.1992 at 3.30 PM and the said boy came out dead at 7.30 PM on 8.1.1992 he had no other chronic ailments such as TB, diabetes etc and did not stay in the hospital for a longer period and in such circumstances finding bed sore on the said body was considered as deficiency in service on the ground that no proper care was taken by the hospital authorities. Whereas in the case on hand, the deceased patient was suffering from T. B. and diabetes, Urine infection etc aged about 66 years and had also undergone the bypass surgery. The contention of the Ops in the said context is that Dr. Kamalesh Internal Medicine consultant was regularly monitoring the patient and necessary dressing and position changing was done as per routine protocol and that bed sore can occur in spite of best care and that prolonged lying in the same position cannot be the sole cause for bed sore and much depend on the condition of the patient and the same is convincing. Therefore, the contention of the complainant that bed sore developed on account of non-taking proper care by the hospital could not be appreciated in his favour to hold that Ops rendered deficient service.
13. Ex. A-5 Diabetes chart discloses that the sugar levels of the deceased patient from 29.6.2004 to 14.7.2007. it is true that on 13.7.2006 at 3.00 PM sugar levels was 37 mg. and again on the same date at 8.00 PM the sugar levels at 27 mg so also on 14.7.2006 at 29 mg and there is endorsement that it was the case of Hypoglycemia . prior to it and subsequently, the sugar levels were in control as evidenced by the said document itself. The contention of the OP is that hypoglycemia will not have delayed damage and therefore the contention of the complainant that the low blood level sugar levels on 13th and 14th lead to unconsciousness on 21.7.2004 was devoid of logic and there is acceptable force in the contention of the Ops in the said context. They were controlled by giving dextrose and when sugar levels went up by giving insulin. Therefore, the said hypoglycemia aspect agitated by the complainant is also not useful for him to say that Ops rendered deficient service.
14. The complainant contended that he requested to take the advice on phone number 4106145275 and 4109559444 of M/s. John Hapkins International Hospitals USA on call for the Department of Cardiology but the Ops did not do so and there is no dependable evidence from the side of the complainant that such phone numbers of John Hapkins international Hospital, USa . Were provided to the Ops and they were declined to discuss the patient’s condition with other specialists of the said hospital. Therefore, hardly, the said aspect focused by the complainant is helpful for him in this case.
15. The complainant contended that during stay of the deceased patient in the hospital every day he was permitted to visit the patient for one Minute only but there is evidence on record vide Ex.A38 CD. That he took videography of the CTICU and that itself disproves his contention. He pleaded that the CTICU was not maintained properly and on account of it there was possibility for growth of bacteria and that it would affect a cardiac patient and empty poaches of snacks, pan masala and plastic bags etc were regularly found in CTICU. Possibility of his arranging the same and taking videography cannot be ruled out and the idea of taking videography itself indicates that the complainant intended to create evidence against the OP to file a complaint alleging medical negligence.
16. The package of Rs.1,07,000/- was subject to certain conditions and the Ops contended that the attendants of the patient were informed that if the treatment requires or necessitates additional period of stay and treatment at the hospital the same shall be allowed on and rendered on additional costs and this aspect was not controverted by the complainant and in such circumstances collecting Rs.3,37,000/- , if any, towards treatment charges in the place of Rs.1,07,000/- is of no consequence in favour of the complainant. The complainant contended that had Ops informed him that there was severe risk to the patient in conducting the operation, he would not have given consent for such operation and in view of the said contention itself it is inferred that consent was given for conducting operation. Ex. B15 consent forms establishes that the consent was taken from the kith and kin of the deceased to conduct the operation. It appears that since the patient was not in a position to give consent at that time his kith and kin gave the consent for operation and thus patient’s signature do not find on the consent forms. The said consent forms disclose that the Op doctors explained the condition of the patient and also the procedure may result in complication even though utmost care, Judgment and skill are used and that the procedure involves risks and that serious injury or death have been known to occur and that no guarantees have been promised by the doctors from the procedure(s). Ex. B-14 high risk consent duly signed by the deceased patient and one Saraswathi Devi discloses that in pulmonary artery bypass surgical procedure there are possible complications like renal dysfunction, respiratory problems, neurological problem like stroke, death during and after surgery. The said aspects clearly establish that no guarantee was given to the patient so also that it is a case of high risk. In a decision reported in I (2008) CPJ 56 (SC) between Samira Kohli Vs. Prabha manchanba ( DR.) and another , the Hon’ble Apex Court of India held that “ unless the patient is in a comatose state and he is not able to sign on consent form only then, an attendant signature is necessary. In this case, there are consents forms signed by the deceased and his kith and kin and therefore, the contention of the complainant that no consent forms were obtained duly could not be appreciated. In a decision reported in 2005 CPJ 510 CP (NCDRC) between Santhaben Muljibhai patel and others Vs. Breach canday hospital and Research Centre, the Hon’ble National Commission held that merely because a high risk patient died in the hospital following the procedure it cannot be construed as medical negligence unless it is proved that the doctors had not acted with reasonable skill. In the present case the complainant did not prove by any dependable evidence of expert or medical literature that the doctors did not act with reasonable skill or expertise. The patient being 63 years old admittedly suffering from diabetes, T. B, and heart ailment he has to be considered as high risk patient. In a decision reported in 2004 CPJ 40 SC between Savita Garg Vs. the Director, National Heart Institute, it was held that non impleadment of treating doctor as necessary party could not result in dismissal of the original petition, in this case, the complainant impleaded OP. 3 treating doctor and therefore the said decision is no way helpful in this case. In a decision reported in 2011 (5) ALD (CONs.) 1 (NC) between BRS Heart institute and Research Centre and Kulgith Kaur and others it was held that where death of patient occurred on account of negligence lack of post-operative care it amounts to deficient service but there is no clinching or dependable evidence on record to come to a conclusion that the OP doctors rendered such negligent service and therefore the said decision is not helpful for the complainant and order In FA 37/2012 and 165/2012 on the file of this Commission since there was dependable evidence the contention of the complainants therein was accepted holding that Ops rendered deficient service and thus compensation was awarded but there are no such circumstances in this case and on the other hand for the reasons given supra the complainant herein is not at all a reliable person to base his evidence to record deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and therefore, the said decisions are also not helpful for the Ops in this case.
17. The hospital record filed in this case reveals that the patient was operated duly obtaining consent as the patient had moderately severe left ventricular dysfunction and required Mitral valve repair procedure in addition to bypass and that continuously the condition of the patient was monitored by during the operation and proper postoperative care was also taken and that in spite of reasonable care the patient developed bed sore and that to control diabetes also required medicines were used still sepcis that developed in the patient worsened his condition and on account of acute renal failure he died on 29.7.2004 at 7.30 PM. In a decision reported in 2010 CPJ 1 SC between B. Kishan Rao Vs. Nikhil super Specialty and another the Hon’ble Supreme court of India held that For a under the Act must come to conclusion that case is complicated enough to require opinion of an expert or facts of case cannot be resolved by Members of For a without assistance of expert’s opinion then only there is necessity of experts evidence or circumstances and it was also held in the said decision that principle of ipsa loquitor operates in a case where negligence is evident and the complainant does not have to proof anything as the thing proves itself. There cannot be any dispute in the said proposition of law. But, in this case, as already described supra, there is no dependable evidence or circumstances to come to a conclusion that OPs rendered deficient service and the complaint is a designed one.
18. Ex. A12 discloses that operation was conducted on 2.7.2004 later on 3.7.2004 whereas the other record and admission of the complaint disclose that operation was for the first time was conducted on 5.7.2004 .There is no dependable evidence as to the fact that on 13.7 another operation was conducted, so also, the 1st operation was conducted on 02.07.2004. Therefore, the said baseless mention has no consequence in this case. Even otherwise since the word ‘procedure(s) is used in the consent form even if second surgery is conducted it cannot be assumed that since first surgery failed on account of negligence on the part of Ops second surgery was conducted it may be in the interest of the patient and hence no motives can be attributed to the Ops in the said context. In view of the above discussion, the arguments of the complainant, documents filed by him, so also, the decisions are not helpful for him in this case. Thus, point No. 3 is decided against the complainant.
19. In view of the findings of points 1 to 3 against the complainant, the Point no. 4 is decided against the complainant holding that the complainant is not entitled for any compensation on account of death of his father.
20. In view of the above discussion, this Commission is convinced that the contention of the opposite parties that the complaint is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
21. In the result, the complaint is dismissed but without costs.
MEMBER MEMBER
DATED : 29.10.2013.
CC No. 34/2006
Sri. Bijay Kumar Agarwal (Complainant)
And
M/s. Care Hospital and another (Opposite parties)
Chief affidavit of Complaint filed and Ex. A1 to A56 marked.
List of Documents filed and Ex. B-1 to B16 marked
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
EXHIBITS MARKED
For the complainants
Ex. A1 Copy of the Advertisement
Ex. A2 Copy of the Outpatient card
Ex. A3 Copy of the Admission card
Ex. A4 Copies of the money receipts
Ex. A5 Diabetic Card
Ex. A6 Progress note about prolonged hypoglycemia.
Ex.A7 Progress note about bedsore
Ex.A8 Copies of the Email from USA Hospital.
Ex.A9 Indian Airlines tickets
Ex.A10 All papers provided by the Hospital.
Ex.A11 Admission note about injecting Bacteria.
Ex.A12 Progress note about second operation
Ex.A13 Death summary.
Ex.A14 legal Notice served by the complainant.
Ex.A15 Reply notice from the Care Hospital.
Ex.A16 Order copies of the Hon’ble High court of Hyderabad.
Ex.A17 Notice served before going to Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Ex.A18 Money receipts of purchasing blood components.
Ex.A19 Return Journey Railway ticket.
Ex.A20 L. V. Prasad Eye Institute (APP)
Ex.A21 Dr. M. Venkat Linga Reddy prescription.
Ex.A22 Spectacle order receipt.
Ex.A23 Hotel Reservation slip
Ex.A24 Progress notes of 30.06.2004.
Ex.A25 Progress notes of 05.07.2004.
Ex.A26 Progress notes of 02.07.2004.
Ex.A27 Sprotac chart of 29.06.2004
Ex.A28 Nizam Institute Record.
Ex.A29 O.P. Bill
Ex.A30 Hospital Provision Bill
Ex.A31 Money Receipt
Ex.A32 Hospital Provision Bill
Ex.A33 Admission note about injecting Bacteria.
Ex.A34 Progress note
Ex.A35 Hospital Provisional Bill
Ex.A36 General Authorization for treatment during hospitalization.
Ex.A37 Photographs of C.B.I.C.U
Ex.A38 C.D
Ex.A39 Photo of Bed sore.
Ex.A40 Embarlament Certificate.
Ex.A41 Police NOC
Ex.A42 Red cross list
Ex.A43 Provisional Bill
Ex.A44 Provisional Bill
Ex.A45 Progress Note
Ex.A46 Hospital Final Bill
Ex.A47 Railway swipe Bill
Ex.A48 Letter of Ministry of Law and Justice.
Ex.A49 Letter of President’s secretariat
Ex.A50 Application dated 18.11.04
Ex.A51 Handwritten slip, dated 18.11.04
Ex.A52 Deposit slip of 500/-, dated 18.11.04
Ex.A53 Lodge stay Receipt, dated 18.11.04 to 20.11.04
Ex.A54 Page No.262 of new Dosier.
Ex.A55 Video CD of Record Room & Xerox room.
Ex.A56 Photograph of record keeper, Assistant Record Keeper,
record Room guard, Xerox machine.
Opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Check list for inpatient admission.
Ex.B2 Anaesthesia record
Ex.B3 Perform data sheet
Ex.B4 Admission notes
Ex.B5 Progress notes
Ex.B6 Investigation chart
Ex.B7 Medication record
Ex.B8 TPR Chart
Ex.B9 Critical Care
Ex.B10 Diabetic chart
Ex.B11 Acitron chart
Ex.B12 Ventilator settings
Ex.B13 Progress notes
Ex.B14 High risk consent
Ex.B15 Consent form
Ex.B16 24 hrs Post operative chart.
MEMBER MEMBER
DATED : 29.10.2013.
