D.O.F.28.11.05 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Preethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 28th day of May 2010 CC.304/2005 1.Kallen Madhavan 2.Sheeba 3. Shynu 4. Shiji 5. Sheena Thekkenikal House, Complainants P.O.Narath (Rep. by Adv.K.Vijayan) 1. M/s.Cannanore Co-operative Hospital Society, A.K.G.Hospital, Talalp,Kannur. (Rep. by Adv.M.K.suresh Kumar) Opposite parties 2. Dr.Poornima Rao., A.K.G.Hospital, Talap, Kannur. (Rep. by Adv.M.K.suresh Kumar) O R D E R Sri.K.Gopalan, President This is a complaint fled under section12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.3, 00,000/- together with the cost of these proceedings. The facts of the case of complainants in nutshell are as follows: The complainants are legal heirs i.e. husband and children of Panayan Sarada. Late Sarada was taken to the 1st opposite party hospital on 22.1.04 at about 7.30 p.m due to heavy fever and head ache. The duty doctor after examining gave an injection and prescribed medicine advising her to come back in case of any further complication. On enquiry doctor told first complainant that admission is not necessary. On the same day Sarada complained of pain and uneasiness in her stomach and the next morning on 23.11.04 she was taken to 1st opposite party. The duty doctor examined her and ECG was also taken on advice. Since 2nd opposite party Dr.Poornima did not come to hospital at that time patient was taken to the residence of the doctor. Doctor sent the patient to hospital. Scanning and all other clinical examination were done as per her recommendation including blood and urine test. 2nd opposite party examined the test report and told nothing to be worried advising to take medicine. Doctor asked the patient to be admitted for monitoring her condition for two days and she was admitted as an inpatient. On the same day at about 12 noon she felt difficulty in breathing and Uthaman, the brother of Sarada reported the same to duty nurse but neither the nurse nor the 2nd opposite party came to attend the doctor to give necessary treatment. When again reported and asked to call 2nd opposite party doctor the nurse said that doctor will come at 4 p.m. As the difficulty increased it was again reported to the staff nurse but they scold him by saying that she had become a nuisance to them. Even though it was assured that doctor will come at 4 p.m she did not came and attended the patient. Sharada died at about 6 p.m without getting proper medical attendance. The opposite parties did not do anything to save the life of Sarada in spite of the request of relatives. Death would not have been taken place if Sarada was given proper treatment. The opposite parties did not disclose her ailment to the relatives. Even after death they failed to explain the cause of sudden death. They did not properly diagnosis the disease and failed to give proper treatment. Though the complainant asked for the medical report opposite party did not give him any such report. Legal notice was issued to the opposite parties calling upon to give case sheet, report and compensation. He was asked to submit written application and the same was given on 7.5.05 but they did not furnish the case sheet. Complainant went several times to get the case sheet but one reason or the other it was not supplied. The early death of Sarada who was only 47 years old caused heavy loss and hardship to the complainants. She was a cooli worker earning an income of Rs.100/- per day. The loss cannot be measured in terms of money. Hence this complaint. In pursuance of the notice opposite parties entered appearance and filed version jointly denying the main allegations of the complainant. The facts of the contentions of opposite parties in brief are as follows: It is not correct that Sarada came to hospital at 7.30 p.m on 22.11.04. She came on the said day at 8.37 p.m. It is also not correct to say that Sarada was suffering from heavy fever. Temperature was normal at that time. But she had care that she was having fever for two days earlier and abdominal fullness, belching and nausea. She was examined and advised admission to the hospital. But she was not willing for admission. Hence medicine was prescribed and patient left the hospital. It is not correct that the doctor told the complainant on enquiry that admission was not necessary. Next day she came to Hospital with complaint of uneasiness in stomach of similar nature. The duty doctor examined and advised ECG and also medical consultation to be done to admit in the hospital. But they left the hospital discarding the advice. Later on the same day she went to the house of 2nd opposite party and reported the fact of earlier treatment by a local doctor and complained of loss of appetite and pain abdomen. Doctor examined her and directed to admit in the hospital. Ultra sound scan of abdomen revealed hepatomegaly suggestive of Hepatitis. The other reports also suggestive of Hepatitis. There was nothing n her condition at that time so as to infer medically that her condition was bad or likely to worsen. As such medicines normally administered in such case were also prescribed in this case. She was also advised that by way of caution she should remain in hospital for two days for monitoring. It is not correct to say that after admission on 23.11.04 by 12.00 noon Sarada experienced breathing difficulties, that her brother reported the same to the duty nurse, that the duty nurse or 2nd opposite party did not go or examine the patient or gave any necessary treatment. The breathing trouble was noticed at about 4.55 p.m and on prompt intimation by duty nurse, the doctor on duty immediately attended on the patient at 4.55 p.m. He examined the patient and found B.P as 140/90. There were no abnormal respiratory signs. He prescribed medicines and the nurse was directed to give nebulisation. It is false to say that the nurse told her brother that the doctor will come at 4.00 pm when he asked to call the doctor and scolded him when again reported as the difficulty increased. It is not correct that the doctor did not attend the patient. She was attended to as already detailed above. Subsequently, thee was an unexpected turn in the condition of the patient at about 6.30 p.m. On being informed by the duty nurse, doctor on duty rushed to the ward and examined the patient. She was found gasping. Hydro cortisone injection was immediately administered. Nevertheless at 6.40 p.m on examination it was found that thee was no pulse, B.P not recordable and no respiratory efforts. Hence it was felt that the patient could not be revived. Thereafter she was declared dead and was duly recorded time at 7 p.m. It is not correct to say that Sarada died at 6.00 p.m and that she died without getting proper medical attendance. 2nd opposite party was not on duty after 2.00 p.m on that day. It was Doctor Murali Gopal who was on duty on that day after 2.00 p.m. It is not correct to say that 1st opposite arty has not taken care of Sarada. Sarada was properly attended to by competent doctors under 1st opposite party. The condition of Sarada took an unexpected turn so suddenly and the only thing that could be done was to administer hydrocortisone. The death of Sarada was due to sudden cardio respiratory failure. It is not due to any negligence on the part of opposite parties. An unexpected and sudden change in the condition of the patient cannot be predicted in advance. The cause of death was disclosed to the relatives. The disease was properly diagnosed and proper treatment was also given. The brother of the deceased was informed that the insurance company can examine all the case records from the hospital -1st opposite party. Thereafter, the insurance company did not go to the hospital. It is in this circumstances copy of the case records were not separately given. The complainant went to the hospital several occasions for case sheet is not correct. The age of Sarada reported is 47 years. Sarada was earning Rs.100/- per day as cooli is incorrect. Compensation claimed is too excessive. The opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation since there is no deficiency in service. Hence to dismiss the complaint. On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration. 1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite parties? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as prayed in the complaint? 3. Relief and cost. The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1, PW2, DW1 and DW2 and documents Exts.A1 to A3 and B 1, B2 and X1. Issues 1 to 3 Admittedly the deceased Sarada had been admitted in the hospital on 23.11.04. 1st opposite party is the hospital and 2nd opposite party is the doctor who treated the patient. Complainants case is that his wife deceased Sarada was taken to 1st opposite party hospital on 22.11.04 suffering from heavy fever and head ache. After examination medicine was prescribed and an injection also was given. Doctor told him admission was not necessary but to come again incase of further complication. Patient complained of pain and uneasiness in her stomach on the same day night. She was taken to 1st opposite party early next day morning. Duty doctor examined and ECG was taken. Since 2nd opposite party has not yet reached hospital patient been taken to Doctor 2nd opposite party at her house? Doctor sent the patient to hospital with advice to be admitted. As per the advice of 2nd opposite party scanning, blood and urine test etc. were done. 2nd opposite party came and examined the report. She said nothing to be worried but asked to admit the patient for the purpose of monitoring for two days. At about 12 noon the patient was suffered difficulty in breathing and reported to nurse and asked to call doctor but no one came when again reported and asked to call 2nd opposite party doctor nurse told him that doctor will come at 4 p.m. When again an increase of difficulty reported to nurse but scolded him saying that he had become a nuisance to them 2nd opposite party doctor did not come. At 6 p.m Sarada died without getting proper medical attendance. Opposite party, on the other hand contended that the patient was advised admission on 22.11.04 but they were not willing to be admitted so that medicine was prescribed. Sarada came next morning. Duty doctor examined her, advised ECG and asked to be admitted. They were not willing for admission and left hospital. Later she went to 2nd opposite party in her residence. Doctor examined and directed to her to get admitted. Ultra sound scan of abdomen revealed hepatomegely suggestive of hepatitis. The other reports also suggestive of Hepatitis. The breathing difficulty was noticed at about 4.55 p.m. Duty doctor immediately attended and on examination found B>P as 140/90. There were no abnormal respiratory signs. Medicine was prescribed and direction given to nebulesation. It was further contended that the nurse did not tell the relative that doctor would come at 4 p.m and he was never abused. It was Dr.Murali Gopal who was on duty after 2 p.m and not 2nd opposite party. It was not correct to say that 2nd opposite party has not done anything to save the life of Sarada. Opposite party further contended that the condition of Sarada took an unexpected turn so suddenly. Death of Sarada was due to sudden Cardio respiratory failure. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in treating the patient is the first and the main question to be discussed. It can be seen that the patient Sarada was first attended on 22.11.04. It was at about 7.30 p.m according to complainant and 8.37 pm according to opposite parties. The question of admission on the day is also a point of dispute. Whatever it may be, the patient came again on the very next day before the arrival of the duty doctor 2nd opposite party. Patient was admitted in Hospital as per the advice of 2nd opposite party. 2nd opposite party doctor stated in her proof affidavit that the patient was advised admission in hospital on 22.11.04 itself but patient or the persons accompanied her were not willing for admission. Such a patient who was unwilling to be admitted on previous night if comes very next morning with same complaint and get admitted in same hospital as per the advice of the same doctor makes it clear that the extant position of the complaint of the patient aggravated to such an extent compelling him to be admitted. In the ordinary course of dealings it can very well that the degree of disease at any rate is much greater than that of previous night. If it is so, the hospital as well the doctor is expected to take into consideration this seriousness in treatment. Ext.X1 case paper reveals that the deceased patient Sarada was examined by the outpatient department on 22.11.04 at 20.37. Opposite parties case is that the patient was advised admission on the day 22.11.04 but the patient and her relatives were not willing. Complainant on the other hand pleaded that he had asked whether she had to be admitted but the doctor told him that it was not necessary. Anyway patient comes next morning on 23.11.04. She was examined and ECG was taken and medical consultation advised by the doctor on duty opposite party contended that patient was also advised for admission but they were not willing and left the hospital discarding the advice. But it is a fact that the patient was taken to Dr.Poornima the Head of the medical department for medical consultation. First entry of Dr.Poornima in the case paper is nothing but to admit the patient in hospital. She was then admitted in hospital and upon the advice of 2nd opposite party Dr.Ppoornima, scanning and blood, urine test etc. were also been done. 2nd opposite party did not record any sort of unwillingness on the part of patient or her relatives for admitting the patient. The case paper in Ext.X1 on 22.11.04 shows recorded PA. Soft, Epigastria tenderness and medicine prescribed. Admission not seen recorded in the usual course. It can be seen continued the notes of next visit of patient and it is started with the recording “same patient”. There is no space between the previous note of first visit and the notes of second visit. It is seen recorded on the left hand side of the notes of the first visit that “Admission (not willing)”. Why the advice of admission placed on the left hand side instead of being part of the stream of usual note has not been explained. In the case of admission on second visit also advice of admission not recorded as part of usual note but on left hand side same as that of the style of recording of first visit. Herein also no space left in between the signature and notes. It can also be seen that record does not reveal that doctor concerned has suspected any such serious disease that require admission on the first occasion. Next day morning in the second visit of the patient duty doctor recommended medical consultation Dr.Poornima Rao 2nd opposite party was the doctor of department of medicine. So it is clear that patient was straight away taken to the doctor for medical consultation and thereafter as per the advice of 2nd opposite party, Doctor the patient was admitted. 2nd opposite party in her cross examination made it clear that the advice of admission was only for monitoring which means she was not under the impression that the disease was so serious. 2nd opposite party has specifically stated that she was not suffering from high fever. In the light of this evidence and the style of entry in the case paper in Ext.X1 it can be presumed that those entries with respect to admission found place only subsequently . In the usual course there is nothing to disbelieve complainant that the patient was taken to 2nd opposite party on the advise of duty doctor, since it is recorded in the case paper for medical consultation. In such a situation when advised for medical consultation, the very next thing to be done is to take the patient to the concerned doctor for medical consultation. That was what seen really done, by taking the patient to 2nd opposite party. After the consultation she was admitted there. There is nothing unusual and the contention of opposite party that the patient and her relatives were not ready for admission and all has no substance. Anyhow or other the patient Sarada was admitted. What happened thereafter is the material question to be considered. The main case of the complaint is that Sarada died due to negligence on the part of opposite parties without getting proper treatment. The available evidence goes to show that the trading doctor 2nd opposite party never turned up to see the admitted patient Sarada in the hospital after admission till her death on the day. It cannot be ignored the fact that the treating doctor is duty bound to visit the patient in the hospital. The visit of the treating doctor is not merely a question of prescribing medicine. The very touch of the treating doctor is the greatest source of consolation which a patient never gets this grace from any other person. The deceased Sarada most unfortunate women denied this opportunity which is in a way amounts to irresponsibility on the part of opposite parties. Patient was taken to 2nd opposite party early morning and admitted in hospital immediately. She died in the hospital in the evening according to opposite party at 6.45 p.m. Her death resulted after much sufferings and struggles in the death bed as per the available evidence on record. As per the evidence given by 2nd opposite party the breathing difficulty was noticed at about 4.55 p.m. Death took place at 6.45. The treating doctor was not informed. No arrangement has been made by 1st opposite party to bring the treating doctor to attend the patient even in her critical stage. 2nd opposite party deposed in her cross examination that “I have not received any call from hospital to attend the patient”. First of all it is wonderful to note what is the reason why the treating doctor who admitted the patient in the hospital left place without attending the patient even once in her admitted bed. Secondly it is difficult to understand what is the reason why arrangement has not been made or attempt has not been made to get the treating doctor of the patient during the critical stage of the patient while struggling with death and life in her death bed in the hospital. Sarada was a patient who was blamed for not being admitted in the previous day and so also on the first visit itself in the morning 23.11.04. If the advise to be admitted on those occasion were sincere the patient Sarada has been expected to get more attention but it is seen such a patient has been neglected without even attending her at least once by the treating doctor. The treating doctor was not aware of the condition of the patient. The treating doctor 2nd opposite party is the head of medical department. That means she is the most expert in the department. She has deposed in her cross examination that “after examination if the duty doctor if any thing serious, the expert doctor will be called”. 2nd opposite party adduced evidence by her proof affidavit that duty doctor attended the patient 4.55 p.m when patient was suffering with breathing difficulties. But the expert treating doctor was not called. 2nd opposite party even do not know who was the duty doctor. She has stated in proof affidavit that Dr.Murali Gopal, who was present, directed the duty doctor to administer proper medicine. But she has deposed in cross examination that “I cannot say which doctor attended Sarada on 23rd from hospital. There is nothing in the case sheet to show that Murali Gopal attended the patient. His name and signature has not find place any where in the case sheet. 2nd opposite party herself deposed in cross examination that “after each examination the doctor will put the signature in the case sheet”. But Murali Gopal did not put his signature anywhere in the case sheet. It is clear that there is no record to show that Dr.Murali Gopal was attended the patient Sarada on 23.11.04. DW2 deposed in cross examination that “I cannot say which doctor attended Sarada on 23rdfrom Hospital. There is nothing in the case sheet to show that Murali Gopal attended the patient”. The patient was admitted in the ward at 9.55 am on 23rd morning .Till 4.55 P.M no doctor attended the patient. Complainant has the case that the disease of the patient has got aggravated at about 12 o clock having breathing trouble. The case of the complainant is that “ about 12 noon on 23.11.04 itself Sarada experienced difficulty in breathing and Uthaman, the brother of the Sarada who was attending in the hospital reported the same to duty nurse. But neither the nurse nor the 2nd opposite party came to examine the patient and given necessary treatment”. It was further alleged that when the difficulty was again reported to the nurse he was told that the doctor will come at 4 p.m. It was also alleged that he was scold when it was reported on 3rd time. Whatever it may be, whether it was true or not, what was the actual position of the patient at that point of time is the relevant question for which we are helpless to depend upon the case sheet. Nothing recorded in the case sheet. After the admission of the patient in the hospital it was seen on the Ext. XI case sheet that the patient was attended by another doctor only at 4.55. Till then no doctor attended the patient. There is no entry in treatment and progress sheet, the entry in Treatment and progress sheet starts on at 6.30 p.m almost near to the end of drama. It is clear from the evidence of 2nd opposite party that in the case of inpatient the treatment and progress report will start at the time of admission. The duty doctor and attending physician and duty nurse will write the progress and treatment report. Running entry of progress and treatment practically starts at 6.25 p.m and follows 6.25 P.M. 6.30 p.m , 6.35 p.m 6.40 pm, 6.45 p.m etc. up to the fall of curtain. In other words from 9.55 am to 4.55 p.m there is no entry in progress and treatment sheet. The case sheet itself makes it clear the absence of necessary care and caution. Opposite party has not taken sufficient care to make it assure that the admitted patient Sarada has got proper treatment and attention of the doctor. Opposite party has the case that the patient Sarada was suffering from Jaundice which appears to have been neglected before she came to the hospital. Ext.A2 goes to show that opposite party has the case that in spite of the best efforts of the doctors, Saradas’s condition worsened and her pulse became feeble and un recordable and she died after 6.40 p.m The evidence on the side of opposite party doesn’t show that the doctors examined Shrada prescribed any medicine for jaundice. It can be seen that opposite party did not give any evidence to show that Sarada was given treatment for jaundice from the hospital. Patient was first brought to hospital on 22.11.04. She was examined and Medicine prescribed. It was also recorded in the case sheet “ PA.soft. Epigastria tenderness”. DW1 also deposed in cross examination that “In the case sheet duty doctor has noted Epigastria tenderness”. No doubt expressed by the duty doctor anything of jaundice. Next day morning on 23.11.04 when the patient was again brought to hospital duty doctor examined but not expressed any doubt of jaundice. The patient was then brought to the Head of department of Medical department 2nd opposite party Dr.Poornima Rao Details of earlier treatment reported to Doctor and after examination directed to get admission. 2nd opposite party deposed in cross examination that “I have noted symptoms of hepatitis. That is noted in the case sheet also. I am not confirmed hepatitis before administering medicines”. Hence 2nd opposite party, the Head of Department of medicine has also not suspected of jaundice to patient. Ext. X1 case sheet does not reveal the disease of the patient was something connected with jaundice. 2nd opposite party in her proof affidavit stated that when the patient was found gasping “Hydro Cortizone’ injection was administered. Nevertheless, at 6.45 p.m the patient was found dead. Who prescribed the injection ‘Hydro cortisone’ is not disclosed. Who administered this injection is also not disclosed. The nurse’s report does not show any such injection was administered to patient. Since it is seen absent in the case sheet it can only be considered what was stated by 2nd opposite party with respect to the injection Hydro Cortisone was untrue. The case sheet reveals that the disease of the patient was not properly diagnosed by the opposite party. On going through the evidence and records it is seen that no effective steps have been taken to diagnosis the disease properly. Opposite party has not even succeeded to give details of treatment given to the patient. For what disease the patient was treated has not been explained. What is the disease out of which the patient lost her life is not explained. 2nd opposite party deposed in her cross examination that the death of Sarada is due to respiratory arrest. She has also deposed that patient was not died due to Hepatitis. The treatment was given for Hepatitis. She says that she has reason to believe that the disease was hepatitis. But it was not seen explained the follow up steps to ascertaining the diagnosis as hepatitis. DW1 did not explain what the medicine is prescribed for Sarada in connection with Hepatitis. The case sheet Ext.X1 goes to show that no diagnosis had been made in the case of Sarada. It is difficult to understand no reason why the treating doctor did not care to examine the patient even when she had been struggling in critical condition. This aspect alone is sufficient enough to attribute deficiency in service of the opposite parties. Opposite party contended that Sarada was suffering jaundice. But no such test report seen produced. It is not seen any medicine is given for jaundice. Opposite party did not explain whether any medicine had given for jaundice or not. 2nd opposite party in her proof affidavit did not state any treatment had been given to patient in connection with jaundice whereas Ext.A2 specifically stated that “Sarada was suffering from jaundice which appears to have been negligent before she came to the hospital”. Opposite party has no explanation what is the base up on which they arrive at such a conclusion. If it is a true statement there should have been follow up treatment accordingly. The opinion of the duty doctor “Epigastria tenderness” had not been attended at all. Both pleading and evidence of opposite party claims that hydrocortisone injection was given to patient Sarada for breathing trouble but could not say who prescribed the medicine, which is expected to be shown in record. DW2 Nurse in her chief examination adduced evidence that “Doctor amÀ hmÀUnÂh¶v ]cn-tim-[n¨v acp¶#v prescribe sN¿p-T.Doctor sâ chart emWvprescription Fgp-Xp-I. Ba-cp¶p sImSp-¯vI-gn-ªm nurse chart  tcJ-s¸-Sp-¯p-T. “No where in the nurse’s report on 23.11.04 can be seen hydrocortisone injection had been administered? Doctor’s chart is not produced. Treatment and progress (X1 page 3) entry of treatment started at 6.30 p.m. No where in treatment and progress sheet it is seen prescribed hydro cortisone. All those medication prescribed prior to the entry in treatment and progress sheet is seen recorded in case paper. But none of the doctors examined the patient seen prescribed hydrocortisone injection. It is difficult to believe the words of the opposite parties to this effect on the basis of the evidence. Moreover, DW1 adduced evidence by proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination that “Dr.Murali Gopal who was present directed to the duty doctor to administer proper medicine and to give nebulisation by way of caution. The direction of doctor was duly carried out and there was no sign of aggravation of the condition”. There is no evidence to show that Dr.Murali Gopal had attended the patient sarada. DW1 did not say what time Dr.Murali Gopal was attended the patient. Now here in the case sheet Ext.X1 the name of Dr.Murali Gopal is seen. Neither in the treatment and progress sheet not in the case paper” wherein doctors prescribed medicine it cannot be seen that nebulisation was advised by Dr.Murali Gopal. Suppose it is written in Doctors chart as stated by DW2 where is this Doctors chart? Out patient department prescribed medicine in case paper and thereafter vomiting followed in “Treatment and progress” sheet of the case sheet. Diseased Sarada admitted in the hospital at 9.55 Am as per Graphic (G.P.R.Chart) and fluid intake and output chart in Ext.X1case sheet. The first entry in fluid intakes and output chart seen made at 9.55. The entries that had been made in the case sheet. Ext.X1 from 9.55 is to 7 P.M the name of Dr.Murali Gopal cannot be seen. DW2 doctor deposed in cross examination that “In the case of I.P the treatment and progress” report will start at the time of admission. The duty doctor as well as the attending physician and duty nurse will right in the progress and treatment report”. In the case of deceased Sarada the “Treatment and progress” report started only at 6 P.M.” The treatment and progress report is expected to start from 9.55 onwards. Then the entries in treatment and progress report right from 9.55 to 6 p.m(up to 6 p.m) seen missing for which no explanation has been given by the opposite parties. As per the evidence of DW1 and DW2 doctors prescribe medicine in progress and treatment report right form the admission. Case paper is used by outpatient department. DW2 deposed in cross examination that “Treatment and progress F¶ chart Dr.Fgp-Xp-¶-Xm-Wv.-A-Xn H.-]n. Bbn treat sN¿p-T-t]mÄ case paper DT admission Bbn Ign-ªm treatment and progress F¶ chart Dv. Admission time epff entry treatment and progressF¶ chartemWv. Fgp-tX-Xv. Then the opposite party is bound to produce the treatment progress chart wherein entry recorded right from the admission which the opposite party failed to do. In the case of Sarada continuous entry after admission in treatment and progress report from 9.55 a.m to 6.30 p.m has not been produced. The produced chart shows entry only from 6.30 p.m onwards. It shows opposite party is negligent in recording maintaining records. It can also be seen that there is contradiction in the evidence of DWs 1 and 2. DW2 deposed in cross examination that ]qÀ®na tUmIvSÀ H.]n ka-bT Ign-ªm hopT 4 aWn¡v hcp-T. AXv Ign-ªm duvkn\vv hcpT. Ah-cpsS \nÀt±-i-{]-Im-cT admit sNbvX FÃm tcmKn-I-sf-bpT sshIp-t¶-cs¯ rounds ]cn-tim-[n-¡p-T.23.11.04\v hospital sh¨v Dr.]qÀ®na ]cn-tim-[n-¨-Xmbn ImWp-T. In the light of this evidence it can be assumed that the allegation of the complainant that the nurse told to the relatives that Dr.Poornima will come on 4 p.m is true. It cannot be seen that Dr.Poornima examined Sarada during her evening rounds after 4 p.m as deposed by DW2. DW2 also deposed that Dr.Poornima was on call duty on 23.11.04. Dr.Poornima has no case that she had examined Sarada in hospital after admission. Both oral and documentary evidence does not help opposite parties to the extent needed to substantiate their contentions due to contradictions and lack of clarity. Opposite party could not succeed in giving explanation that the entire possible attempt was being done to save the life of deceased Sarada. It is true that Dr. Poornima was on call duty. But it cannot be ignored that 1st opposite party is bound to attempt to get the doctor for this urgent case. But 1st opposite party has not made any attempt to get Dr. Poornima, the treating doctor to attend the patient in such an aggravated condition of the patient. Since Dr. Poornima is call on duty, it is the hospital who has to act to get her on duty to meet a critical stage. Hence the liability is that of the hospital and not that of the doctor. Unfortunately 1st opposite party failed to discharge the duty for which there is no justification. The 1st opposite party did not give case sheet and report to complainant on request. Lawyer notice also sent to opposite party calling upon to issue a copy of the case sheet and report. As per the reply complainant submitted written application for getting copy of the case sheet and report but opposite party did not supply it. The averment of the complainant is that the copy of case sheet was not issued in order to make necessary correction. Non delivery of copy of case sheet affected the credibility and fairness of 1st opposite party a well known institution in the district. Opposite party has no case that copy of case sheet was issued to complainant. Any how one of the doctors who had attended deceased Sarada after admission should have been examined before the Forum in order to enlighten the efforts that had been taken by the opposite parties during the critical stage of the patient. The patient Sarada was really admitted in Medical ward. None of the nurses who had been in duty on 23.11.04 in Medical ward is examined. The nurse on duty in gynecology ward who is examined as DW2 adduced evidence that “23.11.04 Sarada F¶ patient s\ admit sNbvX-n-cp-¶p. imc-[sb t\m¡n-b-X¡ [\-vy-bpT kPn-X-b-p-am-bn-cp-¶p. She has also stated that Dhanya and Sajitha are not working there at present. But no attempt has been made to examine any one of them. The contention of opposite party that the doctors on duty after 12 noon on the date of death had left the service of 1st opposite party and there present whereabouts and place of employment are not known cannot save the situation. Non examination of any one of the doctors who had attended deceased Sarada after the admission and also the concerned nurses attended vehemently weakened the defense of opposite parties that Sarada was properly attended to and treated at the hospital. Close scrutiny and analysis of documents and evidences available on record goes to show that 1st opposite party has failed to perform its duties that can be expected in the ordinary course of dealings. 1st opposite party did not even attempt to call the treating doctor to attend the patient at the time of her critical stage. The most important document X1 case sheet is not capable of establishing the contentions of opposite parties that Sarada was properly attended to and treated at the hospital . Denial of ;issuance of copy of case sheet can also be considered as an unjustifiable act on the part of 1st opposite party, Hospital 1st opposite party never attempted to make available the presence of the treating doctor during the critical stage of the patient. So also no other expert senior doctor was consulted to have better opinion. The disease was not properly diagnosed. Opposite parties are not definite even to say who prescribed certain medicine. DW1 adduced evidence by way of proof affidavit that Hydrocortisone injection was prescribed. But in the cross examination she could not say who prescribed the medicine. DW1 deposed in cross examination that “hydro cortisone injection prescribed. I cannot say who prescribed it. “It can also be seen as explained above that it was not recorded in the case sheet that hydro cortisone injection was administered to Sarada. These are all quite against the usual and normal practice, which reveals the absence of reasonable care and caution. In the evidence as pointed out above it has come that the doctors wrote in treatment and progress chart. As far as an inpatient is concerned the entry starts from the admission.Ext.X1 shows Sarada admitted in hospital at 9.55 A.M. But the entry in treatment and progress started from 6.30 p.m only. What is the reason for the deviation from the usual and normal practice of entry right from the admission has not been explained by the opposite parties. The treating doctor cannot claim that she had performed her duties to the best of her ability and with due care and caution. The act of omission on the part of 1st opposite party to make to assure the presence of treating doctor or else another senior expert is amounting into a serious negligence apart from the above mentioned improper dealings. Opposite party has produced the land mark decision of the Apex court in Martin F.D.Souza vs. Mohd Ishfaq. It has no application in this case. The case in hand filed in the year 2005 much prior to this verdict of the Apex court. There arise no question of sending the present case for such a medical opinion in the final stage of the case so as to make assure that there is prima-facie case. On going through the evidence and after hearing the learned counsel we conclude that there is deficiency in service on the part of 1st opposite party and the 1st opposite party hospital is liable to compensate the loss sustained by the family of the deceased. The deceased Sarada is 47 years old. The loss of company of the wife to husband, complainant who is 55 cannot be measured in terms of money. Sons and daughters are lost their mother. Hence we are of opinion that the complainants are entitled for compensation taking into account the loss of company to the aggrieved family. Taking into consideration the entire aspect we feel a sum of Rs.1, 50,000/- as compensation will meet the ends of justice. Complainant is also entitled for an amount of Rs.1500/- as cost of these proceedings. Hence the issues 1 to 3 are found infavour of the complainants and order passed accordingly. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the 1st opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1, 50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only) as compensation and an amount of Rs.1500/- Rupees One thousand Five hundred only) as cost of this proceedings to the complainants within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection Act. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1.copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP A2.Reply notice A3.Cash bills for purchase of medicines Exhibits for the opposite parties B1.Copy of the attendance register maintained in Ops hospital dt.23.11.04 B2.Copy of duty assignment register covering the ate 23.11.04 of Ops hospital Exhibits for the court X1.Case sheet of Sarada admitted as IP 04-05/16773 Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant PW2.W.Santhosh Witness examined for the opposite party DW1.Dr.Poornima Rao DW2.Shinina.C.K /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur
| | HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P, Member | HONABLE MR. GOPALAN.K, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE JESSY.M.D, Member | | 
