BEFORE THE HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.797/2005 AGAINST C.D.No.696/2003, DISTRICTHYDERABAD.
Between:
1. Master K.Tharun Mohan S/o.K.Jagan Mohan
USA
10218 Yearling Drive
Ville,Maryland,USA
Kanti Avenue
Hyderabad.
2. Miss K.Ramya, D/o.K.Jagan Mohan,
USA
10218 Yearling Drive
Ville,Maryland,USA
Kanti Avenue, Anand Nagar Colony,
Hyderabad.
1. C.D.R.Health Care Limited
2. Dr.C.V.Sudhakar.
3. Dr.K.Srinivas
4. Dr.Niranjan
5. Dr.Divakar.
6. Dr.Bharath Reddy (Anesthetist)
7.
Hyderabad.
USA. Thus he is not a necessary party to the
Counsel for the Respondents:Mr.S.S.Subrahmanya Reddy-R2
QUORUM:THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.
AND
SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER.
WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY,
TWO THOUSAND NINE.
Oral Order:(Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
***
Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.696/2003 on the file of District Forum-I,Hyderabad, the complainants preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the first and second complainants, who are minor children of the deceased and Mr.K.Jagan Mohan, are studying at USA under the guardianship of their paternal uncle and hence the complaint is filed by G.P.A. i.e. father of the guardian and grand father of the complainants.
The complainants submit that their mother was born on1-3-1963 14-2-2000, she met with an accident at her parent’s residence at about8.00 a.m.while she was boiling water on kerosene pump stove and was admitted in CDR hospital at about9.40 a.m. 14-2-2000 14-2-20008.00 a.m. Dr.Niranjani also prescribed medicines and recorded 5 directions. 14-2-2000, another doctor namely Dr.Divakar observed that the patient is dumb and pointed out 57 mixed type burns impression in the case sheet notes. 12 noon14-2-2000progress record sheet disclosed the laboratory results showing abnormal blood urea of 31 mg./dl a low sodium of 135 mg/dl which indicate acute renal failure and hypoxemia both second to fluid loss and burn needs for more IV fluid.
On15-2-2000 10.15 a.m.12.30 p.m.
The complainants submitted that the patient was neither examined by any doctor nor any monitoring was done between11.00 a.m. to 3.30 p.m.3.30 pm. 4.35 pm. 8.00 a.m.
Finally on16-2-20001.00 a.m. 15-2-20003.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m. 14-2-20008.00 p.m.16-2-20001.20 p.m. 14-2-200016-2-2000Hyderabad.
Opposite party No.1 filed counter denying the allegations made in the complaint and submitted that the complainants through GPA are not permitted to attend and proceed with the matter in the absence of guardianship certificate from the competent court. 14-2-2000
Dr.G.V.Sudhakar is one consultant, who is known to visit his patients 3 to 4 times a day and often quite late in the night.
Opposite party No.2 filed counter denying the allegations and the patient was shifted to burns ward immediately.
Opposite party submits that in any hospital, an emergency case is initially seen by the duty doctor and referred to appropriate ward in consultation with and under the supervision of senior consultants. 12 noon14-2-2000, reports of initial investigation were entered in case record which were within normal acceptable limit and the treatment showed satisfactory progress. 5 p.m.
As burn patients go through a stage of fluid loss during the first 48 hours, which gets corrected with the treatment, fluctuations due to fluid loss are natural during this period, almost in every patient and for these reasons, patients are monitored not by one parameter but by more than one which also includes the clinical appearance for assessing their condition and to correlate all lab data with clinical picture which is more wholesome unlike any one particular report. Opposite party No.2 submitted that the burn patients will be in a stage of hyper metabolic response and hence will have tachycardia and tachypnea with more than normal heart rate and respiratory rate and this is normal picture to every doctor treating such patients. 3.30 p.m4.35 p.m. 11 p.m. th8 p.m.
Opposite parties 3 to 7 were set exparte.
Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A32 and B1 and B2 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.
Aggrieved by the said order, the complainants preferred this appeal.
Heard.
The point for consideration is whether there is any negligence on behalf of the opposite parties and if the complainant is entitled to the compensation claimed for?
We have perused the material on record. 14-2-2000, at8.00 a.m. 9.40 a.m. 14-1-20008.00 a.m.
It is observed from the record i.e. in Ex.A9, which is the progress check list issued by CDR Hospital, the date of admission is 14-2-2000 and the burns surface area is written as 57% and once again in Ex.A12, which is the
Savitha Garg v. National Heart Institute reported init is held by the Apex court as follows:
Burden lies on the hospital and the concerned doctor, who treated the patient to prove that there was no negligence involved in the treatment. , courts have taken a view that the hospital is responsible for the acts of their permanent staff as well as for the staff, whose services are temporarily requisitioned for treatment of patients.
In the instant case, the respondents/opposite parties have failed to establish what exactly the line of treatment is rendered to a critical patient and if they have followed the standard medical practice in rendering this treatment. Thakur Hameer Singh and Dr.R.Sudhina Lakshmi whose opinion was sought for fromOsmania GeneralHospital26-4-2001
Opposite party did not file any medical literature or documentary evidence in support of their contention that more than 20% burns are treated as critical and the same line is followed whether it is 30%
11.00 a.m.
thth The case of the 5thth
Hyderabad.
‘Records maintained are very poor regarding date and time.
We have gone through the entire record to peruse the cardio respiratory monitoring but there was no cardio respiratory monitoring done at all.
I have gone through the copy of case sheet of CDR Hospital,
14-2-20009.40 a.m.16-2-2000
‘After going through the case sheet I can state that, the
come down. This was required when the condition was deteriorating
when he did not do the needful.
Nowhere it is mentioned either in the case sheet or in any documentary material filed by the opposite party that the cardiac monitoring was done or that the patient was on ventilation. 10.15 a.m.12.30 p.m., date not known shows Hypoxemia
The contention of the opposite party that burns shown by ABG could only be due to a sampling error and does not reflect the true picture is not supported by any medical literature or documentary evidence.
CHARAN SINGH v. HEALING TOUCH HOSITALS AND OTHERS in III (2003) CPJ 62 NC, DR.JARKANWALJIT SINGH SAINI v. GURBAX SINGH AND ANOTHER in I (2003) CPJ 153 (NC), RANI DEVI v. DR.S.R.AGARWAL AND OTHERS in III (2002) CPJ 136 (NC)wherein it was held that in the absence of expert evidence, no relief can be granted.
SUSHMA SHARMA v.BOMBAYHOSPITAL
One cannot expect the patient and his relatives to play this
In view of the above, we hold that it is the hospital and the doctors who are responsible for coordinating their team and put forth the best possible treatment which in the instant case did not happen as seen from the hospital records.
InSPRINGMEADOWSHOSPITALthe apex court held that
the hospital is responsible for the cause of negligence
attributable to the employees and is liable for their
consequences.
Hence we hold that the hospital is equally liable for the acts of opposite parties 2 to 6.
We also direct the opposite parties 1 to 6 to pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the complainants.
11-2-2009.
