This complaint coming up before us for hearing on 29-04-14                                in the presence of Sri Y. Rama Seshaiah, advocate for complainant;                         1^st opposite party representing inperson and Sri Ch. Narasimha Reddy (G.P.), advocate for 2^nd opposite party, upon perusing the material on record, after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-      The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking compensation of Rs.19,50,000/- from the opposite parties due to deficiency in service in treating his son and causing death.

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

          The complainant admitted his son Vijay Kumar as in-patient on               23-11-12 in Government General Hospital, Guntur on medical advice.   Hospital authorities of the Government General Hospital discharged the said Vijay Kumar on 29-11-12 and prescribed certain medicines.   There was no improvement in the condition of the said Vijay Kumar even after using the medicines prescribed.   The complainant got his son again admitted in the Government General Hospital, Guntur on 10-12-12.   After clinical examination and tests, doctors of the Government General Hospital, Guntur performed operation at 7.40 p.m. on 07-01-13.   After operation the patient Vijay Kumar was taken to ICU No.222 on trolley negligently covering a distance of about half kilometer. The concerned doctors did not provide oxygen for about half an hour.  Hospital authorities of the Government General Hospital, Guntur treated the patient negligently from the beginning and were responsible for the death of the patient Vijay Kumar.   The complainant reported the matter to the Collector, Guntur District, who in turn directed the 1^st opposite party to conduct enquiry and report within three days.   But the 1^st opposite party did not respond properly.   The complainant on 22-02-13 sought case sheet, discharge summary and enquiry report from the 1^st opposite party who in turn directed the 2^nd opposite party to furnish them.  The 2^nd opposite party did not care the instructions of the                       1^st opposite party.   The complainant lost his only son on account of negligence of the doctors of the Government General Hospital, Guntur.   The complainant suffered mentally and physically due to untimely death of his only son.   The complainant estimated his damages at Rs.19,50,000/-.   The complaint therefore be allowed.           

3.   The contention of the 1^st opposite party in nutshell is hereunder:

          The Government General Hospital, Guntur is not under the administrative control of the 1^st opposite party and as such the 1^st opposite party addressed the 2^nd opposite party with a request to conduct enquiry and send detailed report to the complainant.   The 2^nd opposite party inturn constituted enquiry committee who conducted enquiry on 09-04-13.  As per enquiry report there was no negligence in treating the patient on the part of the treating doctor and other supporting staff of the Government General Hospital, Guntur.    The complaint therefore be dismissed.

4.   The contention of the 2^nd opposite party in nutshell is hereunder:

          The complainant admitted his son in the Government General Hospital, Guntur with fever and lung abscoes and Haomoptysis.  The 2^nd opposite party on 06-04-13 appointed an enquiry committee with five doctors at the request of the 1^st opposite party.   The said enquiry committee conducted enquiry and submitted a report on 09-04-13. Inspite of pre-existing medical conditions the doctors Government General Hospital, Guntur treated the patient.   The patient is not responding to medical treatment leading to complications i.e., lung abscoes and haomoptysis which made the treating doctors to go for emergency surgical interrectuion with available supportive measures.   The entire treatment was offered free of cost.  During the entire period of treatment the patient had reasonable care.   Because of severity of the disease and complications raised, patient ultimately succumbed to the disease and its complications.   There was no negligence in treating the patient. The complainant is put to strict proof of the allegations.  The complaint therefore be dismissed.

5.  Exs.A-1 to A-11 on behalf of the complainant were marked. 

6.   Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

          1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer?

          2.  Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?

          3.  Whether the complainant is entitled to claim damages and if so to                              what amount?

          4.  To what relief?

7.  Admitted facts in this case are these:

          1. The complainant on 23-11-12 admitted his son Vijay Kumar in the                              Government General Hospital, Guntur as inpatient.

          2. The complainant’s son died in Government Hospital on 07-01-13                      (Ex.A-11).

          3. The complainant under Right to Information Act sought enquiry                        report under RTI Act (Ex.A-2).

          4. The 1^st opposite party addressed a letter to the 2^nd opposite party

                   to constitute a committee to enquire into the death of the said

                   Vijay Kumar and report (Ex.A-3).

          5. The complainant approached District Legal Services Authority                                      seeking justice (Ex.A-5).

          6. The complainant received copy of enquiry report (Ex.A-8).

8.   POINT No.1:-   The 2^nd opposite party contended that the patient Vijay Kumar was given free treatment.  It is also not the case of the complainant that he incurred expenses towards getting his son treated.  But the complainant filed a copy of receipt dated 03-01-13 (page 3 of Ex.A-1) and it disclosed that Hospital Development Society, Government General Hospital, Guntur received Rs.200/- (for CT Scan) from Sri J. Vijay.   The 2^nd opposite party either in its version or evidence affidavit did not deny the fact of receiving Rs.200/- towards C.T. Scan from Sri J. Vijay.  Hospital Development Society was annexed to Government General Hospital, Guntur as seen from the receipt dated 03-01-13.   The  Government General Hospital, Guntur in one form or other is receiving amount from patients.  In Dr. Shyam Kumar vs. Rameshbhai Harmanbhai Kachhiya (2006 CPJ 16 (NC) it was held that if fees is paid towards receiving medical services by the complainant the complaint falls within the purview of consumer.   In the present case, the complainant being legal heir of the deceased comes within the purview of consumer as the 2^nd opposite party charged fees for C-T Scan.  Under those circumstances, we opine that the complainant comes under the purview of consumer and answer this point against the opposite parties.

9.   POINT No.2:-    The 1^st opposite party has nothing to do with the treatment given in the Government General Hospital, Guntur.   Hence no liability can be fastened to the 1^st opposite party as rightly contended.   We therefore opine that claim against 1^st opposite party is not maintainable and is liable to the dismissed.

10.    In Orthonova Institute of Advanced Surgery & Research TCML House and others vs. Nripendra Kumar Thakur (2013 (1) CPR 474 (NC) while dealing medical negligence the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, held

“What constitutes medical negligence is now well established by a number of judgments of this Commission as also the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and essentially three principles are applied; (i) Whether the doctor in question possessed the medical skills expected of an ordinary skilled practitioner in the field at that point of time; (ii) Whether the doctor adopted the practice (of clinical observation diagnosis including diagnosis tests and treatment) in the case that would be adopted by such a doctor of ordinary skill in accord with (at least) one of the responsible bodies of opinion of professional practitioners in the field and (iii) whether the standards of skills/knowledge expected of the doctor, according to the said body of medical opinion, were of the time when the events leading to the allegation of medical negligence occurred and not of the time when the dispute was being adjudicated”.

11.    The complainant himself filed Ex.A-8 enquiry report conducted by a team of doctors.   In Ex.A-8 enquiry report the following was mentioned:

  “After going through the available records and statements and documents submitted by the treated staff and doctors, the committee opines that the patient Juganti Vijay Kumar s/o J. Babu Rao had unresolved pneumonia not responding to medical treatment leading to complications i.e., lung abscoes and haemoptysis which made the treating doctors to go for emergency surgical interreution with available supportive measures. 

  During the entire period of treatment the patient had reasonable care.   Because of the severity of the disease and complications araised patient ultimately succumbed to the disease and its complications”.   

12.  Burden is on the complainant initially to prove medical negligence on the part of doctors and thereafter the burden shifts to the opposite party to establish absence of negligence.  Medical negligence cannot be inferred unless the situation comes under purview of legal maxim ‘res-ipsa-loquitor’. 

13.  The complainant is aware of the contents of enquiry report before approaching this Forum.  The complainant though took time to file an application seeking another expert opinion to another hospital by sending the discharge summary.   For the reasons best known to him, the complainant did not seek another expert opinion.   The complainant did not place any cogent evidence contra to Ex.A-8 enquiry report.   In the absence of any cogent evidence we cannot find the doctors of the 2^nd opposite party negligently treated the patient Vijay Kumar and caused death. In view of the afore mentioned discussions, we answer this point against the complainant.   

14.  POINT No.3:-    In view of findings on point No.2, the complainant is not entitled to any damages.   We therefore answer this point also against the complainant.

15.   POINT No.4:-   In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.

 Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 5^th day of May, 2014.

Sd/-XXX                          Sd/-XXX                                 Sd/-XXX

      MEMBER                        MEMBER                           PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties:    NIL

                                                                                    Sd/-XXX

                                                                                               PRESIDENT

NB:   The parties are required to collect the extra sets within a month after receipt of this order either personally or through their advocate as otherwise the extra sets shall be weeded out.