O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:<br /> <br /> The grievance of the complainant against the Op in brief is that she is the wife of Ramamurthy, as he had stomach ache consulted Op a Medical Practioner and at the time of admission Op gave an injection to her husband and within a span of time the said injection did not react the same and he succumbed and died within a span of time on 26/12/2008. That after the death of her husband his body was sent to post martem examination in Victoria Hospital and the doctor has given his report on 27/12/2008. The complainant alleging that Op is responsible for this negligence solely and therefore as the result she has become a widow and has prayed for awarding compensation of Rs.10.00 lakhs.<br /> <br /> Op has appeared through his advocate and filed version denying that this complainant is the wife of deceased Ramamurthy, admitting that Ramamurthy was suffering from stomach ache partially as correct and contended that allegations of the complainant differs from allegation she has made in the legal notice. He has further contended that Ramamurthy was taken to his Nursing Home on 26/12/2008 by three persons at about 3.00 pm with report of symptoms of vomiting Generalino abdominal pain and low back pain since two days and he was given treatment by some doctors but he did not get relief. On oral examination he was told by the patient about epigastrict pain, vomiting, fever, low back pain and having chest pain since last two days. That on his examining the patient as a out patient BP was found normal but he was given Rantac medicine Viva Intramuscular to the hip and was injected Tranadol. As there was no relief the attendants were advised to shift the patient to Jayadev Hospital or to Narayana Hurdayalaya Hospital at the earliest time but unfortunately at 3.30 pm patient expired due to Cardiac arrest (Natural Death). It is also cleared from Post Mortem report. The Op denying that the patient died after he was given injection within short span of time, has further contended that injection was given to patient in their Nursing Home is nothing to do with the death of the deceased. That heart of the deceased was sent to Pathology Department for Histo-pathological examination and past history and report was received with the opinion that the death was due to Cardiac failure as a result of Coronary Artery disease. The complainant by suppressing that fact has filed this complaint with an allegation which is far from truth and therefore denying any negligence at his end has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and Op have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant along with the complaint has produced a copy of UDR report, copy of Histopathology report and a copy of Post Mortem report and copy of legal notice she got issued and copy of reply sent by counsel for the Op. Op has produced a copy of note made in his Nursing Home on 26/12/2008 when the patient was taken to his Nursing Home. Counsel for both parties have filed their written arguments which is nothing but reproduction of their affidavit evidence. Counsel for Op has relied upon certain decision reported in II (2007) CPJ page 135, IV (2007) CPJ page 232 and another decision of 2009 CPJ page 263. We have considered entire materials placed before us and gone through the written arguments and citations.<br /> <br /> On consideration of the above materials, following points for determination arise.<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that death of her husband namely Ramamurthy was the result of negligent medical treatment by the Op.<br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> Point No.1 : In the negative<br /> Point No.2 : See the final order<br /> <br /> Answer on point No.1: The main grievance of the complainant as evident from the complainant allegations and affidavit evidence is, that the deceased with the complaint of stomach ache was taken to Op hospital, he gave an injection which did not react and the deceased stated to had died within a span of short time on 26/12/2008. Except this allegation and further allegation that the deceased died due to negligent medical treatment by the Op, complainant has not at all alleged any negligence on the part of the Op in treating her husband and any short comings of that Op as an ordinary and prudent medical man in treating the husband of the complainant. Even during enquiry into this complaint the complainant except reiterating what she has stated in her complaint in the form of affidavit evidence has not adduced any evidence to substantiate medical negligence of OP or deficiency in his service while treating the husband of the complainant.<br /> <br /> The Op has produced a copy of record maintained in the Nursing Home on 26/12/2008 when the deceased was to taken to them. In that document we find that the deceased was taken to Op’s Nursing Home on 26/12/2008 at 3.00 PM accompanied by three attendants with the complaint of chest pain, vomiting, fever since 2 days who was treated at a local clinic before going to the Nursing Home. The Op found to had examined the patient and during clinical examination he found radiating pain in the left shoulder, injected Rantac medicine for Epigastrict pain, further injected Tranadol one ampoule i.e. one ml which was the accepted line of treatment. As the patient did not get relief he had advised the attendants to shift the patient to Jayadeva Hospital or to Narayana Hrudayalaya for suspected Cardiac problem but the patient expired in that Nursing Home at 3.30 PM. The complainant has produced Post Mortem Report of the dead body which was done in Victoria Hospital. Cause of death as per the report is death was due to Cardiac failure as a result of Coronary Artery decease (Natural death). The complainant has not questioned the history of the patient recorded by the Op and the cause of death given by the doctor who did autopsy of the dead body. Further, the complainant as against this has not produced any material nor examined any expert to disprove the cause of death of the deceased and line of treatment that was commenced by the Op at the initial stage was not one expected to treat a patient with a cardiac problem. The evidence of Op that he injected an injection immediately on suspecting Cardiac problem and since the patient did not get relief he was advised to be taken to specialized hospital has also remained uncontroverted. We therefore, on careful analysis of the materials placed before us, the evidence of the complainant and evidence of the OP find no merits in the allegations of the complainant that the Op was negligent in his professional duty as a doctor and it is because of his negligence her husband died. On the contrary it is proved that the deceased died due to cardiac arrest and the patient was rushed to the Nursing Home of the Op of late and even after taking necessary step to save the patient and to take him to the specialized hospital he collapsed for which Op cannot be held as liable. As the result, we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant has failed to prove negligence of the Op. We therefore answer point No.1 in the negative and pass the following the order.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is dismissed. No cost.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the Open forum on this the 26th April 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />