Tamil Nadu
South Chennai
389/2006
Mr.J.Jaseem Mohammed - Complainant(s)
Versus
Dr.Giridhar Gopal & others - Opp.Party(s)
V.Balaji
09 Dec 2021
ORDER
Date of Complaint Filed : 05.07.2006
Date of Reservation : 18.11.2021
Date of Order : 09.12.2021
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
CHENNAI (SOUTH)
Present: Thiru. R.V.R. Deenadayalan, B.A., B.L. : President
Thiru. T. Vinodh Kumar, B.A., B.L. : Member
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.389/2006
THUSDAY, THE 09th DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
M.J.Jaseem Mohamed,
No.121, Thambu Chetty Street,
Chennai – 600 001 .. Complainant.
..Versus..
1.Dr.Giridhar Gopal M.D., D.C.H., Paediatrician,
No.8(12), Rutland Gate 5th Street,
Numgambakkam, Chennai -600 006.
2.The Managing Director,
Dr.Metha’s Hospitals Private limited,
No.2(e) McNichols Road 2nd Street,
Chetput, Chennai – 600 031.
3.M/s.Apollo Hospital Enterprises Limited,
Represented by M.D.,
21, Greams Lane, Chennai -600 006. .. Opposite parties.
******
Counsel for the complainant : M/s. V.Balaji., Advocate.
Counsel for the 1st opposite party : M/s. AAV Partners.
Counsel for the 2nd opposite party :Mr. V.Shankar, Advocate
Counsel for the 3rd opposite party : M/s.A.S. Chandrasekharan.Adv.,
On perusal of both side records and after having heard the oral arguments of both sides we delivered the following:
ORDER
Pronounced by the President Thiru. R.V.R. Deenadayalan, B.A., B.L.
The complainant has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for causing the death of complainant’s son due to medical negligence and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant proof affidavit submitted as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A14 were marked and written argument filed. While so, on the side of the 1st opposite party, the proof affidavit submitted as his evidence but no documents filed and also written argument filed.
3. Further on the side of 2nd opposite party proof affidavit submitted as his evidence and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B20 were marked and written argument filed. Further on the side of 3rd opposite party proof affidavit submitted as his evidence and documents Ex.B21 to Ex.B34 were marked and written argument filed and also oral argument adduced on both sides.
4. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-
The complainant visited the clinic of the 1st opposite party DR.GIRIDHAR GOPAL with his 2 years old son ZAHID MOHAMED JAFARULLA on 22.12.2004 complaining of fever and convulsion. The 1st opposite party has advised that the complainant’s son undergo a few clinical examinations to find out the nature of the fever and its symptoms, causes, etc., Accordingly the 1st opposite party directed the complainant to go to M/S. SONA DIAGNOSTIC CENTRE to make his son undergo various tests the reports of which revealed that the complainant’s son had DENGUE & LEPTOSPIROSIS. Subsequently the 1st opposite party prescribed medicines but the fever did not subside where upon the complainant suspected something wrong in the child urine.
5. Thereafter the 1st opposite party asked the complainant to take his son’s urine for examination at National Hospital which revealed bile salt. As there were conflicting reports the 1st opposite party directed the complainant’s son to undergo other test on 27.12.2004 which report revealed FALCIPARUM. The complainant states that his son was hale and healthy except for the bout of a brief illness and was admitted in the hospital of the 2nd opposite party VIZ.DR.METHA’S HOSPITAL on 27.12.2004. The complainant states he was insisted that his son be admitted at child trust hospital, Nungambakkam, Chennai 34, but the 1st opposite party negative the idea and compelled that his son admitted at Dr.Metha’s Hospital much against his wishes. In this context it is pertinent to point out that Childs Trust Hospital caters exclusively to the health of children and in that the 1st opposite party is a visiting consultant. Further the fact remains that the 1st opposite party is not a consultant at Dr.Metha’s Hospital.
6. The complainant was given to understand that the medical diagnosis and clinical examinations conducted at the hospital of the 2nd opposite party Dr.Metha’s Hospital revealed only malaria necessitating routine supply of blood platelets the cost of which worked out to Rs.5,000/- that apart the tablets and medicines prescribed by the 2nd opposite party and the opposite parties asked the complainant to get his son discharged because of the complications developed by the complainant’s son and as the 2nd opposite party Dr.Metha’s Hospital lacked the latest equipment to treat his son for his ailment. Left with no other option or alternative, the 1st and 2nd opposite parties directed the complainant to take his son to the 3rd opposite party Apollo Hospital with a life support system on 29.12.2004.
7. When the complainant’s son was in the care of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties, he had the definite symptoms of complicated malaria. Unless it is promptly diagnosed and treated, clinical picture deteriorates rapidly. Quinine is the only drug for the treatment of complicated malaria. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties have not followed the further management and treatment for severe malaria. If they had taken steps they might have further avoided the complication arising out of malaria.
8. The complainant states that his son’s health condition deteriorated from bad to worse even after admitting him at Apollo Hospital where he was treated as inpatient for 13 days. Each day the doctors at the Apollo Hospital promised a speedy recovery. On the contrary, the complainant’s son breathed his list on 10.01.2005 at 8 pm. The opposite parties did not disclose the exact complications and diagnosis. It was only at Apollo Hospital that the complainant was informed about the bad shape in which he was admitted and also expressed their doubt regarding his son’s immediate recovery as such damage was already caused to him. Later on, Apollo Hospital informed that the complainant’s son was suffering from a rare type of disease name “acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome”. They also remarked and opined that the child could have been saved if he had been initially admitted at their hospital. Thus it could be seen that the opposite parties 1 & 2 were more interest in enriching their coffers rather than rendering yeoman service to the society. The complainant states that the hospital bills issued by the Apollo Hospital worked out to Rs.2,00,000/-. The complainant’s fervent pleas expressing financial incapacity fell on deaf ear, whereupon the complainant requested the Apollo Hospital to give the break up figures of the total medical bill. This request was negative, after which he was made to run from pillar to post to mobilize funds to get his son’s body. Hence this complaint is filed.
9. Witten Version of 1st Opposite Party in brief:-
The 1st opposite party has not been negligent in the discharge of his professional duties at any point of time. On the contrary he has exercised utmost care, due diligence and professional care and skill in treatment of the complainant’s child. The complainant has not pointed out any act of omission and commission and has failed to establish any negligence on the part of the 1st opposite party. It is true that the complainant brought his son Zahid Mohamed for consultation on 22.12.2004 and was asked to get some tests done. As admitted by the complainant, on the basis of the reports which revealed LEPTOSPIROSIS and dengue and also medicines was prescribed. The 1st opposite party denies that the complainant’s son was hale and healthy except for the bout of brief illness. Even when the child was brought to the 1st opposite party he was having fever and convulsions and when fever did not subside he was advised to get admitted into the 2nd opposite party’s hospital. On further clinical tests after admission on 22.12.2004 it was confirmed that the child was having malaria as well as low platelet count coupled with anaemia. Prompt and proper treatment was given and there cannot be any allegation of negligence against medical professional or hospital based on presumption. Hence it is requested to dismiss this complaint.
10. Witten Version of 2nd Opposite Party in brief:-
The 2nd opposite party states that they are an established hospital for the past 60 years with good reputation. They are fully equipped to treat the cases relating to neonatal and paediatric complications. They have their paediatric medical officers, nursing superintendents, nursing staffs, Para medical staffs and all other clinical equipment to handle such cases. They also have intensive care units to handle paediatric acute emergencies. The 1st opposite party regularly admits its patients in the hospital of the 2nd opposite party. On 27.12.2004 and 8 p.m a child name “Zahir Mohamed Zafarullah” aged about two years was admitted by the 1st opposite party in the 2nd opposite party hospital. The 1st opposite party was completely advising about the clinical procedures that have to be undergone for treatment of the child. The 1st opposite party directed the complainant to subject the child to various diagnostic procedures which was carried out in the 2nd opposite party’s hospital. In addition, the 1st opposite party also obtained diagnostic tests from various other sources such as M/s.Sona Diagnostic Centre. The results of various tests are interpreted by Doctors concerned.
11. On 29.12.2004 the child developed acute breathing problem and thereby Dr.Suchitra Ranjith (intensive Care Specialist) of Apollo Hospitals visited the hospital of the 2nd opposite party at the request of the 1st opposite party and advised that the child be put into paediatric intensive care unit of Apollo Hospital. The child was shifted to Apollo hospital immediately on 29.12.2004 at about 4.30 p.m. Thereafter the child was treated in the Apollo hospital about which the 2nd opposite party does not know anything. Sudden onset of any serious bacterial infection such as dengu or leptospirosis is not ruled out as it can occur in any person. The initial investigation might have revealed certain symptoms relating to a particular infection for which treatment would have been suggested by the 1st opposite party and this would have necessitated in treatment in the hospital of the 2nd opposite party as suggested by the 1st opposite party. In any case, the hospital charges paid by the complainant were extremely nominal. In any case less than 48 hours of the admission, the child was shifted to Apollo Hospital ICU Under Dr.Suchithra Ranjith with the parents consent from the hospital of the 2nd opposite party therefore the 2nd opposite party is unable to know anything about the ultimate infection which was detected with which the child was suffering and the treatment that was offered elsewhere. Hence it is requested to dismiss this complaint.
12. Witten Version of 3rd Opposite Party in brief:-
The complainant’s son was admitted in 3rd opposite party’s hospital in a very critical condition. This opposite party states that during last 4 days, the complainant’s son condition deteriorated further worsening of lung disease with air-leak and difficulty into minimally acceptable saturation even with maximum life-support. At each and every stage, this opposite party informed the complainant about his son’s condition. Hence this opposite party never assured of a good chance of recovery but the complainant continued to state that he had full faith and that his son’s condition would improve and wanted that the treatment to be continued at this opposite party’s hospital. The complainant also remarked that the result was in god’s hands and therefore the opposite party should not let the thought of a possible poor result interfere in the treatment. The complainant’s son was admitted in the ICU under care of life supporting system. This opposite party thoroughly diagnosed that the complainant’s son suffered from a rare of disease viz. Acute Respiratory Distress syndrome. This opposite party states that since the complainant son was admitted in their hospital in a very critical condition, he could not be saved. The complainant’s son was treated with maximum therapeutic doses of antibiotics and antifungals and patient was on maximal ventilator pressure support and maximum therapeutics doses of drugs to bring up the blood pressure. It can be seen from the records that in spite of this maximal treatment because of the disease perse the complainant’s son was unable to recover and therefore could be saved and hence the allegation that this opposite party did not conduct the antimicrobial chemotherapy, removal of source of infection and hemodynamic, respiratory and metabolic support. It is not known on what basis the complainant has made such complaint. There is absolutely no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party. Hence it is requested to dismiss this complaint.
13. The points for consideration are:-
1) Whether there is any medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties?
2) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
3) Whether the complainant is entitled to get reliefs as claimed in the complaint?
4) To what relief, the complainant is entitled?
14. Point Nos.1&2:-
During the argument the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that he has not prayed any prayer against the 3rd opposite party and it was specifically mentioned that the child was admitted in the 3rd opposite party’s hospital in moribund condition “MORIBUND MEANS (of a person) AT THE POINT OF DEATH” and child was died and therefore the claim may be dismissed as against the 3rd opposite party. Hence this commission has no given impartment to treatment given in the 3rd opposite party hospital.
15. The 1st opposite party is the Dr. GIRIDHAR GOPAL it is admitted the facts that the complainant’s son ZAHID MOHAMED JAFARULLA, age two years brought by the complainant for consultation on 22.12.2004 complaining of fever and convulsion. As per advice of the 1st opposite party the complainant went to M/S. SONA DIAGNOSTIC CENTRE to make his son undergo various tests the reports of which revealed that the complainant’s son was affected DENGUE & LEPTOSPIROSIS for which the 1st opposite party prescribed medicines and the above facts are not disputed by both sides.
16. According to the complainant that as there were conflicting reports the 1st opposite party directed the complainant son to undergo other test on 27.12.2004 his son was affected fever the 1st opposite party insisted the complainant that his son admitted at the 2nd opposite party’s hospital but the complainant insisted that his son is to be admitted at Child Trust Hospital, Nungambakkam, Chennai and the request was neglected by the 1st opposite party. As per advice of the 1st opposite party the complainant admitted his son into the 2nd opposite party’s hospital on 27.12.2004. According to the complainant, compelling of the 1st opposite party to admit his son in the 2nd opposite party’s hospital amounts to deficiency in service as against his desire to admit his son at Child Trust Hospital, Nungambakkam, Chennai and for which there is no evidence to show that the complainant insisted the 1st opposite party to admit his son at Childs Trust Hospital, Nungambakkam, Chennai. The 1st opposite party is a visiting consultant at Childs Trust Hospital and not a consultant at the 2nd opposite party’s hospital for being the visiting doctor at Childs Trust Hospital the natural tendency would be to accept the request of the complainant to admit the child admitted by the 1st opposite party.
17. The 2nd opposite party’s hospital was established for last 60 years and there fully equipped to treat the cases relating to neonatal and paediatric complications and therefore the 1st opposite party referred the 2nd opposite party’s hospital is not amount to deficiency in service. and therefore there is no documentary evidence except the oral evidence of the complainant to prove that the complainant was insisted to admit is child at the 2nd opposite party’s hospital and hence we are found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party to refer the complainant’s son to the 2nd opposite party’s hospital.
18. According to the complainant that he has approached the 1st opposite party’s hospital on 22.12.2004 on after examinations it is the duty of the 1st opposite party advised to take tests
1) Hemogram including platelet count,
2) Smear examination parasites,
3) Blood Sugar,
4) Serum bilirubin and SGPT,
5) Blood urea and serum creatine
6) Urine examination.
But the 1st opposite party prescribed only three tests to prove the same there is no evidence to show that the 1st opposite party has advised the complainant to take all these some of test whether all these mandatory is to be proved by the complainant by literature or some expert opinion.
19. Further on go through the written argument of the complainant it is found as if the complainant’s son was affected by malaria on the date of first consultation on the basis of he has submitted the above six tests are mandatory in all case of severe and complicated malaria. On perusal of list of document of the complainant, on 22.12.2004 as per SONO DIAGNOSTICS report the complainant’s son has positive in BLOOD LEPTOSPIRA-DFM and Dengue IgG and there is no diagnostics that the complainant’s son was affected by malaria and therefore the above tests mentioned by the complainant is not mandatory to a patient who approached the 1st opposite party for ordinary fever and convulsion. The 1st opposite party prescribed medicines for DENGUE & LEPTOSPIROSIS it is not denied by the complainant. However fever was not reduced the complainant approached the 1st opposite party on 26.12.2004 on the date advised URINE BILESALT at National Hospital, Chennai. Accordingly the Urine Bilesalt test was taken and in the result it is stated URINE BILESALT- POSITIVE AND URINE BILEPIGMENT-POSITIVE.
20. Again on 27.12.2004 the 1st opposite party advised to take all kind of text accordingly the complainant also want to M/s. Sona Diagnostics to take test and the test would reveal the positive of Billrubin Direct SGOT, SGPT, Lymphocytes and total Platelet Count and also it is mentioned RBC’s are normocytic and normochromic. WBC’s and normal in number and morphology. Platelets are decreased in number. Early Trophozoites including ring forms, some red cells with multiple parasites of P.Falcipaurum. Impression: Smear positive for P.Falciparum with ear Trophozoites (++), Severe thrombocytopaenia this all of found from Ex.A4. The complainant’s son sas admitted in the 2nd opposite’s party hospital on 27.12.2004 and discharge on 29.12.2004. The complainant has stated that the 1st opposite party failed to diagnosis that his son was affected by malaria and not prescribed medicines.
21. According to the 1st opposite party on 27.12.2004 itself as per Ex.B1 referring letter of the 1st opposite party to the 2nd opposite party’s hospital stated admit this 1 year 9 months old Zahid and was diagnosed with hepatitis, malaria, anaemia and thrombocytopenia and also prescribed a liquid diet,
injection Omentax (antibiotic)
Injection Netromycin,
Platelet transfusion,
Limrun Syrup,
Emquin syrup,
Fepanil Syrup.
Further in Ex.B6 drug chart would reveals that the injection omentax, injection Netromycin, Syrup.Silybon, Syrup. Lariago, Syrup.Fepanil, Syrup.Piriton, Syrup.Polyboin, Syrup.Peeliclory, Injection Rezq, Tablet doxy, Tablet Mefque and injection Decadron are prescribed and these are the medicines for malaria infections. Further as per Ex.B9 would reveal PERIPHERAL SMEAR: RBC marked anemia-hypochromic mirocytic Plasmodium vivax malaria parasite in ring stage seen in plenty. Occasional nucleared RBC’s seen and therefore on 27.12.2001 itself the complainant’s son was affected by malaria infection and admitted in the 2nd opposite party’s hospital on 28.12.2004.
22. On perusal on documents submitted by the 1st opposite party as well as 2nd opposite party after admission from 27.12.2004 proper investigation was made and proper treatment was given to the complainant’s son. On perusal of death summary it is mentioned that the cause of death is COMPLICATED MALARIA, SEVERE ARDS, REFRACTORY SEPTIC SHOCK and it is rare kind of disease and thereby the complainant’s son was died.
23. On perusal of records from 22.12.2004 to 29.012.2004 the 1st opposite party has given treatment to the complainant’s son as outpatient up to 27.12.2004 7pm and thereafter on 27.12.2004 the complainant’s son was admitted in the 2nd opposite party’s hospital and he was discharged on 29.12.2004 within two days period in the 2nd opposite party taken proper investigation was made and thereby proper treatment was also given to the complainant’s son. There is no proof to show that the opposite parties have committed any negligence or omission as against the complainant’s son and also there is no expert opinion to show that the opposite party has committed medical negligence. Hence we found there are no medical negligence as well as deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly point Nos. 1 &2 are answered.
24. Point Nos.3&4:-
We have discussed and decided that the opposite parties have not committed any medical negligence or deficiency in service on their part. Therefore the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as against the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. As already stated the complainant himself has not press the case as against the 3rd opposite party and thereby the opposite parties 1to 3 are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. Accordingly point Nos.3 &4 are answered.
In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No Costs.
Dictated to steno-typist, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open commission, on this the 09th day of December 2021.
List of documents filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 | ................. | Child health Record Book. | Xerox |
Ex.A2 | 22.12.2004 | Sono Diagnostics Report | Xerox |
Ex.A3 | 26.12.2004 | National Hospital Report. | Xerox |
Ex.A4 | 27.12.2004 | Sona Diagnostics Report. | Xerox |
Ex.A5 | 27.12.2004 | Dr.Metha’s Hospital Private Limited Immediate Discharge Document 804. | Xerox |
Ex.A6 | 29.12.2004 | Dr.Metha’s Clinical Laboratory Report | Xerox |
Ex.A7 | .............. | Sono Diagnostics Lab Report. | Xerox |
Ex.A8 | 10.01.2005 | Apollo Hospitals-Death Summary | Xerox |
Ex.A9 | 30.12.2005 | Complainant Notice to 1 &2 ops | Xerox |
Ex.A10 | 30.12.2005 | Complainant Notice to 3rd op | Xerox |
Ex.A11 | 24.01.2006 | Notice from V.Ramasubramanian | Xerox |
Ex.A12 | 24.01.2006 | Reply notice from Metha Hospital | Xerox |
Ex.A13 | .............. | Passport of Complainant’s wife. | Xerox |
Ex.A14 | 29.05.2006 | Reply from Apollo Hospital. | Xerox |
List of documents filed by the 2nd opposite party:-
Ex.B1 | 27.12.2004 | Referral letter issued by the 1st op to the 2nd op. | Xerox |
Ex.B2 | 27.12.2004 | Admission slip&patient registration information issued by the 2nd op. | Xerox |
Ex.B3 | 29.12.2004 | Hourly BP & Pulse Charge. | Xerox |
Ex.B4 | 29.12.2004 | Drag Chart. | Xerox |
Ex.B5 | ............... | Clinical chart of temperature. | Xerox |
Ex.B6 | ............... | Drug chart. | Xerox |
Ex.B7 | 28.12.2004 | Lab report bearing no.011875 – Haematology. | Xerox |
Ex.B8 | 29.12.2004 | Lab report bearing No.011921 – Haematology. | Xerox |
Ex.B9 | 29.12.2004 | Lab report bearing No.011910 – peripheral Smear. | Xerox |
Ex.B10 | 29.12.2004 | Lab report bearing No.011950 – Bio –Chemistry. | Xerox |
Ex.B11 | 29.12.2004 | Lab report bearing No.011872 – Micro Biology & Immunology. | Xerox |
Ex.B12 | ............. | Intake output chart. | Xerox |
Ex.B13 | 27.12.2004 | Lab report ID No.83847. | Xerox |
Ex.B14 | 29.12.2004 | Lab report – ID 83889 | Xerox |
Ex.B15 | 27.12.2004 | Check list. | Xerox |
Ex.B16 | ................. | Investigation chart. | Xerox |
Ex.B17 | 28.12.2004 | Case sheet. | Xerox |
Ex.B18 | 28.12.2004 | Case sheet. | Xerox |
Ex.B19 | 29.12.2004 | Case sheet. | Xerox |
Ex.B20 | 29.12.2004 | Immediate Discharge document. | Xerox |
List of documents filed by the 3rd opposite party:-
EX.B21 | 29.12.2004 | Patient Registration Record. | Xerox |
EX.B22 | 29.12.2004 | Admission Slips | Xerox |
EX.B23 | 29.12.2004 | Admission Forms. | Xerox |
EX.B24 | ……………. | Initial Patient Record. | Xerox |
EX.B25 | ………….. | General Consent. | Xerox |
EX.B26 | ………….. | Consultation Request | Xerox |
EX.B27 | 31.12.2004 | Progress Report. | Xerox |
EX.B28 | …………. | CCU Investigations Chart. | Xerox |
EX.B29 | ……………… | Nutrition Assessment. | Xerox |
EX.B30 | ………….. | Investigation Report. | Xerox |
EX.B31 | 10.01.2005 | Death summary | Xerox |
EX.B32 | …………… | Death certificate. | Xerox |
EX.B33 | 29.05.2006 | Legal notice. | Xerox |
EX.B34 | ……………. | Apollo Hospital record. | Xerox |
VINODH KUMAR R.V.R.DEENADAYALAN
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.