Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/29/2020

Smt.Shruthi.M W/o late H.J.Lingaraju, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr.Mohammed Murtuza Kauser, - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.S.Anjaneyalu

25 Aug 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHITRADURGA.

CC.NO:29/2020

DATED: 25^th AUGUST 2022

PRESENT: -     Sri. M.I.SHIGLI. B.A., LL.M.,       PRESIDENT

                       

                        Smt. B.H. YASHODA.    B.A., LL.B., LADY MEMBER

 

                    

……COMPLAINANT/S	Smt. Shruthi M. W/o Late H.J. Lingaraju, Aged about 35 Years, House hold, R/o G.H.R. Layout, Chitradurga. (Rep by Advocate Sri. S. Anjaneyalu)
V/S
.….OPPOSITE PARTY/S	1. Dr. Mohammed Murtuza Kouser, Physician and Consultant,  Basaveshwara Medical College Hospital and Research Center, Chitradurga.   2. Basaveshwara Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Chitradurga. (Rep by Advocate K.N.Vishwanathaiah)

:ORDER:

 

 

Smt. B.H. YASHODA.    B.A., LL.B., LADY MEMBER

 

       The above complaint has been filed by the Complainant under Section 12 of consumer protection Act 1986 for seeking’s the relief/s of to directing the opponents to pay compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- to the Complainant of causing death of her husband H.J. Lingaraju by the opponents rash negligent, carelessness and deficiency in service and for costs and such other reliefs as this Commission deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case.

The Brief facts of the Complaint

2. It is stated by the Complainant that on 05-10-2019 at about 10-00 A.M the complainant’s husband H.J. Lingaraju complaint of chest pain. She had brought him to Basaveswara Hospital for treatment.  The complainant’s husband H.J. Lingaraju had been and examined and treated by O. P. D, by opponent no 1 as he was in-charge of the same as on that date and time.  After examination, the opponent no 1 had directed H.J Lingaraju to undergo E .C .G examination as such, he has undergone E C G examination on verifying E C G report of H.J. Lingaraju the 1^st opponent has opined and advised him that E.C.G report is normal nothing to worry and he can go home, if at all again, if he complaints of chest pain, then only he can come for treatment.

3. Further, the complainant states that by believing the words and medical advice given by the opponent no.1 complainant and her husband returned to their house and kept quite.  At about 7.00 P .M on the same day Complainant’s husband went to city in order to bring some medicine to his mother, as soon as he arrived to the house suddenly fell down and collapsed, immediately, the complainant and other family members shifted the Complainant’s husband H .J. Lingraru, by car to Basaveshwara Hospital, Chitradurge for treatment.  The Medical officer who was in-charge by that time declared that he is already dead and no need to admit him for treatment.

4. Further, the Complainant states that the Complainant and her family members with great shock and pain brought back his dead body to their house, next day i. e., on 06-10-2019 they arranged for cremation.  At the time of cremation, number of persons attended, among them few doctors were also there, they just casually asked about the  cause of death of the, husband Complainant and her family members explained about the happenings on 05-10-2019 from morning till his death. And also the treatment, E C G report and its opinion.  Further on their advice, they have shown the E C G report,  to the doctor on seeing the same, really shocked and have opined that the E C G report is not at all normal. It is quite serious and patient ought to have, been admitted to the Hospital and get treated as inpatient as emergency case. Further, the complainant stated that the above opinion of the doctors made the complainant and her family much more panic and hurt and they were put to great shock and agony,. Further relatives, friends and well-wishers who were assembled to cremation became aggressive and were, trying rushe to take law into their hands, but on the advice of the elderly people, after cremation, anyhow, there is E .C. G report and opinion, after cremation they can very well take legal action against the concerned. 

5. Further, it is stated by the complainant that the Complainant and her family members, after cremation contacted the opponents. The opponent no1 has confessed his mistake and begged pardon with the Complainant and her family members and has assured to compensate them her for the reason best known to him. He has failed to keep up his promise, in spite of repeated requests of the complainant and her family members.

6. Further, it is stated by the Complainant that Complainant took her husband to Basaveshwara Hospital for treatment with fond hope of good treatment, but, the opponent no1 with his negligent reckless, carelessness and deficiency in service, caused the death of the complainant`s husband H J Lingaraju, there by the complainant her small kids and her aged and sick in-laws were put to irresponsible. Loss  losing only bread earning member of her family.

7. Further, it is stated by the Complainant that the complainant without alternative got issued legal notice dated 04-11-2019 against both the opponents. The same is personally served on both the opponents, but for the reason best known to them, they neither replied nor complied to the complainant`s legal notice, hence, the complainant has filed this complaint.

8. After registering the complaint, the Commission has issued notice to Ops and it were duly served to the Ops, and filed their version by denying the allegations of the complaint. As, further stated the Complainant had brought her husband H J Lingaraju to the opponents Hospital at about 10-00 A.M on 05-10-2019 complaining Chest pain is denied as false.  The Complainant has never come to the opponents Hospital on that day along with her husband H J Lingaraju.  At that time, the opponent no .1 was in charge of O. P .D section on that day in the Hospital on 05-10-2019 at about 10-00 A.M are true.  But he came stable under normal circumstances, complaining little burning sensation and pain in the chest region.  That on his clinical examination by the opponent no.1 and on enquiry he disclosed that he was a smoker and he was under treatment for gastritis and Hypertension and constantly he used to consume tablets for gastritis and of B.P.  The same were noted in his O.P.D slip as smoking and H T B with name of the tablet AM CARD.  That after his due enquiry and examination, the opponent No.1 directed, him to undergo E.C.G. Then he undergone E.C.G. Thereafter, the opponent no.1 verified his E.C.G Graphic report in detail and examined the patient as an ordinary prudent Medical officer.  It was found that his B.P. was normal and Graphic Report also revealed that there were no any positive signs/ deviations showing any heart troubles.  The same have been noted in his O.P.D slip as O/E (on examination) his Cardiac vascular system and Respiratory systems (CVS-RS and NAD) (no abnormality was detected).  So advised the Complainant`s husband to take usual Tablets “Omez-D and syrup Urgel “for gastritis, as he was already used to take “Amcarad” for B.P. and noted the same in his O P D slip.  Further he was specifically advised to undergo ECG test as required immediately and noted the same a “Repeat ECG” SOS (its medical meaning is save our souls as required by predating the same).  That after thorough examination of said Lingaraju and advise by the opponent no.1 he only left the Hospital (as the complainant was not there) are true.  But, the other allegations of the same para that the said Lingaraju has been to city at about7.00 P M to bring medicine for his mother; that as soon as he arrived the house suddenly he fell down and collapsed are not within the knowledge, of the opponents and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  The opponents says that it is utterly false that suddenly the Complainant and other family members shifted Lingaraju to the opponent`s Hospital for treatment by car and then Medical officer in-charge of the Hospital declared that he was already dead and no need to admit him for treatment.  That body of Lingaraju was not at all brought to the opponents Hospital on that day evening.  It is only got up circumstances as an evidence, to make unlawful gain.

9. The Opponents in their version stating that the complainant and her family members with great shock and pain took back his body to their house and arrange for his cremation on 06/10/2019, that the time of cremation number of persons attended and among them doctor were also there; that they just casually asked about cause of death and the complainant and her family members explained about the alleged happenings on 05/10/2019 from morning till his death and alleged treatment, ECG Report and its opinion, that further on their advice they shown the E.C.G. report and seeing the same really doctors were shocked and opined that E.C.G. report is not at all normal and it is quite serious and the patient ought to had admitted to the Hospital and get treated as an inpatient as emergency case are all false.

10. The opponents in their version stating that the opinion of the doctors made the complainant and her family members much more panic and hurt and put great shock and agony, that relatives friends and well-wishers who were said be assembled at cremation became aggressive and we rushed to take law in to their hands but on the advice of the elderly people to take legal action against the concerned after the cremation, in view if ECG report and opinion, are all false.

11. The opponents in their version stating it after cremation, the complainant and her family members contacted theses opponents that then the opponents no.1 has confessed his alleged mistake and begged pardon with the Complainant and her family members and assured to compensate them, but for the reasons best, known to them, alleged promise in spite of alleged repeated requests of the complainant. That the complainant without, alternative got issued legal notice dated 4-11-2019 to the opponents but for the best reasons,  known to them they neither replied nor complained the said notice and hence the above complaint is filed that both the opponents are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant are all false.

12. Further the opponents in their version stating that the allegations made in the complaint are very vague and do not depicted any professional negligence or dereliction of duty on the part of the opponent no.1.  That more over the complainant does not disclose and also there is no any evidence about “cause of Death” of Lingraju.  The complaint also does not disclose the condition of the deceased from the time when, he left the Hospital till his death.  That deliberately no immediate complaint is lodged to the police in this regard and no post mortem of the deceased is got done.  The post-mortem would have revealed the specific cause of death.  That Post-mortem of his body could also be done even by excavation of the body when the alleged Doctors expressed some doubts about the condition of the deceased.  There are no sufficient and reasonable grounds to saddle any liability on the opponents.

13. That opponents in their version stating that op no 1 has acted with all care and caution.  After examining the deceased and after taking his previous medical history and by considering the E. C. G report the op no 1 has examined the deceased and properly he was advised to take proper above said medicine.  It is specifically noted and advised the patient to repeat E.C.G i, e., if the pain continued, for further needful course.  But, the complaint does not disclose what was the condition after he returned to his house till he collapsed at his house i.e., for more than about 7.00 hours.  That moreover, admittedly it appears from the pleadings that there was no repeat of any Chest pain or heart problems till 7.00 P M on that day and moreover he has gone outside to bring medicine for his mother.  This fact itself disclose that he was alright and had no any seriousness after he went from the opponents Hospital till his death.

14. From all the above material facts mentioned in the version, the ops requested they there is no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of Ops, so ops are not liable to pay any compensation as claimed by the complainants and prayed for dismissal of this complaint.

15. The Complainant got himself examined as P W 1 by filling her Affidavit as a part of examination-in-chief and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-7 were got marked and closed their side of evidence.

16. The opponents have examined as D W-1 and the documents were marked as Ex B-1 to B-6 and closed the evidence on their side Complainant and opponents have filed their written Arguments, Arguments of Complainant and Ops were heard.

17. After perusal of the complainant and Evidence of Op and all documents, the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above Complaint are that;

1. Whether the Complainant proves that the Opponnats have committed deficiency of service in treating the deceased Lingaraju and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the complaint?

ii) What order?

Our findings on the above points are as follows;

i)Negative,

ii) As per final order

                               REASONS

18. Point no 1:- The complainant examined as P.W 1 and documents marked as exhibits A-1 to A-7, viz., 1) Ex A-1- copy of Legal notice 2) Ex A-2 postal Receipts 3)Ex-A3- Acknowledgment 4) Ex A-4- E C G report along with op Registration card 5)Ex A-5 copy of complaint given to C P I Rural police, station Chitradurga, 6) Ex.A-6 copy of petition given to D.C. Chitradurga, 7) Ex A-7 copy of petition given to  D H O Chitradurga.  As such there is no dispute that the complainant has gone to opponent Hospital and taken the treatment on 5-1-2019 at 10-52 A M.

19. The opponent no 1 has examined as D W 1 and documents marked as Ex B-1 to Ex B-6 i.e.,

1) Ex B-1- HARRISON`S principles if Internal Medicine-20^th Edition.

Authors 1, Jameson, Faucet, 2 Ks per. 4. Hasuer. Lango and 6. Loscalzo.

Document no-1-A: page no 74 of first page

2) Ex. B-2 Brounwarld`s “HEART DISEASE’ Volume 11,10th Edition.

Authors: 1 Mann, 2. Zines, 3 Libbi and Bonow

Document no.1 –B page no; 1058-First R W.

3) Ex B-3; Davidson`s principles and practice of medicine- 22^nd and Edition

Authors; 1 Brine R. Walker, 2 Nicki. R. collage. 3 Stuart H. Ralston and 4 1a D, penman.

a) Document no; 1-C; page bi; 590- Box no; 18.62

b) Document No; 11 B- page bi; 592 Fig No; 18.71.

4) Ex B-4’ Lea Schamorth:- An introduction to Electro cardiograph- 7^th edition.

Author; choline Schamorth:

1. Document No.11-A, page No.138 Fig No:11.12.
2. Document No.111.page Nos:205,206—Fig No:16:1

20. As per Complaint allegations that the complainant and her family members with great shock and pain brought his body to their house, next day i.e., on 06-10-2019 they arranged for cremation.  At the time of cremation, number of persons attended, among them few doctors were also there, they just casually asked about the cause of death the happenings on 05-10-2019 from morning till his death and also the treatment, ECG report and its opinion.  Further on their advice, they have shown the ECG report.  The doctor on seeking the same really shocked and have opined that the E C G report is not at all normal.  But the op no1 after examine the deceased and taking his previous medical history and considering the ECG report op. No1 was advised and specifically noted to repeat ECG, i.e., if the pain continued as per Ex A-4 along with in OPD slip.  But the complainant does not discloses what was the condition after return to their house till collapse up to 7.00 P M i.e., before coming to Hospital and there is no post mortem of deceased Lingaraju and also the Complainant admitted in Ex A-5 to Ex A-7, in 9^th line  “ qÁ: P˸Àgï gÀªÀjUÉ E.¹.f. vÉÆÃj¹zÁUÀ CªÀgÀÄ £ÉÆÃr E.¹.f. ¸Àj¬ÄzÉ. ¤ªÀÄä AiÀÄdªÀiÁ£ÀjUÉ K£ÀÆ vÉÆAzÀgɬĮè JAzÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀÄ£À: £ÉÆêÀÅ PÁt¹PÉÆAqÀgÉ E.¹.f. ªÀiÁr¹ JAzÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀÝ®èzÉà ªÀiËTPÀªÁVAiÀÄÆ w½¹zÀ vÀPÀët £ÁªÀÅ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzɪÀÅ JAzÀÄ zÀÆgÀÄzÁgÀgÉà ºÉýzÁÝgÉ.  And also as per the Ex B-1 to B-6, produced by op No-1 that there is no symptoms for cardiac attack in the E C G report i.e., Ex A-4.  It is shows that there is no negligence and deficiency in service of ops.

21. The Complainant alleged against the O.P No-1 at the time of cremation, some doctors are also attended and seeing the ECG Report and they have shocked and opined that the ECG report is not at all normal, it is quite serious and inpatient as emergency case.  But, the Complainant not produced any expert opinion not lead the evidence of expert Doctors with regard to abnormally of ECG i.e., Ex A-4, which leads to the negligence of service of treating Doctor.  Therefore, the Complainant cannot prove the rash and negligence, carelessness and deficiency in service for the death of Lingaraju, by the act of ops only on the basis of complainant and chief affidavit.  With regard to this, the Supreme Court decision which as follows;

2022 (1) C P R – Page No; 443, (S C) Consumer Protection Act 1986- Section 2 (1) (g) - Deficiency in Medical service- Negligence in surgery- NCDRC allowed compensation-Apart from Affidavits, no other medical evidence was tendered by the Complainant to indicate negligence on the part of the Doctor To indicate negligence, there should be material available on record are else appropriate medical evidence should be tendered: The negligence alleged should be so glaring, in which  event, the principle of Res Ipsa loquitur could be made applicable and not based on perception.

This authority is very well applicable to the present case in hand.

22. In this above circumstances, perused the documents and evidence of complainant and opponents, chief Affidavit and written Argument, there is no deficiency in service of opponents.  As such, the point No.1 taken into consideration as Negative.

 23. As discussed on the above points and for the reasons stated therein w pass the following.

 

ORDER

The present complaint filed by the Complainant under Section 12 of C P Act 1986 against the opponent No.1&2, is hereby dismissed.

No orders as to costs.

(Typed directly on the computer to the dictation given to stenographer, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced by us on 25^th August 2022.)

 

 

 

       LADY MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:- Smt. Shruthi M.S/o H.J. Lingaraju

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of opponents:

DW-1:-Sri. Dr. Mohammed Murtuza Kauser S/o Late Mahmmed Saleem Kauser.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Office copy of the Legal Notice dated 04/11/2019
02	Ex-A-2:-	Postal Receipts
03	Ex-A-3:-	Acknowledgments
04	Ex-A-4:-	E.C.G. Report along with Op registration Card
05	Ex-A-5:-	Copy of the complaint given to CPI Rural Police station, Chitradurga.
06	Ex-A-6:-	Letter of Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga.
07	Ex-A-7:-	Copy to DHO, Chitradurga

 

Documents marked on behalf of opponents:

 

01	Ex-B-1:-	Harrison’s Principle of Internal Medicine
02	Ex-B-2:-	Braunwarald’s Heart Decease.
03	Ex-B-3:-	Davidson’s Principles and practice of Medicine
04	Ex-B-4:-	Leo Schamroth-An introduction to Electro Cardiography

 

 

 

     LADY MEMBER                                    PRESIDENT

 

 

Kms