District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala
Dated this the 7th day of January, 2011
Present: Smt.Seena.H, President
Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member
Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing: 15/06/2010
CC. No.80 /2010
U.Ramanunni
S/o.Late Sanakaran Nair
Krishnaprasad
Vadavannur(P.O)
Palakkad 678 504. - Complainant
(By Party in person)
Vs
1. Dr.Sunil Pisharody
Consultant Cardiologist
(Interventional Cardiologist)
Thankam Hospital (PMRC)
West Yakkara
Palakkad – 678004.
2. The Managing Director
Thankam Hospital (PMRC)
West Yakkara
Palakkad.
3. The Public Relation Officer
Thankam Hospital (PMRC)
West Yakkara
Palakkad.
4. The Administrative Manager
Thankam Hospital (PMRC)
West Yakkara
Palakkad. - Opposite parties
(Adv.C.Madhavankutty for all opposite parties)
O R D E R
By Smt.BHANUMATHI.A.K, MEMBER
Complaint in brief:
Complainant was admitted at Thankam Hospital on 08/05/2010 at about 7.30 p.m with IP.No.93967 due to left sided pain as he had fallen. Immediately after the admission Hoemogram and other investigation like ECG, X-ray of chest, ECHO and Holter ECG were carried out. The complainant was discharged on 10/05/2010 with discharge summary and investigation report. Regarding the Holter ECG report the concerned officials said that it will take 3-4 days time and come after making a phone call to the hospital. But the complainant was unable to do as directed due to severe pain. His son was also not well due to hernia operation. On 23/05/2010 the complainant explained this situation and enquired about the report. He was told to come to the hospital on 24/05/2010. As per the instruction the complainant went to the hospital and requested for the report. After a long time he was informed that the technician was on leave and the report is not seen. The complainant was informed that they will inform about the matter through phone. But on 25/5/2010 they did not make phone call, the complainant himself made telephone call to the hospital and was informed that the technician was searching the report. On 26/5/2010 the complainant went to the hospital and got report.
When he verified the report it is seen that the age of the complainant and date of admission etc. are different from that of the discharge summary, which is correct. So the complainant is of the opinion that the received report was belongs to somebody whose name was same as of the complainant.
On 27/05/2010 the complainant sent a fax to hospital Public Relation Officer showing these errors but no response. Again on 4/6/10 a reminder was sent to Administrative Manager. Afterwards, the complainant got corrected report with a letter with the signature of Dr.Sunil Pisharody.
As complainant is a heart patient he continued his treatment according to this report. The act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency of service on their part. Due to this acts of opposite parties the complainant suffered mental agony and monetary loss. So the complainant seeking an order directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation.
Opposite parties filed version with the following contentions.
It is admitted by the opposite parties that the complainant came to the hospital on 8/5/10 at 7.30 p.m with chest pain followed by a fall. He was attended by 1st opposite party and it was found that there was a fracture on 7th rib. The 1st opposite party diagnosed that the complainant was known case of DCM and he had severe malfunction. Thereafter all the necessary treatment were given and he was discharged on 10/5/10. The Holter monitor was fixed on the complainant on 9/5/10 to rule out any possibility of arrhythmia. The result of holter monitor did not reveal any arrhythmia so he was continued with medical treatment. Since no further evaluation was required for the cardio vascular disease concerned follow up, medical treatment was advised and the complainant was discharged. At the time of discharge specific direction was given to the complainant to come for follow up treatment after four days. But complainant never turned up as directed. Instead he came only on 26/5/10 for the report of holter monitor test. Once the holter monitor is removed from the patient it requires minimum three days to evaluate and study the reading that is why the reason that the report of the holter monitor test was not handed over to the complainant at the time of discharge. In the report the date and age was wrongly entered by the computer operator due to oversight and there is no fault on the part of the hospital technician and opposite party 1. There is no other patient named Ramanunni who was undergone holter monitor test. The holter monitor register of 2010 will reveal the same. So there is no question of issuing a false report or report of some other patient. When the typographical error of the report came to the notice of the opposite parties the same was corrected and sent through courier to the complainant. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of 1st opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Both parties filed affidavit. Exts.A1 to A12 marked on the side of complainant and Exts.B1 to B3 marked on the side of opposite parties.
Heard both parties.
The issues to be considered are;
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost complainant entitled to?
Issues 1 & 2:
The case of the complainant is that he was admitted in the opposite party hospital on 8/5/10. The holter monitor was fixed on the complainant on 9/5/10. On 10/5/10 the complainant was discharged. At the time of discharge all reports except holter monitor report was handed over to complainant. For the same, the complainant telephoned to the hospital and approached the hospital authorities several times. At last he got the report on 26/5/2010. While verifying the report the complainant noticed that the age and date of admission of the patient is different from that of the discharge summary, which is correct. This matter informed the hospital authorities but they did not give a correct answer. So the complainant sent a fax to Public Relation Officer of the hospital. Not getting reply the complainant sent a reminder to Administrative Manager of the hospital. Then the complainant got a corrected report with a letter with 1st opposite party’s signature. These facts are evident from Exts.A3 & A5. According to complainant providing error report is clear deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. So the complainant is in belief that the received report was belongs to somebody whose name was as of the complainant. But the Ext.B3 document shows that there was no other patient named Ramanunni who was undergone Holter monitor test. Another contention of the complainant is that he continued his treatment according to this report. By this no difficulty is caused to the complainant. The error occurred in the holter monitor report is only due to the typographical is not believable. Even if so, the opposite parties are bound to convince the complainant in time. Here the complainant sent reminder letter to the hospital authorities. From the above discussion, we are of the view that the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties is proved.
In the result, complaint allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings. Order to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 7th day of January, 2011
Sd/-
Smt.Seena.H,
President
Sd/- Smt.Preetha.G.Nair,
Member
Sd/-
Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K
Member
Appendix
Witnesses examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witnesses examined on the side of opposite parties
Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Letter dtd.27/5/10 sent by complainant to 3rd opposite party by fax
Ext.A2 – Photocopy of letter dtd.04/06/10 sent by complainant to 4th opposite party
Ext.A3 – Photocopy of discharge summary of Sri.Ramanunni
Ext.A4 – Discharge summary of Sri.Harisankar
Ext.A5 – Photocopy of Holter ECG report
Ext.A6 – Letter sent by opposite party to complainant
Ext.A7 – Transthoracic Echo report
Ext.A8 - ECG
Ext.A9 – CD1700 Specimen data report
Ext.A10 – Discharge bill
Ext.A11 – Bills
Ext.A12 – Bills
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties
Ext.B1 – Photocopy of Discharge summary of Sri.Ramanunni
Ext.B2 – Photocopy of Nurse’s record
Ext.B3 – Photocopy of Holter monitoring 2010
Cost (Allowed)
Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost
