By Sri. K Gheevarghese, President<br /> <br /> The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> <br /> The complaint in brief is as follows:<br /> <br /> <br /> The 1st Complainant is the wife of the 2nd Complainant who was consulted by the 1st opposite party in the 2nd Opposite Party's Hospital followed by fever and discomforts on 01.02.05. The 1st Opposite Party is the doctor who treated the 2nd Complainant. On examination of the patient it was informed the Complainant that the patient has a fever in 103 degree and possibly<br /> of viral fever and it was also suggested by the doctor, medicines were given to the 2nd Complainant the direction of the 1st Opposite Party for the dosage of medicines were strictly followed. The intake of medicines gave no relief to the 2nd Complainant. The fever was followed by vomiting in the night. On the next day the 2nd Complainant was partly relieved from fever. The ailment of the 2nd Complainant was not subsided and on 4.2.2005 again the 2nd Complainant consulted the doctor the 1st opposite party. In the visit to the hospital for the 2nd time the doctor admitted the 2nd Complainant and the medication continued too. The medicines consumed by the 2nd Complainant could not give any relief and in turn the doctor gave the patient different medicines. The 1st Complainant meanwhile discussed with the 1st Opposite Party the possibility of jaundice. While the treatment were continuing the patient was slowly sinking in to the severe stage and had hiccups. The out put urine came to a standstill. The 1st Opposite Party has not done sufficient test to diagonise the disease. The symptoms which were showed by the patient were not appropriately analyzed by the doctor who treated. The 2nd Complainant was referred for an expert management in a highly delayed stage. At the time of the discharge of the patient, the Opposite Party informed the Complainant that the patient may be having the possibility of the leptospirosis and at the time of discharge one Nurse gave the Complainant one packed cover of blood in order to sent it for diagnostic test in Ernakulam. The 2nd Opposite Party's hospital collected Rs.2237.73 from the Complainant. The Complainant was shifted to Baby Memorial Hospital at Calicut. The admission of the patient to the reference hospital was in a highly delayed stage. On the very same day of admission in the referred hospital, the patient showed discomforts and the gravity of the disease was as such that chance of recovery seemed to be not possible. The admission in reference hospital was done on 7.02.2005 and after treatment as an inpatient, the patient was discharged on 17.2.2005. The tests which were done from 2nd Opposite party's hospital were not proper. The failure in diagnosis due to the lack of sufficient tests caused loss and hardships to the Complainant. There is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The 2nd Complainant had to undergo for further treatment in the Baby Memorial Hospital only due to the negligence on the part of the 1st Opposite Party for which the 2nd Opposite Party is also liable. The Opposite Parties may be directed to give the Complainant the cost of medicines and other expenses for which Rs. 4,000/-, towards the expenses Rs.1,200/-, the bill amount paid in the 2nd Opposite Party's hospital Rs. 2,237.73 /- and in total Rs. 40,505/- towards the compensation of mental agony and other hardships Rs.50,000/- in total Rs.90,505/- is to be given by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant. <br /> <br /> 2. The Opposite Parties filed version on their appearance. In nutshell the version of 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties are as follows. The Complainant has not availed any service from the Opposite Parties as a result the Complainant has no locustandi to proceed against the Opposite Party. The complainant itself is motivated with financial gains from the Opposite Party. On 02.02.2005 one Francis, S/o. Adam was admitted in the 2nd Opposite Party's Hospital for treatment of high grade fever associated with headache. The patient was attended by the 1st Opposite Party and medicines were given. The patient was again brought to the 2nd Opposite Party's hospital on 04.02.2005 for review, meanwhile the fever was subsided but there was generalised weakness and anorexia. The 1st Opposite Party admitted the patient. Routine tests were done as such urine investigation which revealed Alb:Trace, Sugar: Nil, WBC: 8-10, Bile salt Nil, Bile pigment positive. The patient was given treatment including injections and medicines. The blood investigation were done . The report showed Hb:14mg% TC:10500, DC: N63L35E2, Platelet Count 1.60 lac, ESR:30 mm/h, S.Bilirubin:1.4/0. 6 Mg%, AST:47,ALT:34 iv/l. The patient was given treatment on the possibility of acute viral hepatitis and enteric fever. For the fever when the patient was complained of nausea injection Emeset was started. The tests for diagnosing malaria hepatitis B were also done, but the results of these were negative. The results of observation and treatment which was given to the patient was closely observed and the results of the investigation were monitored closely. On 6.2.05 the duty doctor was informed that the patient passed less urine and motion turned to be loose. The patient was attended by the duty doctor repeated urine examination. The report revealed including urinary sediments. The clinical reports drawn to a conclusion that the patient is having possibility of leptospirosis and renal fever also to be considered.<br /> <br /> 3. In the absence of sufficient urine out put, started injection CP and injection lasix which can promote the out put in urine. The conformity tests of lectospirosis is Elisa tests of which the results can be obtained by the period of 48 hours. The patient had not shown the symptoms of leptospirosis in the early stage. The further observations in blood and urine made to believe possibility of leptospirosis. The 1st Complainant was also informed the severity of the disease and the patient is to be shifted to higher center for detail observation. The shifting of the patient delayed since the close relatives of the patient or his wife were not present there. The wife of the patient was also informed of the conditions of the patient and the procedure which is to be followed on the diagnosis of the disease. There is no negligence on the part of the Opposite Party.<br /> <br /> 4. The averment that the 2nd Complainant had an injury while toiling in the field is a false and cooked up stories. The 1st Complainant also informed that the 2nd Complainant had never contracted any disease is also false. The carrier of the 2nd Complainant was falsely reported. The patient was a driver in profession on 07.02.2005. The patient was reported with no urination. In spite of oral fluids, the allegation in the complaint that the patient had further hiccup is also false. The Complainant made the patient drink 4 ½ liters of water is also false exaggerated and hence denied.<br /> <br /> 5. The patient was treated basing on the clinical findings and investigations results. The allegation of the Complainants that the patient in the morning showed pain and hiccup are nothing but false. Proper care and treatment were given to the complainant. At the time of non urination catheterisation and injections were given. The treatment given to the 2nd complainant was not under pressure or influence by nobody else it was absolutely based on findings and clinical report. The 1st Opposite Party suspected the chance of leptospirosis which also informed to the patient and his wife. The observation report were informed to the complainant from time to time. There was no misrepresentation of the facts. The allegation of the Complainant is ill motivated and with a desire of financial gains in this respect. The serology tests of leptospirosis become positively only in the later stage. The patient was transferred to Baby Memorial Hospital, not in a stage of aggravated conditions.<br /> <br /> 6. The amount claimed by the Complainant is not based on any calculations. The reputation of the 2nd Opposite Party's Hospital is exemplary. There is no negligence on the part of the Opposite Party. The complaint is to be dismissed with compensatory cost to the Opposite Parties. <br /> 7. The points in consideration are:<br /> 1.Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?<br /> 2.Relief and cost. <br /> <br /> 8. Point No.1:- The Complainants case is that the Complainant's husband who is later supplemented as 2nd Complainant had undergone treatment in the 2nd Opposite Party's Hospital <br /> treated by the 1st Opposite Party. The patient was not given proper treatment and the efforts of diagnosis was not effectively done. The patient was later transferred to one Baby Memorial Hospital at Calicut for expert management which was done only in an aggravated stage of the disease. The 1st Opposite Party filed affidavit. Ext.A1 to A4 are marked supporting the contentions of the Complainant. The 2nd Complainant was taken to hospital on 2.2.2005 and consulted the doctor. The medicines were prescribed and on 4.2.2005 for review check up the 2nd Complainant was again taken to doctor who treated the patient. As an inpatient the 2nd Complainant continued the treatment till 7.2.2005. The patient was discharged from 2nd Opposite Party's hospital on 7.2.2005 which means on the 3rd day after the admission the patient was referred to an another hospital. The mater is to be considered whether sufficient care based on findings and clinical results were given to the patient. According to the 1st Complainant the treatment given to the patient was not followed by diagnosis. Ext. A1 is the discharge summary given to the Complainant by the 1st Opposite Party it is reported in the column of the diagnosis that the patient is having leptospirosis and acute renal failure. The clinical tests and detail of medicines given to the patient is detailed in the discharge summary card. The patient is examined as PW2 according to him when he took in the medicines for the 1st time given by the 1st Opposite Party his illness were subsided. The 2nd Complainant has no allegation in the way of treatment given by the Opposite Party. <br /> <br /> 9. It is admitted that leptospirosis is such a disease having good care and caution. The 1st Opposite Party is examined as OPW1, other than the doctor who treated the patient no expert in medical filed is examined to adduce the evidence in support of the contentions of the Complainant. It is also admitted that confirmatory tests for leptospirosis is Elisa tests. The results of such a tests is possible to get only after 48 hours. In Wayanad District in none of the hospital the Elisa tests facility is available. The 1st Opposite Party was also absent on 6.2.2005 according to this doctor he was in constant contact with the doctor in duty. Though the 1st opposite party took over the duty on 7.2.2005, at 11 AM the patient was referred to higher center for blood dialysis and other clinical tests. Whether the 1st Opposite Party showed any lack of care and caution in the treatment of the 2nd Complainant. “In Jacob Mathew V. State of Punjab the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that as long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was also available or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or procedure which the accused followed. The Appex court further held that for the interest of the society in large the medical profession renders a noblest of service it is to be protected from unjust prosecution”. Even in an error of judgment in the absence of sufficient reasons in establishing that due care and caution was not rendered, negligence cannot be attributed. In similar case the Hon. National Commission made it clear that in order to make a conclusion of deficiency in service expert opinion of witness who is a professional in medical field is required and the evidence given in that respect is necessary to support the findings. Apart from the bills of treatment given from the higher center nothing is produced by the Complainans in support of their contentions. More over it is found that the contentions of the Opposite Party that the patient was suspected to be having leptospirosis but for the diagnosis which confirmation tests facility was not available in the 2nd Opposite Party's Hospital and it was lacking in the same district also. The Complainant has no such case that the patient was given medicines based on erred diagnostic result, the point No.1 is found accordingly. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties.<br /> <br /> 10. Point No.2:- The point No.2 is found against the Complainants, the detail discussion of point No.2 is not necessary in this circumstances.<br /> In the result, the complaint is dismissed without any order or costs.