By Sri. Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member.
The grievance of the complainant are in brief:-
1. On 29/07/2023 the child of the complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘patient’) had affected with fever and cough and she was consulted with Dr. Ismail, who had prescribed Moxclav and Ascoril LS as medication. But even after medication disease became severe. It is averred that the complainant had administered paracetamol four times, but situation remained unchanged. Hence on 31/07/2023 ‘patient’ was taken in to Rajagiri hospital and consulted with Dr. Anees. On the basis of prescription given by Dr. Anees, the patient was administered with Clarithromycin and continued to take Ascoril LS. Even then patient did not get rid of her difficulties. It is averred that condition of patient had worsened and she even could not sleep and take food. On 01/08/2024 the patient was taken in to the hospital of first opposite party and consulted with the second opposite party. It is averred that on consultation, the second opposite party opined to admit the patient in hospital for advanced treatment. But when the complainant informed of their insurance coverage of medisep facility, the second opposite party had changed his opinion and directed to take x-ray of chest of the patient. After inspection of X-ray report, the second opposite party opined that there was no chest infection to the patient. It is alleged that the second opposite party refused to discuss the condition of the patient with the complainant and he left the hospital in a hasty manner. It is averred that the acts of the second opposite party has caused pain and mental agony to the complainant. So the complainant returned to home without admitting the patient in the hospital of first opposite party. It is stated that fever of the patient increased hence the patient was admitted in to Rajagiri hospital on 02/08/2023 and under gone treatment of Dr. Anees. It was revealed in diagnosis that the patient was affected with urinary tract infection, low hemoglobin level and pneumonia. It is alleged that the opposite parties had committed negligence and did not provide treatment to patient. So the complainant has claimed Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation from the opposite parties.
2. On admission of the complaint, the Commission issued notices to the opposite parties. But the opposite parties failed to submit written version within the time limit prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Hence the Commission did not accept versions of the opposite party. They are treated as exparte.
3. The complainant submitted proof affidavit in lieu of evidence. The documents produced by the complainant are marked as Exts.A1 to A5. Ext. A1 document is the copy of prescription dated 29/07/2023 issued by Dr. Ismail of Aster Mother Hospital, Areacode. Ext.A2 document is the copy of prescription dated 01/08/2023 issued by second opposite party. Ext. A3 document is the copy of lab report dated 01/08/2023 issued from Rajagiri hospital Edavanna. Ext.A4 document is the photo copy of X-ray issued from Rajagiri Hospital, Edavanna. Ext.A5 document is the copy of discharge summary issued from Rajagiri hospital, Edavanna. No evidence is availed from the side of the opposite parties
4. Heard the complainant in detail. Perused documents and affidavit availed for scrutiny. The Commission considered following points to adjudicate the matter.
(i) Whether the opposite parties have committed negligence in the treatment of
patient?
(ii) Relief and cost?
5. Point No.(i) & (ii)
The Commission is considering above points conjointly as those are correlated to each other. The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite parties had denied treatment facilities to the patient and even did not disclose condition of the patient to him. The patient was child of the complainant at age of below two years. It has come out in evidence that on 29/07/2023 patient had underwent treatment for fever and cough from Department of Paediatrics & Neonatology , Aster Mother Hospital, Areacode. The treating doctor had issued Ext.A1document in that regard. But even after medication as per Ext. A1 document, disease of the patient worsened resulting consultation with another doctor named Dr. Anees of Rajagiri hospital, Edavanna on 31/07/2023. But the patient did not show any sign of recovery from disease. Unfortunately the condition of patient became more worsened even she could not take food or sleep. Hence on 01/08/2023 the complainant had approached the opposite parties for the treatment. The argument of the complainant is that the second opposite party had advised him to admit the patient for inpatient treatment but when complainant intimated his medisep insurance coverage facility then the opposite party denied inpatient treatment. According to the complainant the intricacies in reimbursement of medical treatment bill by the insurer might have prevented the opposite party in providing inpatient treatment to the patient. It is argued by the complainant that the second opposite party even failed to disclose actual condition of the patient to him and left the hospital in a hasty manner. It is alleged that even though X-ray of the chest of the patient had taken, but no documents were given to him in that regard by the opposite parties. The condition of the patient exacerbated, hence the patient was admitted in to Rajagiri Hospital and undergone treatment therein. According to the complainant the patient was admitted on 02/08/2023 and discharged on 07/08/2023. The complainant has produced copy of discharge summary and the same is marked as Ext.A5 document. According to complainant the denial of treatment and non-disclosure of condition of the patient caused pain and mental agony to him and the acts of the opposite parties are amounted to medical negligence.
6. In the evaluation of evidence, the Commission find that there is no evidence available from the complainant to prove alleged negligence on the part of the opposite parties in the treatment of the patient. It has come out in evidence that child was affected with fever and cough on 29/07/2023 and treatment started as per Ext. A1 document. Ext. A1 document would show that treatment was done by Dr. Ismail attached with Department of paediatricas & Neonatology of Aster Mother Hospital. It has also come out in evidence that the condition of the patient had not changed and on 31/07/2023 the patient was taken for treatment to Rajagiri Hospital and treated by Dr. Anees. But no documents are produced in that regard. According to the complainant even thereafter the condition of the patient had aggravated. So he approached the opposite parties. But there is no evidence to prove the allegation that the opposite parties had wilfully denied inpatient treatment to the patient on the ground of mode of payment of medical bill through the insurer. Moreover, there is no evidence available before the Commission to show that inpatient treatment was required to patient on 01/08/2023 itself. In addition, there is no pleadings from the side of the complainant that medicine prescribed as per Ext. A2 document were not proper and sufficient to contain the disease affected to the patient. Ext. A3 document would also show that the complainant had been consulted with another doctor on the same day on which Ext. A2 document was issued by the opposite parties. In this juncture, the Commission find that it is upto the treating doctor, who has casted with duty of care in deciding what treatment should provide to the patient. The Commission also find that there is no evidence to prove allegation of non-disclosure of ailment condition of the patient and withheld of X-ray report by the second opposite party. The Commission consider the fact that a simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident is not a proof of negligence on the part of treating doctor so long as the doctor follows a practice acceptable to profession of medical science. Moreover, the doctor is also not be held liable simply because things went wrong from mischance or misadventure or through an error of judgment in choosing one reasonable course of treatment in preference to another. Hence the treatment undergone by the patient as per Ext. A4 and A5 documents cannot be considered as a ground for attributing negligence on the basis of above made deliberations. The Commission find that the complainant has failed to prove the pleadings with cogent evidence, hence complaint stands dismissed.
Dated this 30th day of September, 2024.
MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL.C.V, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A5
Ext.A1: Copy of prescription dated 29/07/2023 issued by Dr. Ismail of Aster Mother
Hospital, Areacode.
Ext.A2: Copy of prescription dated 01/08/2023 issued by second opposite party.
Ext A3: Copy of lab report dated 01/08/2023 issued from Rajagiri hospital Edavanna.
Ext A4: Photo copy of X ray issued from Rajagiri Hospital, Edavanna.
Ext A5: Copy of discharge sum issued from Rajagiri hospital, Edavanna. No evidence
availed from the side of the opposite parties
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
MOHAMED ISMAYIL.C.V, MEMBER
