A. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUES REDRESSAL COMMISSION :AT HYDERABAD
FA 1564/2007 against CC No. 168/2004 on the file of the
District Forum II, Krishna at Vijayawada
Between :
The Superintendent, Government General Hospital,
Near Thummalapalli Kalakshetram, Vijayawada,
Krishna District ..Apellant/3rd Opposite party
And
1. Ganji Manikyamma, W/o Late Anandarao.
2. Ganji Mary, W/o Late Immanuel.
3. Ganji Raj Kumar, S/o Late Immanuel.
4. Ganji Venu Mounika,d/o Late Immanuel.
5. Ganji Puneetha Rao @ Bablu, s/o Late Immanuel.
( 3 to 5 being minors rep. by their next friend-
Natural guardian/their mother, 2nd respondent herein ).
……respondents/complainants
6. Dr. Kancherla Sudhakar, Department of Medicine
Head of the Department, Government General Hospital,
Near Thummalapalli Kalakshetram, Vijayawada,
Krishna District.
7. Dr. A. Sudhakar, Department of Medicine,
Government General Hospital,
Near Thummalapalli Kalakshetram, Vijayawada,
Krishna District.
8. Dr. Ch. Sudhakar, Department of Medicine,
Government General Hospital,
Near Thummalapalli Kalakshetram, Vijayawada,
Krishna District.
.. Respondents/ Opp. parties, 1, 2 and 4.
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. N. Satyanarayana.
Counsel for the Respondents : served for R-1 to R-5.
Mr. V. Gourisankara Rao
for R-6 and R-8
Mr. M. Srirama Rao for R-7.
Coram :
Sri Syed Abdullah … Hon’ble Member
And
Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao… Hon’ble Member
Monday, the Twelfth Day of July, Two Thousand Ten
Oral Order : ( As per Sri Syed Abdullah, Hon’ble Member )
*******
The appellant is the unsuccessful 3rd opposite party in CC 168/2004 on the file of the District Forum II, Krishna District at Vijayawada, where under, an order dated 06.11.2006 was passed directing the third opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.one lakh on the ground of medical negligence by the Ops 1 and 2 Doctors employed in its hospital. The impugned order is assailed as erroneous and contrary to the facts and evidence under law.
The facts of the case disclose that the complainants are the family members of Late Immanuel who was the bread winner to the entire family. That on 02.11.2003 Immanuel fell sick at about 2.00 PM so he was taken to Government General Hospital, Vijayawada for giving treatment but he was not allowed to enter into the hospital. The attendants have paid user charges and on that he was admitted in the verandah of the hospital but no treatment was given immediately. The doctors demanded amount to give treatment. The family members were anxious of the health so they paid Rs.300/- which was accepted by the opposite parties 1 and 2. The appellants’ treatment was commenced at 5.00 PM but the patient succumbed at 5.00 PM. The death of the patient Immanuel was due to lack of proper care and treatment which amounts to medical negligence and deficiency in service. Hence the complainants are entitled for compensation to a tune of Rs. 2 lakhs with additional compensation of Rs.one lakh for mental and costs.
Originally, the complaint was filed against Opposite parties 1 to 3 and later as per the orders in IA 189/2004, the 4th opposite party, by name, Dr. Ch. Sudhakar was also added as proper and necessary party.
The 1st opposite party filed its version denying the allegations made in the complaint. It is stated that he was not on duty at the relevant time as per roaster so as to make him liable to pay compensation as claimed for.
The 2nd opposite party’s version is that the allegations that he demanded an additional amount and that he failed to attend himself from attending the treatment on the patient as alleged are not true. It is further stated that he saw the patient at 4.15 Pm on 02.11.2003 and he admitted the patient without collecting any user chares at all. The pharmacist entered the particulars in the Casualty Register. At the time of admission the patient was un-conscious. He gave first aid like Perinarm injection to sop vomittings and transfused I.V. fluids, Oxygen, Foot Elevation and checked the B.P. Temperature, pulse etc. thereafter, he referred the patient to the duty Assistant Physician for further treatment.
The third opposite party remained exparte.
The fourth opposite party denied the allegations made in the compliant and put them to strict proof. He stated that on 02.11.2004 he reported to duty at 2.00 PM and examined various patients in various Departments, i.e., from 2.00 PM to 4.30 PM. Record shows to whom he had examined during duty hours. At about 4.25 PM while he was in Skin Ward, he received information from Casualty Department a paralysis patient was brought to casualty ward in serious condition and that his assistance is needed there. So he rushed to the casualty ward at 4.30 PM and seen that he was not in conscious stage and not at all responding to the stimuli, BP was not recordable, pulse was not felt, so also, there was gasping respiration. The patient was diagnosed as Cerebro Vascular Accident. From the patient’s attendants it is learnt that the patient was suffering from high BP and he was irregular in taking medicines and that he had two brain attacks earlier and it was a third attack. OP. 4 had explained about the condition of the patient to the attendants that there are no chances of survival. However, emergency treatment was commenced by giving Dopamine injection to increase heart beat and stimulate BP. Mannitol injection was also given besides Deriphylline injection and Decadran injection, administered pure oxygen to increase the oxygen level and Adrenaline injection directly to the heart. He continuously attended on the patient till the patient died as such nothing can be attributed negligence or deficiency in service against him.
During the enquiry, the complainants along with evidence affidavit filed Ex. A-1 to A-9 consisting of newspaper clippings of the death of the patient, copy of the telegram sent by one Dr. P. Rambabu, death certificate, case sheet, investigation report etc. The opposite parties along with evidence affidavit have filed Ex. B-1, DAP Roster showing the names of the Doctors who were on duty in units 1,2, and 3 on different dates in the month of November, 2003. Ex. B-2 copy of the Casualty Register showing the names of the patients admitted on the relevant dates. Ex B-3 copy of the case sheet in respect of the patient Immanuel. OP . 4 also filed additional documents to show that on 02.11.2003 he attended on five patients at different times, so also, a copy of the report given by the Director of Medical Education about the Departmental action against one Dr. Sudhakar which are also marked as Ex. B-3.
The opposite parties 1 and 3 are the Doctors employed in the Government hospital of Andhra Pradesh. From the DAP Register it is very clear that at the relevant time on …11.2003 at 2.30 PM, the first opposite party was not at all on duty, so the allegations made against him are not sustainable. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The version of the second opposite party is that he attended the deceased patient Immanuel on 02.11.2003 at 4.15 PM and that no user charges were either paid or collected. He stated that the Pharmacist had entered the details in the Casualty Register and in the Casualty ward itself he attended on the patient by giving life saving drugs and then referred the patient to the Duty Assistant Physician for further treatment, i.e., OP.4, who, in his written version has categorically explained the details as to when he had attended on the patient and necessary treatment given by him and his previous involvement with other patients. Both opposite parties 2 and 4 had categorically denied about the collection of user charges or much less any payment made or payment of Rs.300/- as alleged. The complainants though stated that they paid user charges of Rs.50/- on the advice of Ward Boy in the hospital but they have not produced any receipt in support of their statement. They also made an allegation that the duty Doctor by name A. Sudhakar ( OP 2 ) approached them and demanded money for attending on the patient and at last the said amount was secured and paid. Except their statement it is not supported by any corroborating evidence. The deceased wife was examined as PW. 1 and she was cross examined. A perusal of the case sheet shows that the patient Immanuel was admitted in the hospital on 02.11.2007 at 4.45 PM and was duly attended by the Duty Doctor by name Dr.A. Sudhaka (OP.2). Ex. A-7 is the O.P. ticket which shows that the patient was admitted in Acute Ward under M III. It is noted that the patient was unconscious, BP is not recordable and pulse was not felt and that the pupils shows dilated and it is a case of old paraphillegia and that the patient is a poor person. Ex. A-6 which contains the details of the treatment shows that right from 4.30 PM till the death of the patient, all life saving drugs were given by attending on the patient. The alleged demand of money by the 1st opposite party doctor at a public place in the hospital where several persons present would improbable on the face of allegations. Whatever it may be, the Department has conducted Departmental enquiry for the delay in attending to the patient and OP 4 was censured for the delay in attending to the duty. PW.1 in her cross examination has categorically admitted that her husband had suffered paralytic stroke earlier. Though she denied of previous ailment but it is evident from Ex. A-1 news item that he was suffering from paralysis since a long time, that his family members have admitted him in the hospital on Sunday and within short time he succumbed to it. It is also mentioned in the news item, had the patient was given timely treatment he would have survived. So it cannot be denied that the patient was suffering from paralysis from a long time and that at the last moment he was admitted in the hospital for treatment for the reasons best known and the complainants have made allegations against the opposite parties 1 to 4 on the ground that they demanded money and that they failed to give proper treatment immediately. It appears that they made allegations in their emotion that the doctors have not saved the patient and there is no truth in this regard and also they failed to substantiate their allegations.
In case, the patient had taken treatment in the Government Hospital as a gratuitous service without paying any charges, he is not a consumer. So not entitled for any compensation on the ground of medical negligence. This aspect is made clear by the Apex Court in Indian Medical Association Vs. V.P. Shantha, III (1995) CPJ 1 (SC) wherein it is elaborately discussed about the liability of the medical practitioners, Nurses and staff of the Government hospital including dispensaries and Primary Health Centres holding that free treatment is out of purview of the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
On a close scrutiny of the factual aspects and legal position, we are of the considered opinion that the findings given by the District Forum are not sustainable and thereby it is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum dated 06.11.2006 and consequently the complaint is dismissed. No costs in the appeal.
Sd/-MEMBER
Sd/- MEMBER
DATED : 12.07.2010.
