Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/72/2012

N. Prasada Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

Incharge St Josephs Hospital - Opp.Party(s)

M.S. Madhav

09 Jan 2015

ORDER

Reg.of the Complaint:07-03-2012

                                                                                                                                 Date of Order:09-01-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II

AT VISAKHAPATNAM

                   Present:

1.Sri H.ANANDHA RAO, M.A., L.L.B.,

       President

2.Sri C.V.RAO, M.A., B.L.,

                                             Male Member

3.Smt.K.SAROJA, M.A., B.L.,

       Lady Member

                                            

 

FRIDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2015

CONSUMER CASE NO.72/2012

 

BETWEEN:

N.PRASAD RAO S/O DURGA RAO,

HINDU, AGED 56 YEARS, MANAGER INDIAN BANK,

PLOT NO.SF-3, D.NO.43-11-52, KASTURI RESIDENCY,

SUBBALAKSHMI NAGAR, DONDAPARTHY,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

…COMPLAINANT

AND:

1.INCHARGE ST JOSEPHS HOSPITAL,

MARY LAND, NEAR SRIKRISHNA CHAITANYA MATTAM,

VISAKHAPATNAM.

2. DR.P.RAVI MOHAN S/O NOT KNOWN, AGED AOUT 45 YEARS,

ONCOLOGIST, REGD. NO.17297 (APMC) 16 & 17, DOCTORS & DOCTORS PLAZA,

OPPOSITE K.G.H.OPGATE, MAHARANIPETA, VISAKHAPATNAM.

…OPPOSITE PARTIES

This case coming on 06-11-2014 for final hearing before us in the presence of SRI M.S.MADHAV, Advocate for the Complainant and SRI GUDLA RAMESH, Advocate for the OPs, and having stood over till this date for    consideration, this Forum made the following.

 

ORDER

(As per the Honourable Member on behalf of the Bench)

 

1.       The Complainant asks the Forum to pass orders in his favour, and against the Opposite Parties:

a)      direct the 1^st and 2^nd OPs to pay Rs.19,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony;

b)      to direct the OP to pay the compensation for an amount of Rs.20,000/- due to negligence of OPs ;

c)       for costs of Rs.10,000/-

d)      for such other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2.       The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 strongly resisted the claim of the Complainant and asked the forum to dismiss the complaint.

3.       The case of the Complainant, as can be seen from the complaint, is that his wife N.Siva Kumari unfortunately infected with Breast Cancer in the year 2002 and the complainant is working as a Manager at Mumbai; as such, he has taken his wife to TATA Memorial Hospital for treatment. His wife was treated at hospital and she became normal over a period of time and complainant got transferred to Vizianagaram in the year 2010 and he was advised by TATA Memorial Hospital to go for follow up treatment to the Hospital at Visakhapatnam. After making enquiries, knowing that the second OP is renowned doctor who does treatment for ailment of complainant’s wife, the complainant has approached the 2^nd OP in the month of July 2010 and took his advice. The 2^nd OP after thoroughly examining the complainant’s wife for treatment has in turn advised them on 20-07-2010 to get admitted in the 1^st OP hospital and has informed to pay all the charges including the opposite parties charges at office of the first opposite party as he has got tie up with the first OP. The complainant also stated that as per the advice, the complainant got admitted his wife at the 1^st OP.  He had to spend huge amount, more than 3 lakhs, for the treatment of his wife as per the advice of the 2^nd OP and the 2^nd OP has taken up the treatment and has conducted 6 chemo therapy treatments at the 1^st OP hospital  and has also advised to use two tablets named as TYKER B 250mg tablets and asked the 1^st OP to administer the tablets during the stay of the complainant’s wife at first OP hospital . The complainant was also advised to undergo certain tests to find out the stage of the complainant’s wife on 1-3-2010 and the reports unfortunately reveal that instead of a better improvement, the complainant wife was having some serious problem in the lever excepting other organs as per the report. The test was also conducted on 26-03-2011 and on 22-04-2011 to find out the development of the patient and having gone through the report and also noticing the emerging problem, the 2^nd OP has advised the complainant to continue TYKER B 250mg tablets for two months and the said tablets were also produced from a medical shop known as Vardhaman Medicals and facilities near KGH and after continuing the prescribed tablets for one month the wife of the complainant reported serious discomfort and the same was reported to 2^nd OP on 1-4-2010 as the complainant’s wife suffered with water accumulation and also jaundice.  The 2^nd OP has also prescribed the complainant’s wife with CAPACITINE OR XELODA 500MG tablets and the complainant after careful reading compared with the warning gives the values of Billirubin as indicated is more than 2 times as it was warned by the experts in the literature provided which indicated the extent of negligence by the OPs. The suffering of the complainant’s wife was reported to the OPs now and then but deaf ear was paid to the complainant’s request leading to sad demise of the complainant’s wife. The complainant’s wife was looking after affairs of the whole family and care of her issues and her grand children. The complainant’s son was also blessed with a female child and she could hardly spend any time with her grandmother due to the mishap. The suffering of jaundice and accumulation  of water in the liver of the complainant lead to the loss of life of the complainant’s wife on 22-5-2010 and the complainant also got issued a registered letter to the medical council describing the whole story and seeking necessary action against 2^nd OP but no action was initiated so far and the family of the complainant went  into shock following the demise of the complainant’s wife. Immediately after the death of his wife, the complainant got issued a notice on 31-05-2011 to 2^nd  OP informing him that due to his negligence, he lost his wife and demanded compensation. The complainant also got issued a notice to the 1^st OP on 7-2-2011. The 2^nd OP got issued reply notice to him with baseless allegation only to escape the liability. Hence, the Complaint.

4.       The Complainant filed an Evidence Affidavit besides Written Arguments to support his Claim.  Exhibits A-1 to A-11 are marked for the Complainant.

5.       On the Other hand, the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 resisted the claim of the Complainant by contending, as can be seen from their counter, that initially the patients nephew one Dr.Ravisekhar Patnaik, a Consultant Medical Oncologist at Beheran, happens to be a colleague and friend of 2^nd OP, contacted 2^nd OP, prior to the consultation by the present complainant through mail explaining the condition of the patient that the patient had advanced breast cancer, which has already spread to lungs, liver and bones and suggested a plan of treatment which is a standard of care as per his mail dated 19^th July 2010 at 11.00pm which was executed by the 2^nd OP after thoroughly examining the deceased patient. Further he used to discuss from time to time on telephone the medical record of the patient at TATA Memorial Hospital, Mumbai which shows that the patient earlier had treatment from 2002 for breast cancer for more than 5 years with survey chemotherapy and hormonal treatment at TATA Momorial Hospital, Mumbai. Later on had developed breast cancer, which has spread to the lungs, liver and bones which is nothing but a stage-IV advanced disease and at that stage, the OP2 was contacted and the patient and complainant and his kith and kin were initially counselled about the advance nature of the disease and were informed that the treatment was of palliative intent and not with intention of cure, since the patient had arrived at stage-IV disease. It is further submitted that the patient was on chemotherapy till December 2010 and was evaluated for the disease response to the treatment, which revealed a partial minimal response and hence it was further discussed with the above said Dr.Ravisekhar Patnaik and the patient was started on TYKER B 250 MG and CAPCETABINE 500MG was given and patient was on treatment as an out-patient; but at the request of the complainant, the patient was admitted to OP1 hospital as the complainant told that the treatment amount would be reimbursed, provided she is admitted in the hospital. After that she was discharged. Subsequently the complainant had contacted the 2^nd OP over telephone and informed that the patient was not doing well, for which she was again admitted in the month of April, 2011 in the OP1 hospital and the OP2 diagnosed that the patient was suffering from jaundice. The 2^nd OP found on examination that the deceased was progressing with cancer and hence the 2^nd OP has advised to stop anti cancer medication and advised to continue with the supportive care and infact that was the visit when the 2^nd OP had seen the patient lastly and the fact of progressive cancer and the deteriorating condition of the patient was also informed to Dr.Ravisekhar Patnaik, through whom the patient was referred. Subsequently, the patient died on 22^nd May 2011, infact the 2^nd OP in order to face the future consequence of the condition of the patient by the kith and kin of the deceased counselled the complainant and his son and relatives psychologically by explaining the ominous nature and deteriorated condition of the patient and the poor outcome of the deceased. The OP2 advised in the month of April, 2011 to stop all cancer relating medication to keep the patient on supportive care and so the complaint about the HPATOTOXICITY (Liver injury due to drug abuse) which is absolutely meaningless and false since the liver function test reports, which are shown by the complainant himself conspicuously establish that it is not liver toxicity as the ALKALINE PHOSPHATASE and SGPT are normal and only BILURIBIN was increased, suggestive of progressive disease of cancer and not HEPATOTOXICITY. If at all there is a drug abuse, the SGPT (live enzymes) would have been elevated more than 1000 and in such event only, HEPATOTOXICITY may occur, but, in the present case, the deceased had SGT only 34.0U/I which was admitted by the complainant himself by placing the test reports which were taken on 21-05-2011 which was after the advice of OP2 to stop all cancer related drugs in the month of April 2011. There was no drug abuse or injury and maltreatment by OP2. In support of the same, the OP2 filed HARRISON’S Principles of Internal Medicine, Eighteenth Edition, 2012. Hence, it is amply established that there was no negligence or maltreatment by OP2 as alleged by the complainant and the patient died of her advance progressive cancer in normal course.

6.       The Opposite Parties filed an Affidavit by 2^nd Opposite Party and also Written Arguments to buttress their contention.  Exhibits B1 to B3 are marked for the Opposite Parties.  

7.       The matter has been heard on behalf of the Complainant as well as the Opposite Parties.

8.       After careful perusal of the case record, the forum finds that as per Exhibit B1 dated 16-07-2010 itself as referred by Tata Memorial Hospital and CT Scan done by Madan Kumar Imaging Centre, Mumbai, the advance disease of cancer was noted. Only after 2 days on 18-07-2010 Bones Scan/whole body was also taken and the said report (Exhibit B6) clearly says “compared to the study done in April, 2010, there is progression of the disease”. At this juncture, on 20-07-2010, as admitted by both sides, the 2^nd OP was contacted by the deceased and her husband, the complainant and we find that Exhibit B8 dated 14-12-2010 is the CT Abdomen ( Plan and Contrast) taken as referred by P.Ravi Mohan i.e., the 2^nd OP. This Exhibit B8 scan was compared with the Exhibit B5 scan and the impression was “partial resolution in size and number of lesion”. The CT Chest (plan and contrast) taken on the same day (i.e., 14-12-2010) contained in the same (Exhibit B8)  and compared with earlier CT dated 16-07-2010 also noted “a known case of Carcinoma breast with

a) left pleural effusion

b) significant resolution of Pulmonia Metastases” Exhibit B10 Scan report also shows that compared with previous scan dated 14-12-2010, the disease has progressed.  So, the medical evidence clearly shows that the diseased lost her life due to the progress of the dreaded disease but not due to any wrong treatment by the 2^nd OP. Moreover, we also see that the complainant herein has initiated action under clause 84 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics)  Regulations, 2002 against the 2^nd OP i.e., Dr.P.Ravi Mohan. Exhibit A10 clearly shows that the Dy.Secretary, Medical Council of India asked the Registrar, Andhra Medical Counsel to investigate and take necessary action in the matter. A copy of this direction from the Medical Council of India, was also sent to the complainant herein. But, very peculiarly the complainant never mentioned about the outcome of  any such investigation against the 2^nd OP . As such, an adverse inference has to be drawn to the effect that any such investigation against the 2^nd OP was futile. In the circumstances, this forum finds that the claim put forward by the complainant herein lacks pith and substance and so this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

10.     In the result, this Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

 

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, on this the 9^th day of January, 2015.

 

  Sd/-                                            Sd/-                                                 Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT                                                  M.MEMBER

 

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Exhibits Marked for the Complainants:

Exhibits	Date	Description	Remarks
A-1	13-06-2008	Discharge sheet of the TATA Memorial Hospital	Photostat Copy
A-2	08-04-2011	Discharge sheet of first OP	Photostat Copy
A-3	05-03-2011	Test Report by the clinical laboratory	Photostat Copy
A-4		Bills issued by the 1st OP	Photostat Copy
A-5	26-03-2011	Test Report by the clinical laboratory	Photostat Copy
A-6	17-06-2011	Notice and receipt by complainant to 2nd OP	Photostat Copy
A-7	31-05-2011	Letter addressed by the complainant to medical council	Photostat Copy
A-8	17-06-2011	Reply lawyers Notice by the 1st OP	Photostat Copy
A-9	07-02-2012	Lawyer’s notice to 1st OP and postal receipt	Photostat Copy
A-10	06-07-2011	Reply by Medical Council to OP and Postal Receipt	Photostat Copy
A-11	25-02-2012	Expert opinion	Photostat Copy

 

Exhibits Marked for the OPs     -nil-

Exhibits	Date	Description	Remarks
B-1		Bunch of Mail communication of 6 pages between OP2 and Dr.Ravisekhar Patnaik of Behran	Computer generated copies
B-2		Extracts from the text book of Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medcine, 18th Edition, 2012	Photostat copy
B-3		Bunch of Publications of OP2 in various journals	Photostat copy

 

    Sd/-                                        Sd/-                                                   Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT                                                  M.MEMBER