BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : WARANGAL
Present: Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu,
President.
Sri N.J. Mohan Rao,
Member
And
Smt. V.J. Praveena,
Member.
Tuesday, the 10th day of June, 2008.
CONSUMER DISPUTE NO. 176/1998
Between:
1. Koyyada Bhadramma, W/o late Rathnam,
Age:28 years, Occ: Household,
R/o Kamalapur, Karimnagar.
2. Koyyada Rajesh, S/o late Rathnam, Age: 12 yrs,
3. Koyyada Mahesh, S/o late Rathnam, Age: 10 yrs,
4. Koyyada Pravalika, D/o late Rathnam, Age: 8 yrs,
(Complainants No.2 to 4 are minors, being represented by
their natural mother and guardian Complainant No.1)
5. Koyyada Rajamma, W/o Lingaiah, Age: 55 yrs,
Occ: Household, R/o Kamalapur, Karimnagar.
… Complainants
AND
1. Jaya Hospital,
Rep. by Dr.T.Kalpana Devi,
Hanamkonda,
Warangal.
2. The Branch Manager,
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
J.P.N. Road, Warangal.
… Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainants : Sri. T. Gopala Krishna, Advocate
Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1: Sri P. Seeta Ram Reddy, Advocate.
Counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 : Sri Y. Mahohar Rao, Advocate.
This complaint coming for final hearing before this Forum, the Forum pronounced the following Order.
ORDER
Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu, President.
This is a complaint filed by the complainants against the Opposite parties under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- @ interest 18% p.a.
The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainants are as follows:
The case of the complainants is that complainant No.1 is the wife, Complainants No.2 to 4 are children and complainant NO.5 is the mother of the deceased Ratnam. On 16-11-97 the deceased experienced problem in breathing as such he was shifted to Opposite party No.1 Hospital at 2.00 P.M. and the opposite party No.1 admitted the deceased and kept in General ward though there was ICCU Unit in it for the reasons best known to it. The deceased deposited required amount to the opposite party towards investigation fee, etc., as demanded by Opposite party No.1. Later the deceased undergone investigation as he was given treatment, it is not out of place to mention that the opposite party propogate through media and Television that it had advanced equipment in cardiac unit and services of Super Specialist including Cardiologist are being pressed into service whenever such services are necessary to provide necessary treatment to the patients and that was one of the reason for the deceased to get him self admitted into it. Even the deceased paid fee to treat him in ICCU the deceased was not shifted to ICCU which is absolutely necessary to get the deceased treated properly. The condition of the deceased became precarious during the early hours of 17-11-97. The opposite party inspite of it did not press the cardiologist in service to provide treatment to the deceased resulting to the death of the deceased at 5-30 a.m. on 17-11-97. As per the contention of the complainants that the deceased was hale and healthy and he was aged 30 years. Due to negligence of the opposite party No.1 the deceased died because even though the complainant paid fee for all, and the opposite party NO.1 did not shift him to ICCU unit and also the Cardiology doctor has not given any treatment to him that is the reason he died.
Opposite party No.1 filed the written Version stating that his hospital is a reputation hospital and in this case they have provided all the investigations and everything and further the deceased was a Cardio Miopathy patient. The same was later come to know to the hospital authorities through the relatives of the deceased after the deceased was joined in their hospital. Thereafter the opposite party called Cardiologist and gave treatment and as per them, there is no negligence and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and they requested this Forum to dismiss the case.
Opposite party No.2 filed the Written Version denying all the allegations of the complainants. And further stated that this opposite party issued professional indemnify to Dr.T.Kalpana Devo for a period of one year, as such the insured is Dr.Kalpana Devi, but nobody else. As such this opposite party is not responsible. Hence, the complaint filed by the complainants may be dismissed.
The complainants in support of their claim filed the Affidavit of complainant NO.1 in the form of chief examination and also marked Exs.A-1 to A-3. On behalf of Opposite parties Dr.R.Prabhakar Rao, filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination and also marked Exs.B-1 and B-2.
Now the point for consideration is whether the complainants are entitled to get compensation from opposite parties for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- @ interest 18% p.a.
After arguments of both side counsels our reasons are like this:
Here whether there is any deficiency of service is there on the part of the opposite parties we have to see.
To decide that compulsory first we have to see the evidence of PW-1 as well as RW-1. PW-1 K.Bhadramma the wife of the deceased stated with regard to admission of the deceased and after the deceased got admitted into the said hospital the opposite party No.1 has not given any proper treatment so due to negligence of the doctors the deceased died. But here PW-1 evidence clearly goes to show that there is no negligence on the part of the opposite parties. The evidence of RW-1 he is an Incharge Doctor at Opposite party No.1 hospital. He admitted that the complainants approached their hospital with a complaint of chest pain or any heart problem on 16-11-97 and that they have admitted the patient as inpatient and after clinical examination he was advised for other examinations like Urine, Chest X-ray, complete blood picture, E.C.G. E.S.R.Serum bilubim and patient was given due care. The patient and attendants did not say that earlier he was treated for the complaint of dilated chardio myopathy by Dr.Prem Sharma. But during the course it was revealed by them that he was treated by Dr.Prem Sharma for the above said problem. In the same night time the opposite party authorities informed the matter to Dr.Prem Sharmaand and he treated him but could not save the life of the patient.
So here the question is whether the opposite party has called Dr.Prem Sharma or not. For this the arguments of the complainants is that the opposite party has not called the Dr.Prem Sharma who is a Cardiologist and
hospital authorities has not given cardiology treatment to the deceased by Dr.Prem Sharma. For this our answer is that the evidence of RW-1 it is clear that Dr.Prem Sharma was called to the hospital and through him treatment was given to the deceased. To support the version of RW-1 we have to verify the case sheet of Ex.B-1. In the case sheet i.e, Ex.B-1 in page No.10 , dt.17-11-97 at 1.00 A.M. the Cardiologist by name Dr.Prem Sharma has endorsed and also he prescribed some medicines on it. So it clearly goes to show that the endorsement on the page 10th of Ex.B-1 it belongs to only Dr.Prem Sharma but not the others. For this the counsel for complainants argued that in the entire case sheet no writing is mentioned by Dr.Prem Sharma because he was not attended on the same day at 1.00 A.M. that is the reason the deceased died. For this our answer is that the writing on Ex.B-1 at page NO.10 clearly goes to show that those writing belongs to Dr.Prem Sharma only and further if really those writing is not belongs to Prem Sharma it is the only the burden of the complainants to prove that the above writing in Ex.B-1 at Page No.10 not belongs to Dr.Prem Sharma. Except the evidence of PW-1 the complainants advocate has not adduced any evidence through any other one. So it clearly goes to show that the writing in Ex.B-1 at page no.10 belongs to Dr.Prem Sharma only. We accept the same and further we verified the writing on Ex.B—1 other than the writing of Dr.Prem Sharma with our naked eye and we come to the conclusion that the writing on Ex.B-1 at page NO.10, dt.17-11-97 at 1.00 A.M. belong to Dr.Prem Sharma only.
With regard to the disease of the deceased the opposite party has stated in evidence of Rw-1 that the name of the disease is dilated cardio myopathy. This is one kind of heart disease. We can say something about the disease of Dilated Cardio Myopathy. Dilated Cardio Myopathy means disorder in which the heart muscle is weakened and cannot pump. The wall (muscle) of the ventricles may be of normal, increased or reduced thickness, but the ventricles is always enlarged. This causes decreased heart function that affects the lungs,liver and other. And further the heart transplantation may be recommended for heart failure caused by Cardio Myopathy (Non inflammatory disease of the heart and ) So as per this, if any person attacked Cardio Myopathy certainly the heart transplantation can be recommended and the type of cardio myopathy is that there are 3 major types of cardio myopathy. They are Dilated Cardiomyopathy, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and restrictive cardiomyopathy. The most common cause of Cardio Myopathy in developed nations is coronary artery disease plus death of heart muscle by obstruction of a coronary artery. While the damage is localized to the supplied by that artery within a few months the entire left ventricle dilates (or remodels) become damages . The common cause of dilated cardiomyopathy is inflammation of the heart muscle such as lupus and other inflammatory diseases. Alcohol is another cause of cardiomyopathy. In some patients (probably determined by genetic alcohol acts as a powerful toxin to heart muscle, directly damaging cardiac cells. The dilated cardio myopathy is the most common form of heart muscle disease. It is found most often in middle aged people and more often in men that in women. But the disease has been diagnosed in people of all ages, including children. The cause of dilated cardio myopathy is most cases of dilated cardiomyopathy are called idiopathic which means that no exact cause can be found. The exact cause of dilatd cardiomyopathy is difficult to pinpoint. For the sympthoms of cardio myopathy, sometimes dilated cardiomyopathy does not cause any symptoms. At other times you may feel symptoms most often associated with the common cold or flu chills, fever, overall aches and fatigue. These symptoms when your heart becomes very enlarged you will feel symptoms. These symptoms include chest pain, extreme tiredness, shortness of breath and swelling of the legs and ankles and all these are early signs of heart failure. For the disease of Cardio Myopathy how to diagnose is that An electro cardiogram (ECG or EKG) can show areas of your heart that are damages.
In the present case also the investigations done by the doctors but the relatives of the deceased told the doctors that the deceased was having Dilated Cardiomyopathy and he was the old patient of Dr.Prem Sharma. Why we have stated all the above to know the disease what are the conditions , how it’s reaction what is the cause for getting dilated myopathy already stated in supra. Now it is an unfortunate thing that the deceased died because of Dilated Cardio Myopathy. In this case we feel there is no negligence on the part of the opposite parties side. When there is no negligene on the part of the opposite parties where is the question of deficiency of service. So the deficiency of service does not arise when there is no negligence on the part of opposite parties.
On 17-11-97 when the Opposite party called Dr.Prem Sharma at 1.00 A.M. and he gave treatment, when the opposite party gave treatment to the deceased through Prem Sharma there is no negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. On the basis of evidence of RW-1 and Ex.B-1 it is clear that there is no negligence and deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1. With regard to Opposite party No.2 i.e, Insurance when there is no negligence on the part of opposite party No.1, Opposite party No./2 is also not liable to pay any insurance amount, compensation or damages to the complainants. For the foregoing reasons given by us, we are of the opinion that the complainants failed to prove the negligence on the part of the opposite parties and this point is decided in favour of opposite parties against the complainant.
Point NO.2 To what relief:- The first point is decided in favour of opposite parties against the complainant this point also decided in favour of opposite parties against the complainant.
In the result this complaint is dismissed, but without costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, today, the 10th June, 2008)
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Member Member President,
District Consumer Forum, Warangal.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
On behalf of Complainant On behalf of Opposite Party
Affidavit & Deposition complainant No.1 Affidavit and Deposition on
behalf of Opposite parties.
EXHIBITS MARKED On behalf of complainant
- Ex.A-1 Receipt of ECG for Rs.80/-by Opposite party No.1.
- Ex.A-2 Discharge bill issued by Opposite party No.1.
- Ex.A-3 Death Certificate issued by Opposite party No.1.
On behalf of Opposite parties
- Ex.B-1 Case sheet of the deceased issued by Opposite party No.1.
- Ex.B-2 Policy Medical Establishment – Professional Negligence Errors & Ommissions Insurance Policy.
Sd/-
President.
