BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 28th MARCH 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 858/ 2005<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANTS 1. Smt. Nagarathna,<br /> Aged 58 years,<br /> M/o. Late M.S.V. Prasad.<br /> <br /> 2. Smt. Gangamani,<br /> Aged 35 years,<br /> W/o. Late M.S.V. Prasad.<br /> <br /> 3.Kumari Chaitra,<br /> Aged 10 years,<br /> D/o. Late M.S.V. Prasad.<br /> <br /> 4. Kumari Varsha,<br /> Aged 3 years,<br /> D/o. Late M.S.V. Prasad.<br /> <br /> No.3 &4 are minors, represented by Natural Guardian—Mother <br /> Smt. Gangamani. <br /> (2nd Complainant)<br /> <br /> No.3 & 4 are minors, represented by Natural Guardian--Mother <br /> Smt. Gangamani <br /> (2nd Complainant)<br /> <br /> All are residing at No.34, <br /> 1st Main Gangappa Block,<br /> Ganganagar,<br /> Bangalore – 32.<br /> <br /> Advocate (M.C. Ravikumar)<br /> )<br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. M.S. Ramaiah Memorial Hospital,<br /> M.S.R. Nagar,<br /> MSRIT Post,<br /> Bangalore-54.<br /> <br /> 2. Dr. Umesh,<br /> Hindu, Major,<br /> Consultant Nephrologist.<br /> <br /> 3. Dr. E. Mahesh,<br /> Hindu, Major,<br /> Consultant Nephrologist.<br /> <br /> All are working at <br /> M.S. Ramaiah Memorial Hospital,<br /> M.S.R. Nagar, MSRIT Post,<br /> Bangalore -54.<br /> <br /> Advocate (K. Prakash)<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant, directing the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.19,00,000/- together with interest and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant No.1 is the mother of one M.S.V. Prasad, complainant No.2 is the wife, complainant No.3 and 4 are the daughters of M.S.V. Prasad. The said M.S.V. Prasad, who was aged about 41 years was hale and healthy. As he has felt some uneasiness due to cough, he approached OP.1 hospital on 15.01.2005. OP.2 and 3 the Doctors working in OP.1 hospital. After the examination of M.S.V. Prasad prescribed certain medicine, they have opined that he is having chronic renal failure. When M.S.V. Prasad took the said tablets, his condition started deteriorating. There was a drug allergy. The medicines prescribed by the OP.1 doctors are not suitable to the health condition of M.S.V. Prasad. Actually OP.1 doctors have experimented the said drug on M.S.V. Prasad. Due to the carelessness and negligence on the part of the OP.1 doctors M.S.V. Prasad health condition was worsten. Then he was again admitted in the OP.1 hospital for further treatment in the month of December. The M.S.V. Prasad was kept under supervision of Nephrologist. Without conducting the proper tests and evaluating they administered the drug which was not acceptable to the body conditions of M.S.V. Prasad. Ultimately M.S.V. Prasad died. The complainants felt that there is a gross negligence on the part of the OP’s. For no fault of theirs, they were made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. There is a deficiency in service on the part of the OP’s. Under the circumstances they are advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP’s filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainants in toto. According to the OP’s after thorough examination of the patient M.S.V. Prasad they have prescribed the medicine. The treatment given by them is appropriate. The hospital records maintained in the usual and ordinary course of time clearly speaks the various tests and investigations got conducted by the OP’s. They have also contacted the dermatologist when M.S.V. Prasad felt allergic to certain medicine. On clinical examination and investigations of M.S.V. Prasad revealed chronic renal failure. The allegations made by the complainants that OP’s have experimented the medicine on M.S.V. Prasad are all false. When OP’s have diagnosed allergy to certain drug and reaction they immediately started the appropriate treatment which is accepted in the medical field. There is no carelessness or negligence muchless deficiency in service on the part of the OP’s. As such they are not liable to pay any compensation. The entire complaint is false and frivolous. Though OP’s made their best efforts to save the M.S.V. Prasad, but they could not save him because of multiple complications. The doctors who treated M.S.V. Prasad are highly qualified and specialist in the field. Among these grounds, OP’s prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainants filed their affidavit evidence and produced certain documents. OP’s have also filed their affidavit evidence and produced their documents. The interrogatories were filed, they were suitably answered by the litigating parties. Thereafter this Forum was pleased to dismiss the complaint vide order dated 30.12.2005. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order complainant preferred an Appeal before the Hon’ble Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore at Appeal No. 380/2006. The said Appeal came to be allowed vide order dated 09.04.2007 and the matter is remitted back to this Forum to dispose of after affording an opportunity to both the parties to cross examine the persons who filed the affidavits by way of examination in chief. On the receipt of the records, case was posted for cross examination of the witness who have filed the affidavit. OP cross examined the complainant and complainant cross examined the OP. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainants have proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP’s?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainants are entitled<br /> for the reliefs claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. The fact that the M.S.V. Prasad was treated by the OP’s on 15.01.2005 is not at dispute. On the perusal of the records and documents which are undisputed they reveal that M.S.V. Prasad was a known case of kidney problem, he had appeared before OP.1 hospital several times even as outpatient for follow up. He was admitted in the hospital of OP.1 on 15.12.2004 for evaluation of hypertension. His clinical examination and investigation revealed chronic renal failure. He was discharged on 18.12.2004 by prescribing suitable medicine. These facts are also not at dispute.<br /> <br /> 7. Again it appears he has come up for a follow check up on 31.12.2004, 10.01.2005, 15.01.2005. As and when M.S.V. Prasad appeared for treatment before OP.1 hospital, the concerned doctors namely OP.2 and 3 who are specialist in the field got conducted certain investigation and tests, examined him and after the proper diagnosis they have prescribed the medicine. The records further show that on 17.01.2005 he appeared before the OP.1 with sudden onset of crythematons macular rash involving all over the body. It was a drug reaction or allergy called Stevan Johnson Syndrome. Immediately OP.1 doctors started the treatment, there was a lot of improvement which was satisfactory. The patient was discharged on 24.01.2005 at the behest of his attendants. It is contrary to medical advise. <br /> <br /> 8. Again on 31.01.2005 he was readmitted because of further complications including septicemia. He was kept in ICU under close observation till up to 05.02.2005, then he was shifted to ward. The entire case sheets pertaining to the treatment given to this M.S.V. Prasad in the hospital of OP right from the beginning are produced. On the perusal of the said records together with affidavit evidence of the doctors, it appears they have taken appropriate resuscitatory measures to save M.S.V. Prasad, but there was no improvement. Ultimately he died of sudden cardiac arrest on 06.02.2005. The record shows OP’s not only monitored the patient, provided established standard treatment. The said treatment is very well accepted in the medical science. There is a corroboration in between the statement on oath and contents of the documents produced by the OP’s. Men may lie, but not the documents.<br /> <br /> 9. The evidence placed by the OP’s appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. It is an unimpeachable evidence. As against this trustworthy evidence of OP’s, the allegation made by the complainants appears to be baseless. There is no proof that OP.1 doctors have failed to take care of M.S.V. Prasad or they having been diverted in treating him on his kidney problem and thus concentrated only on drug allergy. Of course the symptoms of drug allergy reaction were immediately diagnosed and it was properly treated. Though the concerned doctors administered the correct and accepted drug for the treatment, unfortunately there was a reaction. The complainants have not pointed out any error in giving treatment to M.S.V. Prasad, except making oral allegations.<br /> <br /> 10. We have gone through the cross examination offered to the OP by the complainant. But nothing has been extracted to discard the sworn testimony of the OP. We have also taken note of the cross-examination offered to the complainant. We are satisfied that OP is able to establish their defence through the mouth of the complainant. The defence set out by the OP finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents. In addition to that when complainant alleges the medical negligence it is incumbent upon the complainant to establish the same beyond reasonable doubt accompanied with the expert’s evidence in the field. But unfortunately in this complaint, complainant has not lead the expert evidence nor filed the affidavit of such an expert so as to say that the treatment opted, procedure followed drug administered by the OP are opposed to medical practice. So in absence of such substantive evidence, the bare and vague allegations of the complainant rather alone cannot be believed.<br /> <br /> 11. On the perusal of the entire evidence and the documents, it appears that the OP’s have taken a due and proper care and the medicine prescribed by the OP’s and the treatment given by the OP’s is proper. If complainants felt that the said treatment was wrong, nothing prevent the complainants to file an expert doctors evidence to substantiate their allegations. But the complainants have failed in that regard. Even they have failed to give proper answers to the interrogatories delivered on by the OP’s. So on the close scrutiny of the evidence now placed before us, we are of the opinion and view, that there is no proof of medical negligence on the part of the OP’s. <br /> <br /> 12. A Doctor is not guilty of negligence since he acted in accordance with the practice accepted as proper by a reasonable body of medical man skilled in that field. There is no evidence to come to the conclusion that the OP fell below the standard of a reasonably competent practitioner in their field. The evidence has come that OP has acted in accordance with the practice regularly accepted and adopted. Medical Negligence is to be established, it can’t be presumed. A Doctor has discretion in choosing the treatment with regard to ailment and emergency in the better interest of the patient. <br /> <br /> 13. The fact and circumstances of the case before us, show that OP has attended the patient with due care, skill and diligence. We may observe that there is hardly any cogent material to substantiate the allegation contained in the petition of complainant. Under the circumstances, we cannot but hold that the complainant has failed to prove the allegations against the OP’s. It will not be out of place to mention that doctors only treat whereas it is in the hands of the Almighty to cure. <br /> <br /> 14. No sensible professional would intentionally commit an act or omission which would result in loss or injury to the patient as the professional reputation of the person is at stake. The law does not require of a professional man that he be a paragon combining qualities of polymath and prophet. A complaint regarding medical negligence should allege and support with expert evidence as to what was done which should not have been done or what was not done which should have been done. <br /> <br /> 15. In view of the discussions made by us in the above said paras, we find that the complainants have failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP’s. As such they are not entitled for the relief now claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 28th day of March 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br />