IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,

Dated this the 09^th day of August, 2012.

Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)

C.C.No. 118/2010 (Filed on 25.03.2010)

Between:

1.   Raveendradas. K.,

Kuruppasseril Veedu,

Elanthoor.P.O.,

Pin – 689643.

Addl. 2. Janarajan, aged 71,

            H/o. Sumathy. K.,

            Kuruppasseril House,

            Elanthoor.P.O.

Addl.3. Rema Sreenivasan,

            D/o. Sumathy,

                -do.  –do.

(By Adv.Sulekha Chandran &

Bindu. N. Rajan)                                               …..   Complainants

And:

1.   Managing Director,

Mar Gregorios Medical Centre (Muthoot),

Kozhencherry, Pin – 689 641.

2.   Dr. Sanjeev,

Neurology Department,

    -do.  –do.

(By Adv. G.M. Idiculla)                                  ….     Opposite parties.

O R D E R

Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):

                The complainants have been filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.

                2. The 1^st complainant is the son of late Sumathy.  2^nd complainant is the husband and the 3^rd complainant is the daughter of the said Sumathy.  The 1^st opposite party is a hospital and the 2^nd opposite party is the neurologist of the said hospital. The mother of the 1^st complainant, the said Sumathy died on 29.01.2010 during her treatment at the 1^st opposite party hospital.  The complainant’s case is that the deceased Sumathy was admitted on 25.11.2009 at the 1^st opposite party hospital on the basis of the reference letter given by Dr. Sabu Varghese of Peoples Clinic Hospital, Pathanamthitta.  The deceased was at the age of 66 having complaints of B.P and diabetics. After examination, 2^nd opposite party told the complainants’ that for a complete recovery 5 days treatment is required including 2 days in the ICU.  Believing the words of opposite party 2 the complainants’ agreed for the treatments.  After 2 days the 1^st complainant enquired about the condition of his mother to the 2^nd opposite party.  At that time, he told that she will regain her health immediately.  During these days, they  were not allowed to see or speak their mother in the ICU.  After 2 days from the date of admission, the complainants’ told the 2^nd opposite party that if the patient is serious they are prepared to take her to medical college.  But the 2^nd opposite party told that it is not necessary and he also assured that she will be recovered by his treatments.  Thereafter the patient was kept in the ICU for 24 days and shifted to the room.  Opposite party collected ` 5,000 per day for the treatment in the ICU.  Thereafter also the complainants’ told their intention of taking the patient to medical college.  But the 2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party disallowed their request.  Thereafter on 21.01.2010 the patient was again taken to the ICU and on 29.01.2010 she died in the ICU.  After the death of the patient it is realized, on enquiry, that the 2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party is also getting a certain percentage of the income of the 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party in addition to his salary and the prolonged treatment and the unnecessary tests and medicines to the deceased was for enriching unlawful gain to the opposite parties. The above said acts of the opposite parties put the patient into a serious condition which resulted in the death of the patient.  For the said treatments opposite parties charged an amount of ` 1,17,547 as inpatient bill.  They also had other expenses in this connection.  Thus the complainants had spent about ` 3.5. lakhs for the treatment.  The above said acts of the opposite parties is against medical ethic and is a clear deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice which caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same.  Hence this complaint for the realization of ` 7 lakhs from the opposite parties under various heads.   

                3. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version with the following contentions:  Opposite parties admitted the admission and treatment of the patient at their hospital from 25.11.2009 onwards.  The patient was diagnosed Brainstem infarct, Lateral Medullary Syndrome, systemic hypertension, Diabetes Mellitus & COPD.  The patient came there with a very sick condition and hence admitted in the ICU.  As per the routine practice of the opposite parties at the time of admission of the patient the matter was discussed with the relatives regarding the condition of the patient.  On every day after morning rounds also the condition of the patient was discussed with her relatives.  The visitors are restricted inside the ICU for the benefit of the patients admitted in the ICU.  The complainants never made any request for removing the patient to the Medical College Hospital.  During the initial few days in the ICU patient had a stormy course.  Patient had hematemis and aspiration pneumonia requiring ventilator support.  Besides Endoscopy for massive gastro intestinal bleed was also done.  By 15.12.2009 the patient was shifted to the word as the patient had considerable improvement due to the quality service and expert management.  All the tests done for the patient were highly necessary and that was done after discussion and with the consent of the patients relatives.  The allegation regarding the extra money for treatment to second opposite party from the management is false.  Opposite parties hospital is a well equipped hospital with necessary experts.  Opposite parties has not committed any deficiency in service, unfair trade practice or anything against medical ethics.  All the treatments given to the patient was highly necessary.  With the above contentions, opposite parties prays for the dismissal of the complaint.

                4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered whether this complaint can be allowed or not?

                5. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1, DW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 and B1 to B3.  After closure of evidence, both sides filed their argument notes and they were heard.

                6. The Point:-  The complainant’s allegation is that his mother was taken to the Peoples Clinic Hospital, Pathanamthitta on 25.11.2009 for complaints of BP and other problems.  Dr. Sabu Varghese of Peoples Clinic Hospital examined the patient and referred the patient to the 1^st opposite party hospital.  Accordingly the patient was taken to the 1^st opposite party hospital and she was treated by the 2^nd opposite party.  The patient was under the treatment of the 2^nd opposite party from 25.11.2009 till her death on 29.01.2011.  During this period, she had been in the ICU and in the room.  During her treatment, the complainants were not allowed to see or talk with the patient.  When she was in the ICU.  On several occasions the complainants requested for shifting her to Medical College Hospital which was not allowed by the opposite parties.  During the treatment of the patient she was subjected for various tests and she was given unnecessary medicines.  Everything was done for squcing money from the patient.  All the treatments given by the opposite parties are against medical ethics.  The unnecessary and negligent treatments given by the opposite parties put the patient in a serious condition which resulted in the death of the patient.  For the treatments, opposite parties charged an amount of ` 1,17,547.  Besides they also have other expenses.  Opposite parties never given any information to the petitioners about the actual ailments of the patient.  For the treatments, the complainants incurred a total expense of ` 3.5 lakhs.  All the above said acts of the opposite parties are unfair trade practice, negligence and against medical ethics which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same.

                7. In order to prove the contentions of the complainant, the 1^st complainant filed a proof affidavit for and on behalf of the other complainants also along with certain documents.  On the basis of the proof affidavit the complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A4.  Ext.A1 is the O.P. reference card dated 25.11.2009 in the name of Sumathy aged 65 issued from Peoples Clinic Hospital, Pathanamthitta.  Ext.A2 series are numerous bills in the name of the patient Sumathy issued from 1^st opposite party hospital.  Ext.A3 is the inpatient bill dated 13.01.2010 for ` 1,17,547 issued in the name of Sumathy.K by the 1^st opposite party hospital.  Ext.A4 is the copy of the medical records in respect of the treatment of Sumathy.K from 25.11.2009 to 20.01.2010 issued from first opposite party hospital.

                8. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite parties is that the patient was brought to the opposite party hospital on 25.11.2009 as referred from Peoples Clinic Hospital, Pathanamthitta in a very sick condition.  The patients ailments are diagnosed as Brainstem infarct, Lateral Medullary Syndrome, systemic hypertension, Diabetes Mellitus etc. which required admission in NMICU.  Opposite parties hospital is well equipped for the treatment of such a patient under a very qualified doctor like 2^nd opposite party.  For the ailments of the patient she required prolonged treatment based on the tests, check-ups and evaluations.  Based on the above, the patient was treated at the 1^st opposite party hospital till her death on 29.01.2010.  In the treatment of the patient they have not committed any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  All the treatments and medicines given are required in the circumstances of the patient and are also not against medical ethics.  The allegations that the patient’s admission in the ICU is unnecessary and the patient was charged with exorbitant bills and the relatives are not allowed to contact the patient are false.  The ventilator support was given for saving her life.  The complainants have no specific allegation of any particular negligence or unwanted treatments.  The patient was brought to the opposite party hospital after previous treatment at 2 hospitals.  No evidence was brought in this respect.  In this case, the complainant has not adduced any expert evidence in their favour.  Thus the opposite parties argued that there is no negligence or unfair trade practice from their part.

                9. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite parties, 2^nd opposite party filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination for the opposite parties along with 3 documents.  On the basis of the proof affidavit, 2^nd opposite party was examined as DW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 to B3.  Ext.B1 is the reference letter dated 25.11.2009 issued from Peoples Clinic Hospital, Pathanamthitta in the name of the patient.  Ext.B2 is the O.P. records of the patient in respect of the patient’s treatment at the opposite party hospital from 25.11.2009 onwards.  Ext.B3 is the medical records in respect of the patients treatment at the opposite party hospital from 25.11.2009 to 30.01.2010. 

                10. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on records and found that the parties have no dispute in respect of the treatment of the deceased.  According to the complainants, the opposite parties unnecessarily admitted the patient and kept there from 25.11.2009 to 30.01.2010 unnecessarily and given unnecessary treatments, medicines and conducted unnecessary tests for squcing money from the complainants.  Opposite parties argument is that all the allegations raised by the complainant are utter false hood and they have not committed any negligence in the treatment or committed any unfair trade practice.

                11. This complaint is filed alleging medical negligence against opposite parties.  So in order to come to a conclusion, expert evidence is highly necessary.  But in this case the complainants have not adduced any expert evidence for substantiating their contentions.  The only available evidence from the side of the complainants consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4.  The deposition of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 are not sufficient for taking decision in their favour.  Complainants’ claim that the patient was brought to the opposite party hospital in a healthy condition.  But in cross-examination, PW1 deposed that the patient was treated at Elanthoor Jubilee Memorial Hospital and Peoples Clinic Hospital, Pathanamthitta for 7 days prior to the admission of the patient at opposite party’s hospital.  The relevant portion of the deposition of PW1 is as follows:- “BZyw A½sb Elanthoor Jubilee Memorial Bip-]-{Xn-bn-emWv ImWn-¨-Xv. XpSÀ¶v Peoples Clinic Hospital, Pathanamthittaþbnepw XpSÀ¶v opposite party Bip-]-{Xn-bnepw sIm­p-t]m-bn.  FÃmw IqSn HcmgvN ka-b-sa-Sp¯p”.  This admitted fact shows that the patient was under treatment for about 7 days before their admission at opposite party’s hospital.  The complainant’s has not adduced any evidence regarding the patient’s previous treatments so as to prove that the complainant was brought to the opposite party hospital in a healthy condition.  This along with immediate admission of the patient in the ICU indicates that the patient’s condition was not sound at the time of her admission at opposite party’s hospital.  The entries and endorsements recorded in Ext.A4 and B2 also support the patient’s condition was not sound throughout her treatment.  The complainants also failed to establish the case with the help of an expert by showing the treatment records of the patient. Complainants have no specific allegation against a particular treatment.  None of the argument raised in the argument note of the complainants’ counsel is proved by cogent evidence.  So we find that the complainants failed to establish a case against the opposite parties and hence we cannot find any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite parties.  Therefore, this complaint is not allowable. 

                12. In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

            Declared in the Open Forum on this the 9^thday of August, 2012.

                                                                                (Sd/-)

                                                                                Jacob Stephen,

                                                                                   (President)

Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)            :       (Sd/-)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) :       (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1 :  Ravindradas

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1    :  O.P. reference card dated 25.11.2009 issued from Peoples  

           Clinic Hospital, Pathanamthitta in the name of Sumathy.

A2 series  :  Numerous bills issued from 1^st opposite party hospital 

                   in the name of the patient Sumathy.

A3    :  Inpatient bill dated 13.01.2010 for ` 1,17,547 issued by the 

           1^st opposite party hospital in the name of Sumathy.K.

A4    :  Copy of the medical record issued by the 1^st opposite party  

           for the treatment of Sumathy.K from 25.11.2009 to  

           20.01.2010.

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

DW1        :  Dr. V.K. Sanjeev

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

B1    :  Reference letter dated 25.11.2009 issued by Peoples Clinic  

           Hospital, Pathanamthitta in the name of the patient. 

B2    :  O.P. records of the patient.

B3    :  Medical records of the patient’s treatment of the opposite           

           party hospital from 25.11.,2009 to 30.01.2010.

                                                                                (By Order)

                                                                                    (Sd/-)

                                                                   Senior superintendent

Copy to:- (1) Raveendradas. K., Kuruppasseril Veedu,

        Elanthoor.P.O., Pin – 689643.

(2) Managing Director, Mar Gregorios Medical Centre   

     (Muthoot), Kozhencherry, Pin – 689 641.

           (3) Dr. Sanjeev, Neurology Department,     -do.  –do.

           (4) The Stock File.