THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
APPEAL NO.1138/2012
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER
1. The Director,
Omega Hospital Pvt. Ltd.,
Pump well, Mangalore-2 ...Appellant/s
2. Dr.Mukund,
Cardiac Physician,
Omega Hospital Pvt. Ltd.,
Mangalore-2
3. Dr.A.G.Jayakrishna,
Cardiothoracic Surgeon,
Omega Hospital Pvt. Ltd.,
Mangalore-2
4. Dr.Jithendra Kumar Rathod,
Cardiothoracic Surgeon,
Omega Hospital Pvt. Ltd.,
Mangalore-2
5. Dr.Gopa Kumar,
Cardiac Anaesthetist,
Omega Hospital Pvt. Ltd.,
Mangalore-2
(By Sri.P.P.Hegde, Advocate)
-Versus-
1. Mr.Mohd. Ashraf,
Aged about years,
S/o. Ibrahim Rukniddin,
R/at Nageena Street,
Magdoom Colony,
Bhatkal (North Kanara)
2. Mr.Hurunnisa,
Aged 36 years,
2nd W/o Mohd.Ashraf,
R/at Nageena Street,
Magdoom Colony,
Bhatkal (North Kanara)
...Respondent/s
3. Mrs.Rafath Jahan,
Aged 38 years,
1st W/o Mohd.Ashraf,
R/at Nageena Street,
Magdoom Colony,
Bhatkal (North Kanara)
4. Ajaz Ahmed,
Aged 11 years,
S/o Mohd.Ashraf,
R/at Nageena Street,
Magdoom Colony,
Bhatkal (North Kanara)
(R1 to R4- Notice duly served – Absent)
(R5- )
O R D E R
BY SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Appellants/Opposite Party Nos.1 to 5 in complaint No.674/2004 preferred this Appeal against the order passed by the Dakshina Kannada District Consumer Commission, Mangalore which directed them to pay an amount of Rs.17,50,000/- towards medical negligence along with 10% interest per annum and litigation expenses.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that, the complainant admitted to hospital with a history of chest pain, after check-up the Cardiologist advised for surgery for implanting stents, accordingly on 15-10-2002 the surgery was conducted by these appellant and he was shifted to post operative ward where the complainant had not gain consciousness and not response to coherent in the co-operative ward, his brain was not functioning as well as sensory organs were also damaged.
3. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Commission alleging medical negligence and sought for compensation as there was negligence on the part of these appellants while performing surgery.
4. After appearance before the District Commission by these appellants that they have taken defence that the surgery was successful. There is no any medical negligence while performing the surgery. Further they have taken contention before the District Commission that they have conducted the MRI of brain which shows cortical necrosis due to hypoxia involving frontal, post parietal and oceipetal cortex bilaterally cortical atrophy and CT scan shows there is no sign of improvement and the same was explained to the complainant, but the complainant not understood the medical terminology and the consequences of the hypoxia have falsely filed a complaint before the District Commission and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The District Commission after trial allowed the complaint and directed these appellants to pay the above said amount. In fact they are not liable to pay any amounts to the complainants as there was no any medical negligence while performing the surgery. The said report clearly discloses the partial necrosis was only due to hypoxia and not by any negligence. The District Commission fails to understand the defence taken by these appellants, hence prays to set aside the order passed by the District Commission and dismiss the complaint, in the interest of justice and equity.
6. Heard from both parties.
7. On perusal of the certified copy of the order and memorandum of appeal, when we going to the line of treatment given by these appellants, we noticed after surgery the patient not regaining consciousness, the reason assigned for not gaining consciousness was not satisfactory. The appellants have explained the situation of the patient in the medical terminology, but not explained the reason for hypoxia. We are of the opinion that, there may be reason for unconsciousness due to excess of anesthesia dosage. The patient had not regained consciousness post operative, it is a clear case of medical negligence on the part of appellants while administering the anesthesia and not observing the heart rate, pulse rate and BP of the patient while conducting the surgery. The District Commission after elaborate trial had allowed the complaint and directed these appellants to pay the above said amount. Further no valid grounds urged before this Commission to set aside the order passed by the District Commission. The Opposite Parties fails to submit their ground to show there is no medical negligence. In the absence of such materials and other hand appreciating the documents produced. The order passed by the District Commission is hereby confirmed, no illegality found. As such the appeal is dismissed and accordingly we proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R
The appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost.
The impugned order dated 30.4.2012 passed by the Dakshina Kannada District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mangaluru in CC.No.674/2004 is confirmed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission to pay the same to the complainant.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.
SMT.SUNITA C.BAGEWADI SRI.RAVI SHANKAR
(Lady Member) (Judicial Member)
