Date of Filing : 27.09.2021
Date of Disposal : 14.03.2023
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.P.MURUGAN, M.Com, ICWA(Inter), B.L., ......MEMBER-II
CC. No.43/2021
THIS TUESDAY, THE 14th DAY OF MARCH 2023
Mr.C.Rajasekar,
S/o.Late Chandran,
No.35, Perumal Koil Street,
Pallasurapet, Orakkadu Post,
Sholvaram, Chennai 600 067. ……Complainant.
//Vs//
M/s.Jayam Multi Specialities Clinic,
Dr.P.Meiyanathan, M.B.B.S.,
No.14/87-B, Thiruveethi Amman Koil Street,
Padi, Chennai 600 050. …..opposite party.
Counsel for the complainant : Mr.M.Dhandapani, Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite party : M/s.B.Ilayaraja, Advocate
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 17.02.2023 in the presence of Mr.M.Dhandapani counsel for the complainant and M/s.B.Ilayaraja counsel for the opposite party and upon perusing the documents and evidences of the complainant this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party with regard to his father’s treatment along with a prayer to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service along with cost of Rs.10,000/-towards litigation expenses.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
The present complaint was filed alleging medical negligence leading to deficiency in service on the part opposite party with regard to the treatment given to the complainant’s father.
The complainant’s father aged about 62 years old was treated with the opposite party as outpatient for six days i.e. from 27.05.2021 to 03.06.2021. The complainant’s father was affected with COVID – 19 and 70% block in heart. Amount of Rs.15,000/- was also paid towards treatment expenses. However, as the condition of complainant’s father became critical the opposite party referred him to Government Stanley Hospital on 03.06.2021. But his father died on 05.06.2021. Father being the sole bread winner of the family the entire family was affected due to the death of the complainant’s father. Thus after issuance of legal notice dated 24.06.2021 the present complaint was filed to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service along with cost of Rs.10,000/-towards litigation expenses.
The crux of the defence put forth by the opposite party:-
The opposite party denies that the complainant’s father was under treatment for 6 days continuously from 27.05.2021 to 03.06.2021 on daily basis and that at the time of COVID-19 situation the treatment given to the complainant’s father was improper and was done in a delayed manner. The opposite party was running M/s.Jayam Multi Specialities clinic at Padi wherein only medical consultation services was provided for out-patients only and there was no inpatient facilities available in the clinic. The complainant’s father was not under continuous treatment with the opposite party. Further, the documents submitted by the complainant claiming to be Government Stanley Hospital treatment bills dated 05.06.2021 given by the Mortuary Attender Government Stanley Hospital shows that the cause of death was Acute Pulmonary Sepsis /Cardiogenic shock Thromboembolism and nothing mentioned as death was due to Covid-19. The complainant’s father was brought to the opposite party with complaints of breathlessness and giddiness on 27.05.2021between 11.00 am to 12.00 am. The opposite party after medical examination had given first aid and prescribed appropriate medicines and advised the complainant if breathlessness continue to take his father to Government Stanley Medical College hospital for further treatment. However, the complainant did not follow the advice of opposite party and did not take treatment at Government Stanley Medical College Hospital on 27.05.2021, again only after 5 days the complainant along with his father came back on 02.06.2021 for review. The opposite party on 02.06.2021 after routine medical examination advised that the complainant’s father should take complete bed rest with medical management in hospital. Thereafter the complainant along with his father came to opposite party on 03.06.2021 for getting referral letter to Government Stanley Hospital. No documents have been submitted by the complainant to show that his father suffered with COVID 19 which clearly shows that the complainant’s father did not suffer with COVID 19. The complainant’s father has got admitted in Government Stanley Medical College Hospital on 03.06.2021 and claim to have died on 05.06.2021. The complainant has conveniently suppressed the medical record pertaining to the treatment given by Government Stanley Medical College Hospital because the same would prove that the complainant’s father did not die due to COVID 19. The opposite party received a legal notice dated 28.06.2021 and appropriate reply was given on 09.07.2021. No delay or deficiency in treatment was caused by the opposite party during 27.05.2021 and 02.06.2021. On 03.06.2021referral letter was also given in time. Further it was submitted that the opposite party never received any such amount from the complainant as mentioned in his complaint, except the normal consultation fees. There is no cause of action for the complainant to maintain the present complaint as against the opposite party and thus they prayed for complaint to be dismissed.
On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to A7. On the side of opposite party proof affidavit was filed but no document was submitted on their side.
Points for consideration:
Whether the alleged medical negligence resulting in deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party by the complainant with regard to his father’s treatment has been successfully proved by him by admissible evidence?
If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?
Point No.1:-
The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of his contentions;
Legal notice sent by the complainant dated 24.06.2021 was marked as Ex.A1;
Track consignment for proof of delivery was filed as Ex.A2;
Reply notice from the opposite party dated 09.07.2021 was marked as Ex.A3;
Bills issued by the opposite party was marked as Ex.A4;
Government Stanley Hospital treatment receipt was marked as Ex.A5;
Aadhar card of the complainant was marked as Ex.A6;
Death certificate of deceased father Mr.Chandran was marked as Ex.A7;
The learned counsel appearing for the complainant argued that the father of the complainant was affected with COVID 19 with 70% block in heart. Due to delay in treating him by the opposite party his condition got worsened and was referred Government Stanley Hospital where he died of Cardiac Arrest. Thus stating that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service the learned counsel sought for the complaint to be allowed as prayed for. The learned counsel also cited the following judgments in proof of his submissions;
Kamalpreet Grewal Vs Chandigarh Heart Centre on 24.05.2021,
Ramesh Ch. Agrawal Vs Regency Hospital Limited (2009) 9 SCC 709 in which the case of medical negligence and denial of opposite party of adducing evidence and opinion of expert was discussed,
INS.Malhotra Vs Dr.A.Kriplani (2009) 4 SCC 705 on medical negligence and evidence to be adduced,
Union of India Vs A.Durairaj (2010) 14 SCC 389 on denial of promotion,
State of Haryana Vs Raj Rani (2005) 7 SCC 22 on medical negligence and failure in sterilization operation,
State of Haryana Vs Santra (2000) 5 SCC 182 on medical negligence in respect of poor woman having number of children.
Dr.Nutan Jain Vs Nirmala on 11.03.2022.
On the other hand, it was argued by the opposite party that there was no inpatient facility available in their clinic and the complainant’s father was not under continuous treatment with the opposite party. Further on 27.05.2021 between 11.00am to 12.00 am the deceased was brought to the opposite party with complaints of breathlessness and giddiness for which first aid and appropriate medicines were given with advice that if the situation continues to take his father to Government Stanley Medical College hospital for further treatment. However, the complainant did not follow the advice of opposite party and after five days brought the patient for getting a referral letter to Government Stanley Hospital. The complainant had made contradictory statement with respect to payment of Rs.15,000/-. Further the cause of death as per the report Government Stanley Hospital is Acute Pulmonary Sepsis/Cardiogenic Shock. No record pertaining to treatment taken in Government Stanley Hospital was produced by the complainant. Thus, stating that there is no deficiency in service committed by the opposite party by causing delay in treating the patient, the learned counsel sought for the complaint to be dismissed.
Heard both learned counsels appearing for the complainant and the opposite party and perused the pleadings and materials evidences produced by both parties. The factum of complainant taking his father for treatment to the opposite party on 27.05.2021 was admitted by the opposite party. However, the complainant had alleged that his father was treated as an outpatient and not given due treatment. A Question arises as to when the father was treated as an outpatient and when his condition did not improve what prevented the complainant from taking his father to a hospital having inpatient facilities and the same was not explained by the complainant. However, it was submitted that treatment was continued as outpatient for six days and only after his condition deteriorated he was referred to Government Stanley Hospital. What happened for the six days during the treatment given by the opposite party was not explained by the complainant. Further, it is not stated and proved that what treatment ought to have been given to his father by the opposite party which was not given resulting in the death of his father. Treatment given for the complainant’s father after getting him admitted in Government Stanley Hospital on 03.06.2021 to 05.06.2021 was also not produced and only the mortuary card was submitted as Ex.A5. Even in the said report COVID was mentioned as negative and the cause of death mentioned as Acute Pulmonary Sepsis / Cardiogenic Shock. At the most, the complainant had miserably failed to prove that his father suffered with COVID -19 and died due to the same. Thus mere allegation that the opposite party caused delay in giving treatment for COVID 19 suffered by his father without adequate evidence will not fasten the opposite party with liability for committing medical negligence leading to deficiency in service. Hence, this commission holds that the complainant has failed to prove the complaint allegations on the part of opposite party. This point is answered accordingly in favour of the opposite party and as against the complainant.
Point No.2:-
As we have held above that the complainant failed to prove that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service, he is not entitled any relief from the opposite party.
In the result the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 14th day of March 2023.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 24.06.2021 Legal noice sent by the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A2 29.06.2021 Track consignment for proof of delivery. Xerox
Ex.A3 09.07.2021 Reply notice from opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A4 27.05.2021 Jayan multi speciality clinic medical bills. Xerox
Ex.A5 05.06.2021 Govenment Stanley Hospital treatment receipts. Xerox
Ex.A6 .............. Aadhar card. Xerox
Ex.A7 20.07.2021 Death certificate of deceased father Mr.Chandran. Xerox
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
