BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ATHYDERABAD.
C.C.No.55 OF 2008
Between:
Peddi Narayana Swami
S/o Janakiramayya, aged 58 yrs,
R/o H.No.2-126/2/1, Engineers Enclave
Gangaram, Chandanagar, Hyderabad-50
- The Managing Director
Kamineni Hospitals
L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad-68 - Dr.J.V.S.Vdyasagar
Senior Orthopaedic Consultant
Aware Global Hospital
L.B Nagar,Hyderabad
(impleaded as per orders in
I.A.No.1301/09 dt.10.10.2009)
Counsel for the Complainant
Counsel for the Opposite party
QUORUM: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER.
SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO
TUESDAY THE EIGTH DAY OF MARCH
Oral Order
1. `25 lakh and`25,000/- towards costs.
2.
3. `25,000/- to`30,000/- per month. `25 lakh towards compensation.
4.
5.
6. The patient has required increasing support of mechanical ventilator and he had developed sepsis.
7.
8. There was no negligence of any type on the part of the opposite parties in rendering treatment to the son of the complainant.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
1) Whether the opposite parties have rendered negligent treatment to the complainant’s son?
2) To what relief?
15. Visakhapatnam was recorded as that he was initially treated at PVT Hospital where radiography was taken and he was diagnosed with fracture shaft femur.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22. V. Kishan Rao Vs. Nikhil Super Specialty Hospital in 2641/ 2010after considering the entire case law
“In a case where negligence is evident, the principle ofres ipsa loquituroperates and the complainant does not have to prove anything as the thing (res) proves itself. In such a case it is for the respondent to prove that he has taken care and done his duty to repel the charge of negligence.”
23.
“ Once a claim petition is filed and the claimant has successfully discharged the initial burden that the hospital was negligent and that as a result of such negligence the patient died, then in the case the burden lies on the hospital and the doctor concerned who treated that patient, to show that there was no negligence involved in the treatment. The institution is a private body and it is responsible to provide efficient service and if in discharge of its efficient service there are a couple of weak links which have caused damage to the patient, then it is the hospital which is to justify the same and it is not possible for the claimant to implead all of them as parties.”
24. In Jacob Mathew v. State ofPunjabApex Court
“ .
25.
26. Samira Kohli Versus Dr. Prabha Manchanda & Another
32. We may now summarize principles relating to consent as follows:
(i) A doctor has to seek and secure the consent of the patient before commencing a 'treatment' (the term 'treatment' includes surgery also). The consent so obtained should be real and valid, which means that : the patient should have the capacity and competence to consent; his consent should be voluntary; and his consent should be on the basis of adequate information concerning the nature of the treatment procedure, so that he knows what is consenting to.
(ii) The 'adequate information' to be furnished by the doctor (or a member of his team) who treats the patient, should enable the patient to make a balanced judgment as to whether he should submit himself to the particular treatment as to whether he should submit himself to the particular treatment or not. This means that the Doctor should disclose
(a) nature and procedure of the treatment and its purpose, benefits
(b) alternatives if any available;
(c) an outline of the substantial risks; and
(d) adverse consequences of refusing treatment.
(iii) Consent given only for a diagnostic procedure, cannot be considered as consent for therapeutic treatment. Consent given for a specific treatment procedure will not be valid for conducting some other treatment procedure. The fact that the unauthorized additional surgery is beneficial to the patient, or that it would save considerable time and expense to the patient, or would relieve the patient from pain and suffering in future, are not grounds of defence in an action in tort for negligence or assault and battery.
27. The principle laid down in the aforementioned case is squarely applicable to the facts of the case as the opposite party no.1 or the opposite party no.2 had not obtained consent of the complainant before the patient was kept on ventilator as also the details of the treatment including the complications thereof has not been explained to the complainant.
28. `25 lakh towards compensation on account of his son’s death due to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties no.1 and 2. `2,000/- p.m. and if a sum of`500/- is deducted towards his personal expenses, the net income comes to`1500/- p.m. and if the multiplier of 12 is applied, the amount comes to`1,80,000/-. The complainant had incurred an expenditure of`44,592/- for treatment of his son at the opposite party no.1 hospital. `20,000/- for loss of love and affection and`5,000/- towards funeral expenses and thus the complainant is entitled to an amount of`2,50,000/- towards compensation which the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainant.
29. `2,50,000/- towards compensation and a sum of`2,000/- towards costs.
KMK*
//APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE//
For complainant
Ex.A1
Ex.A2
Ex.A3
Ex.A4
Ex.A5
Ex.A6
For opposite parties
Ex.B1
Ex.B2 RMOKamineniHospitalWarangal
Ex.B3
Ex.B4
Ex.B5
Ex.B6
Ex.B7 KamineniHospital
Ex.B8
Ex.B9
Ex.B10
KMK*
