Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/103/2016

B.Venkata Subba Rao, S/o Late B.Venkata Chette, aged 73 years, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Narayanadri Hospital and Research Institute Pvt Limited, Rep. By its Authorised Signatory/CAO - Opp.Party(s)

A.Sudarsana Babu

06 Jan 2018

ORDER

         

 

                                                                                                                                        Filing Date: 23-12-2016                                                                                                                                                                                      Order Date: 06-01-2018

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

Present: - Sri. Ramakrishnaiah, President

                                                                                              Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

SATURDAY THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTEEN

 

C.C.No.103/2016

Between

B. Venkata  Subba Rao, S/o. Late B.Venkata Chetty,

Hindu, aged about 73 years, residing at D.No.4-120,

Oteru Village, Vedanthapuram Panchayat, Tirupati,

Rural Mandal, Chittoor District.                                         … Complainant

 

And

M/s. Narayanadri Hospital & Research Institute Pvt.

Limited, rep. by its Authorized Signatory/C.A.O.,

No.73/1A, Renigunta Road, Near vaartha Office,

Tirupati – 517 506, Chittoor District.                                … Opposite party 

 

         This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 22.12.2017 and upon perusing the complaint, written arguments of the complainant and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri. A. Sudarsana Babu, counsel for the complainant and Sri. L.Madhusudhan Reddy, counsel for the opposite party having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

        This complaint is filed by the complainant under Section - 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, complaining the deficiency in service on part of the opposite party and prayed this Forum to direct the opposite party  to provide with a copy of the original case sheet and also the C.C. footage right from 03.09.2016 to 07.09.2016 of the complainant vide IP No.5720, and directing the opposite party to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant for the mental agony and deficiency in service and to pay costs of the complaint.

        2. The brief facts of the case are:   the complainant submits that he is aged about 73 years and he is not having any health ailment which is endangering his life except a known Diabetic. The complainant further submits that all of a sudden on 03.09.2016 he fell sick and immediately his son Chandramouli joined him in the opposite party hospital for treatment, but the complainant has not felt comfortable for the treatment and service rendered by the opposite party hospital and also they were not properly attended and provided service to him in ICU are not meeting to the standards of ICU. After observing the negligent attitude of the opposite party hospital and deficiency in service of opposite party, his son had heated exchange of words with the hospital staff and after seeing the recorded evidence available with the son of the complainant, the opposite party having realized and rendered apologies also.

        3. The complainant further submits that he was not felt comfortable coupled with the remark made by one of the opposite party hospital doctor, that he was having cardiac ailment and suggested to undergo surgery. The same was reduced in to writing in their discharge summary as “advice to undergo early coronary angiogram”. The complainant got discharged from opposite party hospital at his request and admitted in SVIMS hospital by his son on 07.09.2016 and discharged on 09.09.2016 from SVIMS. Except the weakness due to old age he is hale and healthy. The complainant further submits that at the time of discharge from the opposite party hospital, his son asked the copy of the original case sheet of him, so as to show the same in the SVIMS hospital and also he asked the C.C footage recording. But the opposite party hospital refused to give the same. The complainant further stated that while he was taking treatment  in the SVIMS hospital on 07.09.2016, the staff of the opposite party hospital made several calls to his son and demanded to return the original case sheet by stating that he was taken away the same. His son stated that he was attended his father in the hospital and also he has not taken the original case sheet and it is not with him.

       4. The complainant further stated that his son demanded copy of the original case sheet and also C.C recording to the opposite parties, to cover up their latches, the opposite party hospital might have resorted to this sort of threatening and blackmailing including making him to attend before the police. The complainant further submits that as he was taking bed rest with the advice of the SVIMS doctors, at his instructions his son caused a requisition under RTI Act on 14.09.2016 and having received the same the opposite party kept silent. Hence they caused a legal notice on 19.09.2016 after receipt of the same the opposite party gave reply on 27.09.2016 with false and frivolous allegations that their hospital will not come under the purview of the RTI Act and also stated that they gave a complaint at Grievance Cell in the S.P. Office, Tirupati Urban by falsely alleging that the case sheet of the patient which is a hospital property and only to trace out the missing case sheet they did all.  The complainant further stated that whether the opposite party has committed the negligent and deficiency in service towards him during the period of the hospitalization will reflect in the C.C. footage and also the original case sheet of the Hospital also clearly shows the protocol of  treatment given by the opposite party and as such the same were demanded by the complainant under RTI Act. But the opposite party stated that they will not come under the purview of the RTI Act and refused to furnish the same and alleged that the original case sheet was with the complainant’s son which speaks about the negligence and deficiency in service on part of the opposite party towards the complainant.  Hence he filed the present complaint.

        5. The opposite party came in to appearance and filed the written version by denying the allegations made in the complaint and further submits that the complainant was brought to their hospital as he fallen sick on 03.9.2016 with a problem of severe breathlessness, hence immediately the specialist doctors attended and admitted him in ICU and provide the treatment of good standards of ICU and he recovered significantly during hospital’s stay and advised to undergo Coronary Angiogram as mentioned in discharge summary and further submitted that the Angiogram is not a surgery and it is a diagnostic test which diagnose obstructive coronary artery disease, which is necessary to guide further treatment for the patient who has high probability of coronary artery disease. Hence the doctors suggests the patients like complainant with complaint of (Breathing Problem) for coronary angiogram to know block in the blood vessels. Apart from that on the basis of the findings of the complainant’s admissions ECG and other reports requires, hence they advised for the said tests. As the equipment for the said test is not available in the opposite party hospital, the complainant’s son intended to go to other hospital and discharged on 07.09.2016 and also as per discharge summary of SVIMS also the treatment and medicines prescribed by SVIMS doctors was also for heart only.

        The opposite party further stated that by the date of the discharge the complainant recovered significantly and he was taken in wheel chair up to hospital outdoor from where he walked in to his car with the assistance of hospital ward boy which clearly proves the standards of care of their hospital staff will take for the old aged patients, not only at the time of treatment but also at the time of discharge. The opposite party further submits that they have provided high standards of treatment, but also service to the complainant, during his treatment and due to that only the complainant recovered immediately from severe sick and breathing problem and also the opposite party further submits that neither the complainant nor his son complained about service in the course of treatment in their hospital.

       The opposite party further submits that the case sheet of the patient is the hospital property and it is not expected with the patient as the discharge summary contains all the particulars of treatment which will be furnished to the patient at the time of discharge. And in the present case also the discharge summary was furnished to the complainant on 07.09.2016 itself and on 08.09.2016 their hospital administration came to know about the missing of the case sheet and made search and enquiry to trace the same but in vain. In that process, their staff contacted the complainant as the same may be with him with (or) without intention, but his son gave reckless answer to their staff. After that only the complainant gave application for RTI Act to defend himself. The opposite party gave complaint to the police about missing of the case sheet and police also might have enquired the complainant, but not initiated any action. Hence this opposite party is forced to give complaint at grievance cell at S.P. Office, Tirupati Urban on 16.09.2016. As the counter blast, the complainant issued the legal notice on 19.09.2016 with all false allegations to blackmail this opposite party, which is the only private super specialty hospital at Tirupati with very good reputation and thousands of patients are taken treatment without any complaint what so ever. After receipt of the notice the opposite party gave reply not only for legal notice but also to the application under RTI Act, by informing all the facts.

         The opposite party submits that they are suspecting that, the original case sheet was with the complainant only, but intentionally not returning the same and blackmailing this opposite party for wrongful gain and to avoid police action. The opposite party further stated that they informed to the complainant in the legal notice on 27.09.2016. the complaint with the prayer to provide original case sheet and also CC TV footage itself speaks the intention of the complainant. The opposite party submits that the CC TV footage is noway helpful to the complainant (or) to this Honorable Forum to decide alleged deficiency in service of the opposite party as there are no CC cameras at ICU where the complainant taken treatment and also the opposite party further stated that they are ready to provide CC TV footage of reception area camera which is stored due to demand by the complainant under the RTI Act. Hence this opposite party submits that they have given treatment to the complainant up to the standards of ICU and the allegations made in the complaint by the complainant’s son in the name of the complainant in order to harass the opposite party and he also stated that at the time of billing he blackmailed the opposite party’s staff with the name of the Honorable Forum. This opposite party further submits pursuing of the original case sheet by this opposite party’s staff by calling complainant’s son is not amounts to mental agony or deficiency in service hence without any proof (or) record about the alleged deficiency in service the complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

         5. The complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and Ex: A1 to A8 were marked on behalf of him. On behalf of the opposite party one Ravi Srinivasarao,                      S/o. Ramachandraiah, working as Chief Administration Officer., M/s. Narayanadri Hospital and Research Institute Pvt. Ltd., filed his evidence on affidavit and Ex:B1 and B2 were  marked on behalf of the opposite party. Both parties filed their written arguments and oral arguments were heard.

        6. Now the points for consideration are:-

              (i)  Whether there is any deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties    

                     towards the complainant?           

             (ii)  Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for? If so?         

             (iii)  To what Relief?

                   7.Point No (i):-   the main contention of the complainant is all of a sudden, he fallen sick on 03.09.2016 and admitted in the hospital of the opposite party by  his son Chandramouli and further stated that during the period of hospitalization as he felt uncomfortable and not satisfied with the treatment and service rendered by the opposite party hospital as the services provided to him in ICU are not up to the standards of the ICU. Hence by noticing the same, his son has heated arguments with the opposite party’s staff and also one of the doctor stated that he has to undergo surgery as he is having Cardiac ailment and same was reduced in to writing in the discharge summary i.e. Ex:A1. Hence he discharged from the opposite party hospital and shifted to SVIMS hospital on 07.09.2016 and he discharged on 09.09.2016 from the SVIMS hospital as he is hale and healthy except the weakness due to the old age as per Ex:A2 the discharge summary of the SVIMS.

                  The counsel for the complainant further stated that on 07.09.2016 as he was taking treatment in SVIMS hospital as in patient, the staff of the opposite party started making calls to his son by demanding to return the case sheet and stated that he has taken away the same. But his son stated that he is attending his father in the hospital and also the original case sheet was not with him , but in spite of that they made several calls. Further to submit that he is under the impression as his son demanded for the original case sheet copy and also C.C. recording, to cover up their latches the opposite party hospital might have resorted to this sort of threatening and blackmailing including making him to attend before the police. As he was taking bed rest with the advice of the SVIMS doctors, his son caused requisition letter under RTI Act on 14.09.2016 having received the same the opposite party kept silent. Hence he caused another legal notice on 19.09.2016 under Ex:A6 and having received the same on 27.09.2016 the o.p gave reply under Ex:A8 with all false and frivolous allegations, that they will not come under the purview of the RTI Act. And also admitted that they have given complaint at the grievance cell of S.P. of police, Tirupati Urban Police by falsely alleging that the case sheet of the patient which is a hospital property and only to trace out the missing case sheet they did all. The complainant further stated that as he requested the complainant under RTI Act to furnish CC T.V. footage and also copy of the original case sheet, but they refused to provide the same as they will not come under the purview of RTI Act. The complainant further stated that the opposite party hospital has committed negligent and deficiency in service towards him during the period of hospitalization will certainly reflect in the CC footage and the original case sheet of the hospital also clearly shows the protocol of the treatment given and as such the same were demanded by the complainant under RTI Act, but the opposite party refused to furnish the same by contra alleging that they are under the suspicion that the original case sheet is with his son. This itself clearly shows that the negligent and deficiency in service on part of the opposite party.

                   But the counsel for the opposite party stated that on 03.09.2016  the complainant admitted in their hospital and their expert doctors was admitted him in ICU and gave good standard of treatment by them and also by their staff during his stay and also further state that the opposite party hospital  doctors has not advised the complainant for surgery as alleged by the complainant and the doctors advised to undergo Coronary Angiogram under Ex:A1 which is a diagnostic test, which diagnose obstructive coronary artery disease, which is necessary to guide further treatment for patient like complainant who is suffered with breathing problem to know the block in blood cells. And also, the counsel for the opposite party further stated that as the equipment for the said test is not available in opposite party hospital, his son intended to go other hospital and discharged on 07.09.2016. And also as per discharge summary of the SVIMS they have given treatment and medicines for heart disease only under Ex:A3 which clearly supports the opinion of the opposite party and the counsel for the opposite party further stated that at the time of payment of bill some minor altercations were taken place between complainant’s son and hospital staff, due to that the complainant’s son might have bore grudge and creating litigation for wrongful gain in the name of the complaint. During the course of the treatment or at the time of the discharge neither the complainant nor his son complained about service rendered by the opposite party.

                   The counsel for the opposite party on 08.09.2016 their hospital administration came to know about the missing of case sheet and made such an enquiry to trace out the same, but in vain. In that process the opposite party staff contacted the complainant as he taken away with him with (or) without intention, but his son gave reckless answer to the staff after that only the complainant’s son sent a letter under RTI Act to defend himself. Hence there is no other go they have forced to give complaint at grievance cell at SP office, Tirupati. Due to influence of the complainant, the police also given endorsement dt:18.04.2017 by informing that the original case sheet is not traceable. Hence the opposite party suspecting that the original case sheet is with the complainant only but intentionally he is not returning the same and blackmailing the opposite party for wrongful gain and to avoid police action. Hence as the original case sheet was not with the opposite party by knowing fully the complainant filed the present case in order to get wrongful gain and also the counsel for the opposite party further stated that there are no CC cameras at ICU where the complainant has taken treatment and also stated that the opposite party is ready to provide CC footage of reception area camera. Hence the counsel for the opposite party stated that the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs as prayed for.

                   After perusing the evidence on record filed by both the parties there is no dispute regarding the admission of the complainant in the opposite party hospital for taking treatment on 03.09.2016. As per the contention of the complainant during the course of the treatment in the opposite party hospital the service provided by the opposite party staff are not up to the standards of the ICU and also he has stated that there were heated arguments with the staff by his son while he was attended him when he was in the hospital. And also, the complainant further stated that the opposite party hospital doctor stated that he is having cardiac ailment and it is better to undergo surgery and same was reduced in the discharge summary i.e. Ex:A1. But the counsel for the opposite party clearly stated that they advised to undergo early “coronary angiogram” which is a diagnostic test which diagnose blocks in blood vessels which is necessary to give further treatment. As the above said diagnostic equipment is not available in their hospital, the son of the complainant discharged from their hospital and shifted to SVIMS.  And also, the line of treatment/medicines prescribed by the doctors in the SVIMS hospital is also for the ailment of heart disease only hence it is to be considered. The main contention of the complainant is, the opposite party hospital was not provided service up to the standards of ICU, but the complainant failed to file any affidavit of the 3^rd parties or the affidavit of his son chandramouli to support his contention. Hence in the absence of any documentary proof or cogent evidence we cannot come to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties towards the complainant. And also, the counsel for the complainant at the course of his oral arguments he himself stated that there is no medical negligence on part of the opposite party doctors but stated that, there is negligence in the service provided by the staff of the opposite party who attended for duties in ICU. But in order to prove the said contention they have not filed any cogent evidence to prove the same. And also, the opposite party in the written version and their chief affidavit they have clearly stated that there is no CC TV footage in ICU and also, they are ready to provide CC footage of reception. If at all there is any interest they might have obtain CC TV footage of reception. Except the oral allegations the complainant failed to file any documentary proof to prove his case, hence in the above circumstances also, we cannot hold deficiency in service on part of the opposite party towards the complainant. Hence this point is answered against the complainant.

                    8.Point No(ii):-   as the point No.1 is discussed against the complainant that there is no deficiency in service on part of the opposite party, the question of  entitlement would not arise.

        9.Point (iii):-   In view of our discussion on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on part of the opposite party, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No Costs.

        Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 06^th day of January, 2018.

           Sd/-                                                                                                                                                                    Sd/-

  Lady Member                                                                                                                                                        President

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

witnesses examined on behalf of complainant/s.

 

PW-1: B. Venkata Subba Rao (Chief Affidavit filed).                       

                                           

witnesses examined on behalf of opposite party/s.

                                                                             

RW-1: Ravi Srinivasa Rao (Chief Affidavit filed).                            

                                           

 

            EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s     

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Photo copy (Notary with Attestation) of Narayanadri Hospitals Cardiology Discharge Summary. Date of Admission and Discharge: 03.09.2016 and 06.09.2016.
	Photo copy (Notary with Attestation) of Narayanadri Hospitals Check Out Slip. Dt: 07.09.2016.
	Photo copy (Notary with Attestation) of SVIMS Discharge Summary. Date of Admission: 07.09.2016 and Date of Discharge: 09.09.2016.
	Requisition under RTI Act. Along with Indian Postal Order in original. Postal Order No.34F 017175. Dt: 14.09.2016.
	Reply Letter in original.
	Office copy of Legal Notice along with postal receipt in original. Dt: 19.09.2016.
	Acknowledgement Card. Dt: 21.09.2016.
	Served copy of Reply. Dt: 27.09.2016

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	Attested photo copy of Complaint regarding offence of theft of case sheet at hospital within the limits of Tiruchanoor Police Station. Dt: 16.09.2016.
	Certificate given by Dr. A. Bhaskar Reddy Allampati, MD.DM. CARDIOLOGY, Narayanadri Hospitals, Tirupati. Dt: 10.03.2017.

 

 

 

                                                                 Sd/-

                                                                                                             President

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

      Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

Copies to:  1) The Complainant, 

                  2) The Opposite party.