Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

                   The complainants filed this complaint before this Forum u/s.12 of the C.P. Act for getting reliefs against the opposite party.

                   2. The case of the complainants is stated as follows:  The 1^st complainant is the wife of 2^nd complainant.  On 20.05.2015 the 1^st complainant felt some discomfort in her health so that she was admitted in opposite party’s hospital on the same night i.e. 1 a.m. on 21.05.2015.  When she was admitted in the hospital one doctor and 2 or 3 nurses were in duty at opposite party’s hospital.  According to the complainants, the doctor pursued the 2^nd complainant to admit the complainant No.1 for the treatment for heart disease.  It is contended that even without taking any ECG or without any serious consultation of a doctor the nurses of the opposite party’s hospital compelled the complainant for the said admission.  The complainants demanded for an immediate consultation of a doctor in cardiology, due to the non-availability of a specialised doctor the demand was not fulfilled. On persuasion of the opposite party’s hospital staff, the complainant was compelled to approach Pushpagiri Hospital, Thiruvalla and the said hospital has taken the ECG of the 1^st complainant and told them that there is no defect in ECG so that an admission in the hospital was not required.  At the time of taking discharge from the opposite party’s hospital the complainants paid the bill and the hospital authorities handed over the ECG report and the cash bill to the complainant.  It is again contended that the opposite party’s hospital did not take any ECG on the date of admission on 21.05.2015 at 1 a.m and the ECG report handed over to the complainants were bogus one and it also shows that it was an incomplete one and a part of a teared paper.  It is contended that the date of the ECG paper is re-written and the complainant No.1’s name is again re-written in the ECG paper.  The act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service and due to the said act of the opposite party the complainants suffered mental agony and financial loss.  The opposite party is liable to the complainant for all these matters.  The complainants filed this complaint against opposite party for getting compensation, ECG rate, cost etc. etc.

                   3. This Forum entertained this complaint and issued notice to opposite party for their appearance.  The opposite party entered appearance and filed their version as follows:  According to the opposite party, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  It is contended that the opposite party’s hospital is founded by a renowned doctor Sri. K.M. Cherian and it is functioning from 2003 onwards.  The said hospital have good track record in the field of cardiological treatment.  This opposite party admitted that on 21.05.2015 the complainant arrived the hospital with a complaint of chest pain in the early morning.  It is contended that the doctor in charge of cardiology along with the staff nurses measure the blood pressure and ECG in casualty care unit.  As per the report of ECG, it is found that she is suffering heart complaint and accordingly complainant No.1 was advised for a hospital admission.  It is further contended that ECG report is not at all a conclusive report even the case of patients of severe heart attack, the hospital authorities directed the complainant No.1 to undergo Echo Emcyma test, blood test etc. to ascertain the gravity of the disease.  After the completion of all these tests the cardiologist need to be attended the patient in this regard.  It is stated that the husband, 2^nd complainant was reluctant to admit his wife in the hospital and insisted for a discharge.  Hence complainant No.1 was discharged against the advice of the doctor.  According to the opposite party, usually the name of the patient will not enter in ECG report and it is only written in hand.  It is again contended that when a machine is switch off for a long time the ‘make date’ of the machine is seen in the report.  When an emergency case is attending by the doctor, it is not practical to update the machine.  The marking of the ECG paper will vanish automatically after a period of 4 or 5 months.  It is again contended that the ECG is complete and it is reflects the leads i.e. 1 to 6.  The opposite party is all along keeping the medical ethics and giving treatment with utmost care and responsibility.  According to the opposite party, the complainants are not entitled for any of the relief claimed.

          4. During the time of the trial of the case, the 1^st complainant died on 22.03.2016 and in order to proceed with this case the 2^nd petitioner filed a petition to implead the legal representatives of the complainant No.1 as the additional complainants 3 and 4 in this case.  The petition numbered as I.A.56/16 by this Forum.  The opposite party (respondent) filed objection in the above said I.A and after hearing both side allowed the above I.A 56/16 and implead the legal representatives of diseased complainant No.1 as additional defendant 2 and 3 in this case.  They are impleaded as addl. defendant No.2 and 3 because they are not in station at the time of filing the impleading petition before the Forum.

                       5. This Forum peruse the complaint, version and records before us and framed the following issues:

1. Whether the case is maintainable before the Forum?
2. Whether the opposite party committed any deficiency in service against the complainants?
3. Regarding reliefs and costs?

          6. The evidence consists of this case is the oral evidence adduced by PW1 in this case and Ext.A1 to A3 series.  Ext.A1 is the prescription of the doctor issued by the opposite party to the 1^st complainant.  Ext.A2 is the ECG Report.  Ext.A3 series are the ECG Reports (2 Nos.) issued by Poyyanil Hospital, Kozhencherry to the 1^st complainant.  On the other side, the General Manager of the opposite party’s institution is examined as DW1.  He filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination for and on behalf of opposite party.  At the time of chief examination of DW1, Ext.B1 is also marked.  In addition to DW1’s deposition DW2 and DW3 were also examined.  DW2 is the nurse of opposite party’s hospital and DW3 is the Doctor of the same hospital.  After the closure of evidence, we heard both sides.

          7. When we peruse the deposition of PW1 in chief examination, it can be seen that he deposed more or less as per the tune of the complaint.  It is deposed that the wife of the complainant was admitted in the opposite party’s hospital at 1 a.m on 21.05.2015 and the staff of the said hospital informed to the 2^nd complainant that there is a variation in the ECG hence the admission in the hospital was insisted.   Apart from the proof affidavit of PW1, he produced and marked a prescription prepared by the doctor of 1^st opposite party.  The ECG report of the 1^st opposite party’s hospital was also produced and marked Ext.A2.  It is deposed that the said Ext.A2 is not the ECG report of 1^st complainant.  On the other side as stated earlier, DW1 to DW3 were also examined.  DW1 he who filed proof affidavit along with an authorisation, the authorisation is marked as Ext.B1.  When we peruse the deposition, the proof affidavit of DW1, it reveals that the content of the said proof affidavit is more or less as per the tune of his version.  It is deposed that on malafide intention and without any just cause the complainant filed this complaint against the opposite party hospital and it also deposed that the opposite party’s institution is a reputed institution and maintaining the high profile of medical ethics.  It is further deposed that on the basis of the ECG report, there is a difference seen in Inverted P Waves VI – V2 leads – that is why 1^st opposite party directed the complainants for a hospital admission for further treatment.  The 1^st complainant was discharged from the hospital against the advice of the doctor and the said discharge was insisted by the husband, 2^nd complainant.  DW2 deposed that she is the staff nurse of the opposite party’s hospital and on 21.05.2015 she has taken the ECG of 1^st complainant by the direction of doctor concerned.  She further deposed that at the time of taking the ECG, the machine was in ‘off condition’ and subsequently it is switch on and took the ECG of 1^st complainant.  She further deposed that without updating the machine she had taken the ECG.  Therefore, she corrected the ECG date of ‘08.06.2005 to 21.05.2015’.  It is also deposed that the making date of the machine is 08.06.2005 that is why that date was recorded in the ECG paper.  After the closure of evidence, we heard both sides.

8. Point No.1:- The opposite party in this case seriously pleaded that this case is not maintainable before the Forum.  It is to see that the complainant No.1 was admitted in the hospital on 21/05/15 with a complaint of chest pain.  This fact is admitted by the opposite party through his version.  It is also come out in evidence that the complainant No.1 has admitted in the opposite party’s hospital and on the same day he paid ECG charge to opposite party’s hospital. If so, the complainant No.1’s admission in the hospital is for getting medical service from opposite party and for that he paid necessary amount.  In the light of this peace of evidence we can easily arrived in a conclusion to the effect that the opposite party is a service provider of the complainant.  Hence Point No.1 found in favour of the complainant. 

         9. Point Nos. 2 to 3 : For the sake of convenience we would like to consider Point No.2 & 3 together.  The next question to be considered is whether the opposite party committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainants in this case.   It is true that the complainants in this case has taken a stand to the effect that the opposite party has not taken an ECG as per Ext.A2.  The said document is a fabricated document.  In order to substantiate the case of the complainants he pointed out that the Ext.A2 is a document dated 08/06/2005 and opposite party’s hospital forged this document and wrote complainants name and date as Janamma Baby date 21/05/15 at 1.45 a.m on the top portion of Ext.A2.  PW1 deposed that “F\n¡v ECG FSp-¡m-¯-Xn\m Rm³ Doctor t\mSv admit Bhm³ X¿m-dm-bn-«Ã h¶-sX¶pw acp¶v X¶v hn«m aXn-sb¶pw ]d-ªp.  At¸mÄ Doctor Cardiologist ChnsS Cà ]pjv]-Kncn tlmkv]n-ä-en-te¡v t]mIm\pw ]d-ªp''. When we examine this part of the deposition of PW1, it can be attributed that even at the time of shifting to another hospital she was aware of the absence of the ECG report.  She also added, “Sn hospital - \n¶pw ECG FSp-¡msX Xs¶ F\n¡v X¶ ECG report lmP-cm-¡p-¶p. F¶m aäm-cp-sStbm ECG h¨v Fsâ t]cn report X¶-Xm-Wv.  Sn hospital - F\n¡v ECG FSp-¯n-cp-¶nÃ.  Sn hospital F\n¡v {]Ya ip{iq-j-t]mepw e`n-¨n-cp-¶n-Ã. XpSÀ¶v R§Ä Xncp-hà pushpagiri hospital te¡v t]mbn.  skâv {KntKm-dn-bkv hospital se ECG report t\m¡n-b-t¸mÄ BWv a\-kn-em-bXv date sh«n-Xn-cp¯n Fsâ t]cv FgpXn tNÀ¯-XmWv F¶v.  ECG  FSp-¡msX tcmKw Ds­¶v ]d-ª-t¸mÄ F\n¡pw IpSpw-_-¯n\pw am\-knI hnjaw D­­m-bn.  IqSmsX FSp-¡m¯ ECG report X¶v sXän-²-cn-¸n-¨Xv opposite party bpsS tkh\ hogvN-bm-Wv''.  When we examine the substance of the deposition of PW1 it reveals that the opposite party’s hospital mislead the complainant without taking any ECG report.  At the time of the cross-examination of the PW1 she answered “opposite party hospital  Fsâ B.P ]cn-tim-[n-¨n-cp-¶p. Ext.A1{]Imcw \n§fpsS ECG FSp-¯-Xmbn ImWp-¶tÃm? (Q)  Cà (A). Ext.A2- \n§-fpsS t]cpw date Dw sh«n Fgp-Xn-b-Xn-\m BWtÃm ECG  FSp-¯nà F¶v ]d-bp-¶Xv (Q) AsX (A).witness adds, “sN¶ ka-bhpw sXäm-bn-«mWv tNÀ¯n-cn-¡p-¶-Xv''.  Again she answered for a question, “cm{Xn 1 aWn¡v ECG machine off Bbn InS-¡p-I-bm-bn-cpt¶m''? (Q)  "Fsâ ECG FSp-¯nà F\n¡v \à HmÀ½-b­p­v'' (A).  ECG machine Rm³ I­-­tX-bn-Ã''.   Answer to a question from Forum.  If we peruse the answer of PW1 in cross it is pertinent to see that on 21/05/15 at about 1 A.M, the opposite party’s hospital staff did not take the ECG of PW1 and it is to see that she did not see the ECG machine from opposite party’s hospital on that day and time.  In order to substantiate the case of PW1 she produced a sample of ECG report issued from Poyyanil Hospital, Kozhenchery from 20/05/2015 to 21/05/2015, that report shows that the age, sex and the time of ECG report is printed in the report. But at the same time in Ext A2 the ECG report the time, name etc are written in hand and an old date can also be seen in Ext A2 report.  In order to rebut the contention of PW1 the opposite party’s hospital examined DW1 to DW3 in this case. The DW1 in this case is the General Manager of the opposite party’s hospital.  As per his deposition he deposed that on 21/05/2015 at about 1 a.m the hospital has taken the ECG of PW1 along with blood pressure. On the basis of the ECG report some variation was seen in V1-V2 lead hence for further treatment the doctor concerned directed PW1 for an hospital admission as in patient.  At the time of the cross-examination of the DW1 he answered, “21/05/15   ECG FSp-¡p-¶-Xn\v technician D­­m-bn-cp-¶pthm'' (Q)  Adn-bn-à (A).  Sn Xob-Xn-bn BcmWv ECG FSp-¯Xv (Q) Adn-bn-à (A). Again he adds, “qualified staff nurse BWv''.    ""Cu tcmKnsb ]cn-tim-[n-¨pthm'' (Q) ]cn-tim-[n-¨p (A).  A¶v Cu tcmKn-bpsS  ECG FSp-¯n-cp-¶pthm (Q)  FSp-¯n-cp-¶p(A). Ext A1 and A2 tcJ-IÄ If-hmbn X¿m-dm-¡n-b-XsÃ?  AÃ''.   As per DW1’s deposition it reveals that he has no idea with regard to the presence of a qualified technician’s at the alleged time of taking the ECG.

10. When we peruse the examination of the PW1, it also reveals that the complainant put forwarded a definite case to the effect that opposite party’s hospital has not been taken any ECG for her.  It is true that the opposite parties examine DW2 and DW3 to substantiate their case.  The DW2 is a nurse of the concerned hospital. According to her deposition she deposed that she has taken the ECG of PW1.  She answered in cross, “11 electrode BWv km[m-cW machine-þ ImWp-I. machine calibration automatic setting BWv. Calibration automatic setting  BsW¦n date-Dw time-Dw automatic Bht­­? (Q)   Adn-bnÃ(A).  F\n¡v general nurse tbmK-y-X-bp­-­v. ECG technical Bbn ]Tn-¨n-«n-Ã''. 

11. In the light of the DW2’s deposition it can be attributed that she is not fully aware of the functioning of the ECG machine and also admitted that she has not studied the technicality of the ECG machine.  It can be seen that she evaded from certain technical question raised by the complainant.  It is to be noted that being the nurse of the opposite party’s hospital she is an interest witness of opposite party.  Even then it can be inferred that the ECG machines of the hospital is a calibration automatic one, the name, date and time are automatically developed in the machine. If so the re-writing in ink and old date seen in Ext A2 are against the case of opposite party.  DW3 is a doctor who is working in opposite party’s hospital.   According to him, he proposed the ECG for PW1.  In chief examination he deposed, “Rm³ BWv Cu tcmKn¡v ECG \nÀt±-in-¨-Xv. km[m-cW ECG bn t]cpw date Dw FgpXn tNÀ¡mw type  sNbvXv h¶n-sÃ-¦nÂ''.  When we peruse Ext A1 it can be seen that the said document not carry the name of medical officer, date initial etc.  In cross he answered, “Cu ECG report, summary report CÃm-sX-bmWv Iodn FSp-¯Xv''.  Witness adds, “computer reading {i²n-¡m-dn-Ã''.  Moreover in Ext A1 we can see a seal ‘Cash received’, ‘No.2116’ and date ‘25/05/2015’ but there is no mention with regard to the amount of cash received by the opposite party.  Even the issuance of this kind cash memo to a patient is not justifiable.  As a reputed firm as claimed by opposite party these kinds of act or approach of the opposite party cannot be excusable.  As per Ext A1 even the presence of a doctor at the time of admission was also doubtful. 

                   12. If the opposite party has a definite case to the effect that DW3 has directed PW1 to take ECG if so what prevented the opposite party to suggest this issue at the time of cross-examination of the PW1 or even mention this fact in the version.  In the light of the available evidence before us we can come to a definite conclusion to the effect that DW3 has not even referred PW1 for taking ECG in opposite party’s hospital.  When we compare  this fact with the contention of complainant in this case, the case of the complainant is so probable than the case of the opposite party.  It is to see that due to the absence of a fair ECG report PW1 was compelled to admit in Poyyanil hospital on the same night and it also reveals that the said hospital authorities taken the ECG of the PW1 and it is seen that there is no variation in the ECG report.  According to PW1, due to the fabricated Ext A2 ECG report she suffered mental pain, financial loss and of harassment.   The act of the opposite party is clearly comes under the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice defined in Consumer Protection Act 1986.  We do admit that the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party argued that Ext.A2 ECG report has taken from the opposite party’s Hospital.  As discussed earlier, opposite party not succeeded to substantiate their contention before the Forum.

                   13. Therefore, we find that the complaint is allowable.  As discussed earlier it can be seen that after the death of PW1, on the request of complainant No.2 the husband of PW1, this Forum impleaded the legal heirs of the diseased PW1’s (Janamma Babichan) daughters as additional 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party.  The legal heirs of the diseased PW1 are the complainant No. 2, additional 2^nd opposite party and additional 3^rd opposite party.  The opposite party No.1 in this case is liable to all these parties.  Hence Point No.2 and 3 found accordingly.

14.  In the result, we pass the following orders:

1. The 1^st opposite party is directed to pay the ECG amount of Rs. 250/- (Rupees Two hundred and fifty only) to complainant No.2, additional 2^nd opposite party and additional 3^rd opposite party with 10% interest  from the date of receipt of this order onwards.

2. The 1^st opposite party is also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the above stated persons with 10% interest from the date of receipt of order onwards.
3. A cost of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five hundred only) is also allowed to the complainant No.2, additional 2^nd opposite party and 3^rd opposite party from the opposite party No.1 with 10% interest from the date of receipt of the order onwards.
4. The opposite party No.1 is also directed to issue proper or full scale bill to the patients here after.

     Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of September, 2016.   

                                                                                   (Sd/-)

                                                     P.Satheesh Chandran Nair,

                                                                    (President)

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

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member- II)                 :    (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainants:

PW1  :  Janamma

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainants:

A1 :  Prescription of the doctor issued by the opposite party to the 1^st  

        complainant. 

A2 :  ECG Report. 

A3 series : ECG Reports (2 Nos.) issued by Poyyanil Hospital, Kozhencherry  

                 to the 1^st complainant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1  :  George K. Babu

DW2  :  Sheeba Sunil

DW3  :  Dr. K.G.Suresh

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1  :   Authorisation letter

                                                                                (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Janamma Babychan, Tholoor House, Nellikkala.P.O.,

          Elanthoor, Pathanamthitta.

2.  The Managing Director, M/s. St. Gregorios Cardio-

          Vascular Centre, Parumala.P.O., Pathanamthitta.

3.  Sony Skariah, Tholoor Veedu, Nellikkala.P.O.,

                    Pathanamthitta.

4.  Jickey Binoy, St. Mary’s Estate, Udumpumchola. P.O.,

          Nedumkandom, Idukki Dist.

5. The Stock File.