Appeared at the time of arguments through video conferencing For the Complainants | : | Mr. V. N. Subramaniam, Advocate | For the Opposite Parties | : | Mr. Dileep Poolakkot, Advocate Mr. Vijay Valsan, Advocate |
Pronounced on: 24th March 2021 ORDER PER DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER 1. The instant Complaint was filed under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Mr. K. T. Manickaraj and his wife Mrs. Revati for alleged medical negligence caused at M/s Apollo Hospital Enterprises Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Opposite Party No. 1’) leading to death of their only son Mr. Sudhakar, aged about 27 years. 2. We have heard the arguments from the learned Counsel for both the sides. 3. In the instant case, the Complainants’ son Mr. Sudhakar (since deceased, hereinafter referred to as the ‘patient’) underwent left shoulder Arthroscopy at the Opposite Parties Hospital on 18.01.2007. During operation, due to anesthetic complications, the patient developed sudden hypotension and bradycardia. Immediately, the doctors initiated emergency resuscitative measures and shifted the patient to the ICU and ventilated. The patient survived, partially recovered but became vegetative form. The patient was proposed to be discharged on 05.10.2007 for further recovery in the house-care environment. 4. The learned Counsel for the Complainant argued that the hospital bill was about Rs. 15 lakh and the hospital authority told that the patient shall be removed from the hospital or the treatment shall be discontinued if the payment was not made. The Complainants’ pleaded their poor state and therefore, the Opposite Parties promised to pay Rs. 2 Crores towards the future of their son, who suffered due to negligent treatment at their hospital, however they paid Rs. 45 lakh only. Their son died on 24.04.2012. The learned Counsel further argued that the Opposite Parties took advantage of the Complainants’ situation and compelled them to enter into a settlement agreement by way of undue influence and coercion, hence the grounds for a voidable contract and liable to be set aside. 5. The learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties argued that the Complainants while agreeing to discharge their son not only requested the Opposite Parties to waive the pending payment of Rs. 15,52,552/-, but also accepted a sum of Rs. 45,00,000/- as ex-gratia payment in full and final settlement which was offered to them by the Opposite Party purely on humanitarian grounds keeping in view the condition of the patient. Accordingly, a memorandum of agreement was entered into between the parties incorporating the said terms. At no stage did the Opposite Parties threaten the Complainants of discontinuing the treatment if the medical bills were not cleared by the Complainants. The learned counsel also argued that the complications which arose in the patient after administering anesthesia were completely unanticipated and immediate resuscitative measures and ionotropic support were given by all the doctors. However, considering the neurological status of the patient, it was proposed that the patient be discharged. 6. We have perused the entire material on record inter alia the memorandum of agreement entered between the parties on 05.10.2007. The relevant paragraphs of the said memorandum of agreement are reproduced as below: “NOW THIS MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT WITNESSETH AS FOLLOWS: 1. The PARTY OF THE FIRST PART hereby waives the balance amount of Rs.11,67,552/- incurred in respect of the treatment of the patient. The PARTY OF THE SECOND PART hereby undertakes that he will not make any claim for reimbursement from the PARTY OF THE FIRST PART the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- paid by the Insurance Company towards the treatment of the patient. 2. The PARTY OF THE FIRST PART has paid a sum of Rs. 45,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Lakhs only) by way of Demand Draft bearing No. 077513 dated 05/10/2007 drawn on Canara Bank, payable at Erode to the PARTY OF THE SECOND PART as ex-gratia payment in full and final settlement, on humanitarian grounds. 3. The PARTY OF THE SECOND PART hereby states that there are no further claims against the hospital i.e. PARTY OF THE FIRST PART or any of its doctors/staffs and further agrees and undertakes not to make any claim hereafter either by way of further amount as ex-gratia payment or otherwise.” 7. Thus, it is clear that the terms of Memorandum of Agreement indicate that the payment received by the Complainants was full and final settlement and not any instalment for compensation as alleged by the Complainants. Nothing is on record to prove that the Opposite Parties promised to pay Rs. 2 Crores for the patient. 8. We have perused the entire treatment record and the evidence filed by the Opposite Parties. It was an alleged anaesthetic complication during Arthroscopy procedure. The doctors immediately followed ACLS protocol and performed Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation, however the patient suffered hypoxic brain injury and became vegetative. It is apparent that though the medical negligence was not determined against the Opposite Parties; on humanitarian grounds and considering the condition of patient, the hospital had paid Rs. 45 lakh in the year 2007. Therefore, we are not inclined to go into the merit of the instant case. 9. Based on the foregoing discussion, in our considered view, after the settlement agreement, the Complainants have no ground to agitate the same issue before this Commission again. 10. The Complaint is misconceived. It is dismissed. | 
