Tamil Nadu
South Chennai
CC/360/2004
K.Leela - Complainant(s)
Versus
M/s. Bharani Hospital - Opp.Party(s)
Abdhul Samath Kumara Guru
17 May 2019
ORDER
Date of Filing : 28.08.2003
Date of Order : 17.05.2019
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)
@ 2ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.
PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L. : PRESIDENT
TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP. : MEMBER
C.C. No.360/2004
DATED THIS FRIDAY THE 17TH DAY OF MAY 2019
1. Mrs. K. Leela,
D/o. Late G. Achuthan Nair,
No.1, Iyyappan Street,
Ramapuram,
Ambattur,
Chennai – 600 053.
2. Mr. A. Gopalakrishnan,
S/o. Late. G. Achuthan Nair,
No.15, Loganathan Street,
Ayanavaram,
Chennai – 600 023.
3. Mrs. A.K. Dakshayani,
D/o. Late. G. Achuthan Nair,
No.10B, Velayudam Colony,
Saligramam,
Chennai – 600 093.
4. Mrs. A.K. Thangamani,
D/o. Late G. Achuthan Nair,
No.10F, Velayudam Colony,
Saligramam,
Chennai – 600 093. .. Complainants.
..Versus..
1. M/s. Bharani Hospital,
Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director,
No.22, Arcot Road,
Saligramam,
Chennai – 600 093.
2. Dr. G. Palanichami, M.D.DM (Cardio),
M/s. Bharani Hospital,
No.22, Arcot Road,
Saligramam,
Chennai – 600 093.
3. Dr. Thulasi Kumar, M.S.,
M/s. Bharani Hospital,
No.22, Arcot Road,
Saligramam,
Chennai – 600 093.
4. Dr. Tamilarasan, M.B.B.S.,
M/s. Bharani Hospital,
No.22, Arcot Road,
Saligramam,
Chennai – 600 093.
5. Dr. Prasanna Kumar Thomes, M.D., DTCD.,
M/s. Bharani Hospital,
No.22, Arcot Road,
Saligramam,
Chennai – 600 093.
6. Dr. P. Dharmarajan, M.B.B.S., DIP., DIA.,
M/s. Bharani Hospital,
No.22, Arcot Road,
Saligramam,
Chennai – 600 093.
7. Dr. Kuppusamy, M.D., DMRD.,
M/s. Bharani Hospital,
No.22, Arcot Road,
Saligramam,
Chennai – 600 093.
8. M/s. Vijaya Hospital,
Represented by its Chairman and Managing Director,
No.180, N.S.K. Salai,
Vadapalani,
Chennai – 600 026.
9. A.K. Shankara Narayanan,
S/o. Late. G. Achuthan Nair,
No.12, 3rd Cross Street,
V.O.C. Nagar,
Anna Nagar,
Chennai – 600 102. .. Opposite parties.
Counsel for the complainants : M/s. A. Kumaraguru & others
Counsel for the opposite parties
1, 3, 5 to 7 : Mr. R. Chithira Puthiran &
another
Counsel for the 8th opposite party : M/s. N.K. Rajah & others
Opposite parties 4 & 9 : Exparte
ORDER
THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed by the complainants against the opposite parties 1 to 7 under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- towards compensation for medical expenses and mental agony to the complainants.
1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-
The complainants submit that on 12.06.2002, the deceased G. Achuthan Nair took X-ray from the 1st opposite party Hospital on 12.06.2002 for the alleged complaint of cold and cough was X-rayed in the 1st opposite party’s hospital on 12.06.2002 and Pleural Effusion right side with consolidation was the report given by the 7th opposite party. Hence on 13.06.2002, the said G. Achuthan Nair was admitted in the 1st opposite party hospital for treatment. On that day, after taking X-ray and E.C.G. without any information to the patient G. Achuthan Nair or his attendant or the 3rd complainant, diagnostic plural tapping was done by the 4th opposite party who is a Junior Doctor resulting the development of extensive subcutaneous emphysema even upto eye lids and desalution with breathlessness. The complainants submit that on 14.06.2002 & 15.06.2002, the opposite parties applied inter coastal drainage inception (ICD) was done which developed breathlessness and desalution. Hence, ultrasonogram was done by the 7th opposite party under the reference of the 5th opposite party confirming the plural effusion. The complainants submit that the opposite parties 2 to 7 attended and treated the patient G. Achuthan Nair right from 13.06.2002 to 16.06.2002. But there is no improvement except the condition became worst and critical. At that stage, the patient G. Achuthan Nair was discharged from the hospital on 16.06.2002 midnight 11’O Clock as with the reason that the ICU for back up ventilation and for cardio respiratory care was not available at the opposite party’s hospital. The complainants submit that under such critical condition of the patient G. Achthan Nair, the complainants were compelled to admit the patient G. Achuthan Nair in the nearest Vijaya Hospital where in the complainants came to know that the opposite parties 2 to 7 in the 1st opposite party’s hospital has not properly diagnosed the patient G. Achuthan Nair and unnecessarily plural tapping was done at the age of above 70 resulting cardio respiratory problem. Since, the patient G. Achuthan Nair has substantial discomfort, the opposite parties 2 to 7 administered plural tapping according to the prescribed norms of medical ethics.
2. The complainants submit that till 16.06.2002, the date of discharge the opposite parties 2 to 7 has not informed anything about the diagnostic measures and treatment. The complainants submit that due to the wrong diagnosis and medical treatment, the patient G. Achuthan Nair was bedridden and developed weakness on the right side of the body i.e. right parietal multiple cerebral infarcts. The complainants submit that the patient G. Achuthan Nair was discharged from the 8th opposite party’s hospital and was reviewed repeatedly with treatment and lived for 5 months till 16.11.2002. The complainants submit that the bronchoscopy should be done by an ENT Surgeon and taping should be done under live MRI screen by a qualified ENT surgeon. The complainants submit that their father Late. G. Achuthan Nair who was admitted in the 1st opposite party’s Hospital for routine X-ray check up on 13.06.2002 had lost his enjoyment and mobile activities for five months and ultimately died on 16.11.2002 due to wrong diagnosis and treatment meted out to him. He is a retired Government Servant and pensioner would have survived further 10 more years without any complication but for the wrong medical treatment meted out to him in the 1st opposite party’s hospital. It shows the clear negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the hospital authorities, Doctors / Opposite parties 1 to 7 in diagnosis and for giving proper treatment to the patient. The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service which caused great mental agony. Hence, the complaint is filed.
3. The brief averments in the written version filed by 1st opposite party is as follows:
The 1st opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same. The 1st opposite party states that the 1st opposite party is a renowned hospital in Chennai having all infrastructure with well equipped operation theatres, post-operative ward, IMCU to deal emergency situation etc. At the time of visiting the hospital, the patient G. Achuthan Nair was 77 years old. He was suffering from more than 20 deceases. The patient was carried inside the hospital by a stretcher. He had breathlessness and restless and he was complaining of chest pain.
i) He was a known diabetic for more than 10 years.
ii) He was a known asthmatic.
iii) He was a known alcoholic.
iv) He was suffering from systemic hypertension.
v) He was suffering from Long standing obstructive pulmonary disease.
vi) He was suffering from Benign prostate hypertrophy.
The 1st opposite party states that as the patient was complainant of difficulty in breathing an x-ray chest was taken and the 2nd opposite party, a cardiologist had attended the patient. An echocardiogram was taken which was found to be normal. As the x-ray chest revealed right pleural effusion, the 3rd opposite party a surgeon took over the treatment of the patient. As the attenders of the patient wanted to take the patient to a higher centre, the opposite parties have shifted the patient to M/s. Vijaya Hospital. The 1st opposite party states that it is pertinent to note that the patient lived for 5 months after being transferred from Bharani Hospital. The 1st opposite party states that the opposite parties have mismanaged the case. In a case of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, it is very difficult to get dramatic results. Haziness right base which was present during admission at Bharani Hospital persisted beyond 23.09.2002 i.e. 3 months after treatment at Vijaya Hospital. The complainants had claimed desaturation of the patient on discharge from Bharani Hospital. There was good amount of saturation during discharge from Bharani Hospital which is evidenced by document No.49 enclosed by the complainant which reveals 95% of oxygen saturation on admission at Vijaya Hospital. The 1st opposite party states that the complainants have no specific accusation against any of the opposite party. Everywhere throughout the complaint, the complainants have complained of only wrong diagnosis and negligence of opposite parties 1 to 7. The complainant had accused that Vijaya Hospital had stated the diagnosis to be a wrong diagnosis. There is no cause of action against the 1st opposite party. The alleged loss and damage is not due to any negligence, deficiency or action of the 1st opposite party and hence, the complaint against the 1st opposite party is liable to be dismissed.
4. The brief averments in the written version filed by 2nd opposite party is as follows:-
The 2nd opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same. The 2nd opposite party states that is a well qualified Cardiologist with MD and DM degree. He is rendering quality medical service for many years without any blemish. The 2nd opposite party states that he has exercised good care and professional skill in diagnosing and treating the condition of the patient. While attending on the patient, he had performed duty expected of a qualified specialist and observed the standard of conduct that is expected of a prudent doctor in similar circumstances. At the time of visiting the hospital, the patient G. Achuthan Nair was 77 years old. He was suffering from more than 20 deceases. The patient was carried inside the hospital by a stretcher. He had breathlessness and restless and he was complaining of chest pain.
i) He was a known diabetic for more than 10 years.
ii) He was a known asthmatic.
iii) He was a known alcoholic.
iv) He was suffering from systemic hypertension.
v) He was suffering from Long standing obstructive pulmonary disease.
vi) He was suffering from Benign prostate hypertrophy.
The 2nd opposite party states that as the patient was complainant of difficulty in breathing an x-ray chest was taken to him. An echocardiogram was taken which was found to be normal. As the x-ray chest revealed right pleural effusion, the 3rd opposite party a surgeon took over the treatment of the patient. As the attenders of the patient wanted to take the patient to a higher centre, the opposite parties have shifted the patient to M/s. Vijaya Hospital. The 1st opposite party states that it is pertinent to note that the patient lived for 5 months after being transferred from Bharani Hospital. The 2nd opposite party states that the opposite parties have mismanaged the case. In a case of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, it is very difficult to get dramatic results. Haziness right base which was present during admission at Bharani Hospital persisted beyond 23.09.2002 i.e. 3 months after treatment at Vijaya Hospital. The complainants had claimed desaturation of the patient on discharge from Bharani Hospital. There was good amount of saturation during discharge from Bharani Hospital which is evidenced by document No.49 enclosed by the complainant which reveals 95% of oxygen saturation on admission at Vijaya Hospital. The 1st opposite party states that the complainants have no specific accusation against any of the opposite party. Everywhere throughout the complaint, the complainants have complained of only wrong diagnosis and negligence of opposite parties 1 to 7. The complainant had accused that Vijaya Hospital had stated the diagnosis to be a wrong diagnosis. There is no cause of action against the 2nd opposite party. The alleged loss and damage is not due to any negligence, deficiency or action of the 2nd opposite party and hence, the complaint against the 2nd opposite party is liable to be dismissed.
5. The brief averments in the written version filed by 3rd opposite party is as follows:
The 3rd opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same. The 3rd opposite party is a well qualified surgeon with MS and MCh degree. He is rendering quality medical service for many years without any blemish. The 3rd opposite party states that he has exercised good care and professional skill in diagnosing and treating the condition of the patient. While attending on the patient, he had performed duty expected of a qualified specialist and observed the standard of conduct that is expected of a prudent doctor in similar circumstances. At the time of visiting the hospital, the patient G. Achuthan Nair was 77 years old. He was suffering from more than 20 deceases. The patient was carried inside the hospital by a stretcher. He had breathlessness and restless and he was complaining of chest pain.
i) He was a known diabetic for more than 10 years.
ii) He was a known asthmatic.
iii) He was a known alcoholic.
iv) He was suffering from systemic hypertension.
v) He was suffering from Long standing obstructive pulmonary disease.
vi) He was suffering from Benign prostate hypertrophy.
6. The 3rd opposite party states that as the patient was complainant of difficulty in breathing an x-ray chest was taken to him. An echocardiogram was taken which was found to be normal. As the x-ray chest revealed right pleural effusion, the 3rd opposite party a surgeon took over the treatment of the patient. As the attenders of the patient wanted to take the patient to a higher centre, the opposite parties have shifted the patient to M/s. Vijaya Hospital. The 3rd opposite party states that it is pertinent to note that the patient lived for 5 months after being transferred from Bharani Hospital. The 3rd opposite party states that the opposite parties have mismanaged the case. In a case of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, it is very difficult to get dramatic results. Haziness right base which was present during admission at Bharani Hospital persisted beyond 23.09.2002 i.e. 3 months after treatment at Vijaya Hospital. The complainants had claimed desaturation of the patient on discharge from Bharani Hospital. There was good amount of saturation during discharge from Bharani Hospital which is evidenced by document No.49 enclosed by the complainant which reveals 95% of oxygen saturation on admission at Vijaya Hospital. The 3rd opposite party states that the complainants have no specific accusation against any of the opposite party. Everywhere throughout the complaint, the complainants have complained of only wrong diagnosis and negligence of opposite parties 1 to 7. The complainant had accused that Vijaya Hospital had stated the diagnosis to be a wrong diagnosis. There is no cause of action against the 3rd opposite party. The alleged loss and damage is not due to any negligence, deficiency or action of the 3rd opposite party and hence, the complaint against the 3rd opposite party is liable to be dismissed.
7. Inspite of receipt of notice, the 4th opposite party has not appeared before this Forum and hence, the 4th opposite party was set exparte.
8. The brief averments in the written version filed by 5th opposite party is as follows:
The 5th opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same. The 5th opposite party submitted that the documents filed along with the complaint do not evidence any sort of negligence on the part of the 5th opposite party. The 5th opposite party has issued suitable reply to the notice issued by the complainant and it is submitted that the same may be read as part of this version. The 5th opposite party states that he has exercised good care and professional skill in diagnosing and treating the condition of the patient. While attending on the patient, he had performed duty expected of a qualified specialist and observed the standard of conduct that is expected of a prudent doctor in similar circumstances. The 5th opposite party states that the patient got admitted for the mistake which was found out in the x-ray taken outside. It is not true that the patient got admitted into the hospital for routine x-ray checkup as stated in the complaint. An x-ray was taken by the patient before coming to Bharani Hospital. The patient came with that x-ray to the hospital. It is clearly stated in the discharge summary that the patient got admitted for Haziness over base of Right Lung. The 7th opposite party has given x-ray report as right sided pleural effusion with consolidation middle and lower lobes. The diagnosis is a correct one which is later confirmed by Vijaya Hospital evidenced by discharge summary of Vijaya Hospital, document 49 enclosed by the complainant. The 7th opposite party had given ultrasound report as right sided pleural effusion with prostatomegaly. The ultrasound reporting is also correct. The 5th opposite party is involved in this case only with regard to ordering for ultrasound examination. He had no other role except that. Thus, it is clear that there is no cause of action against the 5th opposite party. The alleged loss and damage is not due to any negligence, deficiency or action of the 5th opposite party and hence, the complaint against the 5th opposite party is liable to be dismissed.
9. The brief averments in the written version filed by 6th opposite party is as follows:-
The 6th opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same. The 6th opposite party states that he is a well qualified in Diabetology with a Post graduate Diploma. He is rendering quality medical service for many years without any blemish. The 6th opposite party states that he has exercised good care and professional skill in diagnosing and treating the condition of the patient. While attending on the patient, he had performed duty expected of a qualified specialist and observed the standard of conduct that is expected of a prudent doctor in similar circumstances. The 6th opposite party states that the patient got admitted for the mistake which was found out in the x-ray taken outside. It is not true that the patient got admitted into the hospital for routine x-ray checkup as stated in the complaint. An x-ray was taken by the patient before coming to Bharani Hospital. The patient came with that x-ray to the hospital. It is clearly stated in the discharge summary that the patient got admitted for Haziness over base of Right Lung. The 7th opposite party has given x-ray report as right sided pleural effusion with consolidation middle and lower lobes. The diagnosis is a correct one which is later confirmed by Vijaya Hospital evidenced by discharge summary of Vijaya Hospital, document 49 enclosed by the complainant. The 7th opposite party had given ultrasound report as right sided pleural effusion with prostatomegaly. The ultrasound reporting is also correct. It is stressed that the complainant have not even mentioned about the 6th opposite party in the complaint except when mentioning as 1 to 7. The 6th opposite party was called on 15.06.2002 at about 10.45 pm to see the patient. The patient was a known case Diabetes mellitus type 2 of more than 10 years duration who was taking treatment with oral hypoglycemic agents. In view of the increased blood sugar levels and co-existing acute illness the 6th opposite party advised the patient Insulin to be monitored upon blood glucose levels. Following treatment, the blood sugar level was brought under control. The patient continued to be normal with regard to diabetes during the remaining period of his stay. Thus, it is clear that there is no cause of action against the 6th opposite party. The alleged loss and damage is not due to any negligence, deficiency or action of the 6th opposite party and hence, the complaint against the 6th opposite party is liable to be dismissed.
10. The brief averments in the written version filed by 7th opposite party is as follows:
The 7th opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same. The 7th opposite party states that he well qualified in Radio diagnosis with post graduate diploma and degree. He is rendering quality medical service for many years without any blemish. The 7th opposite party states that he has exercised good care and professional skill in diagnosing and treating the condition of the patient. While attending on the patient, he had performed duty expected of a qualified specialist and observed the standard of conduct that is expected of a prudent doctor in similar circumstances. The 7th opposite party states that the patient got admitted for the mistake which was found out in the x-ray taken outside. It is not true that the patient got admitted into the hospital for routine x-ray checkup as stated in the complaint. An x-ray was taken by the patient before coming to Bharani Hospital. The patient came with that x-ray to the hospital. It is clearly stated in the discharge summary that the patient got admitted for Haziness over base of Right Lung. The 7th opposite party has given x-ray report as right sided pleural effusion with consolidation middle and lower lobes. The diagnosis is a correct one which is later confirmed by Vijaya Hospital evidenced by discharge summary of Vijaya Hospital, document 49 enclosed by the complainant. The 7th opposite party had given ultrasound report as right sided pleural effusion with prostatomegaly. The ultrasound reporting is also correct. The 7th opposite party states that he is involved in this case only with regard to opinion given about the X-ray and USG taken on 14.06.2002. The 7th opposite party has diagnosed right pleural effusion which is confirmed by ultrasound taken on 14.06.2002. The above diagnosis is not disproved by the complainants. The above diagnosis of right pleural effusion is confirmed by Vijaya Hospital later which is evidenced by the first discharge summary dated:31.07.2002 submitted by the complainants. The 7th opposite party has no role in management of patient except for the diagnosis. Thus, it is clear that there is no cause of action against the 7th opposite party. The alleged loss and damage is not due to any negligence, deficiency or action of the 7th opposite party and hence, the complaint against the 7th opposite party is liable to be dismissed.
11. The brief averments in the written version filed by 8th opposite party is as follows:
The 8th opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same. The 8th opposite party states that the patient A.G. Achuthan Nair was admitted on 17.06.2002 in ICU a moribund with intercostals drainage; had developed sever subcutaneous surgical emphysema. He was acutely breathlessness. He was a patient with cute chronic, obstructive airway disease emphysema, diabetes, hypertension. His X-ray reveals that right lower and middle zones opacity. He was anuric. His BP was 160/90mmHG. He was septicaemic in acute renal failure. His intercostals drainage tube holes were outside the chest wall. Cardiothoracic surgeon immediately reinserted IC drainage tube and the patient became better. After fluid challenge, his urine output increased. At the time of admission, his blood urea, sugar and creatinine were elevated. This opposite party is unable to command the allegations raised against the opposite parties 1 to 7 under these circumstances. The patient G. Achuthan Nair was admitted on 11.11.2002 and the death of the patient on 16.11.2002. The complainants has not claimed any relief against the 8th opposite party and the allegations of deficiency in service and negligence are only as against the opposite parties 1 to 7. Therefore there is no allegation of any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the 8th opposite party and hence, the complaint against the 8th opposite party is liable to be dismissed.
12. Inspite of receipt of notice, the 9th opposite party has not appeared before this Forum and hence, the 9th opposite party is set exparte.
13. To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainants has filed proof affidavit as their evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A92 are marked. Proof affidavit of the opposite parties 1 to 3, 5 to 7 is filed and document Ex.B1 alone are marked on the side of the opposite parties 1 to 3, 5 to 7. The cross examination with Dr. S. Gopalan, Professor of Surgery, Govt. Stanley Hospital, Chennai is marked as Ex.X1.
14. The point for consideration is:-
Whether the complainant to entitled to a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rs.5,00,000/- towards medical expenses and 15,00,000/- towards mental agony) towards compensation from the opposite parties 1 to 7 with cost as prayed for?
15. On point:-
The 4th and 9th opposite parties remained exparte. The 3rd opposite party has not filed any written arguments. Both complainants and the opposite parties 1 & 2, 5 to 8 filed their respective written arguments. Heard their Counsels also. Perused the records namely the complaint, written versions, proof affidavits and documents. The learned Counsel for the complainants would contend that on 12.06.2002, the deceased G. Achuthan Nair took X-ray from the 1st opposite party Hospital on 12.06.2002 for the alleged complaint of cold and cough; the report Ex.A2 shows “Pleural Effusion right side with consolidation, mild and lower lobes. Pleural thickening left C.P. ankle P.V.P.”. Hence on 13.06.2002, the said G. Achuthan Nair was admitted in the 1st opposite party hospital for treatment as per Ex.A3 copy of admission card. The copy of E.C.G. report is marked as Ex.A8. On that day, after taking X-ray and E.C.G. without any information to the patient G. Achuthan Nair or his attendant or the 3rd complainant, diagnostic plural tapping was done by the 4th opposite party who is a Junior Doctor resulting the development of extensive subcutaneous emphysema even upto eye lids and desalution with breathlessness. But on a careful perusal of records, the complainants has not produced any document to prove that the 4th opposite party performed the plural tapping and the patient had the development of such complications. On the other hand, as per Ex.B1, the patient was examined by the 2nd opposite party Dr. G. Palanichami and diagnosed as diagnostic plural tapping proves one Dr. Vidhayarangan conducted the plural tapping under the guidance of 2nd opposite party and with the consent of the 5th opposite party who is a thoracic Surgeon.
16. Further the contention of the complainants is that on 14.06.2002 & 15.06.2002, the opposite parties applied inter coastal drainage inception (ICD) was done which developed breathlessness and desalution. Hence, ultrasonogram was done by the 7th opposite party under the reference of the 5th opposite party confirming the plural effusion. Ex.A10 is the copy of ultra sonogram report. Further the contention of the complainants is that the opposite parties 2 to 7 attended and treated the patient G. Achuthan Nair right from 13.06.2002 to 16.06.2002. But there is no improvement except the condition became worst and critical. At that stage, the patient G. Achuthan Nair was discharged from the hospital on 16.06.2002 midnight 11’O Clock as per Ex.A27 Discharge Summary with the reason that the ICU for back up ventilation and for cardio respiratory care was not available at the opposite party’s hospital proves the deficiency in service. But the complainants has not produced any document to prove that the 1st opposite party hospital authority shall have such instrument mandatorily. Further the contention of the complainants is that under such critical condition of the patient G. Achthan Nair, the complainants were compelled to admit the patient G. Achuthan Nair in the nearest Vijaya Hospital where in the complainants came to know that the opposite parties 2 to 7 in the 1st opposite party’s hospital has not properly diagnosed the patient G. Achuthan Nair and unnecessarily plural tapping was done at the age of above 70 resulting cardio respiratory problem proves the negligence of the opposite parties 1 to 7 and deficiency in service. But on a careful perusal of records, particularly the medical records related to opposite parties 8 & 9, there is no iota of evidence regarding the diagnostic deficiency or negligence committed by opposite parties 2 to 7. On the other hand, by way of X-ray and ultra sonogram reports, the opposite parties 2 to 7 strongly diagnosed and confirmed that patient G. Achthan Nair had plural effusion. Since, the patient G. Achuthan Nair has substantial discomfort, the opposite parties 2 to 7 administered plural tapping according to the prescribed norms of medical ethics. In Vijaya Hospital also, the said plural effusion was diagnosed which reads as follows:
“Mr. Achuthan Nair, aged 76 years, a hypertensive, presented to local hospital with history of cough and breathlessness who diagnosed to have right sided pleural effusion. A pleural tap followed by ICD insertion was done. Following the procedure he developed extensive subcutaneous emphysema (even upto eyelids) and was referred here for further management”.
17. Further the contention of the complainants is that till 16.06.2002, the date of discharge the opposite parties 2 to 7 has not informed anything about the diagnostic measures and treatment. But Ex.A27 reveals all the details of diagnosis and treatment. Further the contention of the complainants is that due to the wrong diagnosis and medical treatment, the patient G. Achuthan Nair was bedridden and developed weakness on the right side of the body i.e. right parietal multiple cerebral infarcts. But Pleural effusion has nothing to do with the multiple cerebral infarcts. Both of them have no connection. The Doctor Gopalan who is examined as an expert and admitted that he is not an expert in ICD stated in the cross examination page No.3, Q. No.29 which is marked as Ex.X1. Further the contention of the complainants is that the patient G. Achuthan Nair was discharged from the 8th opposite party’s hospital and was reviewed repeatedly and lived for 5 months till 16.11.2002. From the Death Certificate, Ex.A81, the cause of death is of Mr. Achuthan Nair which reads as follows:
“CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT
CARDIO RESPIRATORY ARREST”
proves there is no medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Further the contention of the complainants is that the bronchoscopy should be done by an ENT Surgeon and taping should be done under live MRI screen by a qualified ENT surgeon. But the expert examined in this case admitted very clearly that ENT surgeon have no role in this Pleural tapping. Equally, live MRI is not at all useful for such tapping.
18. The learned Counsel appearing the 1st opposite party would contend that admittedly, the 1st opposite party is a renowned hospital in Chennai having all infrastructure with well equipped operation theatres, post-operative ward, IMCU to deal emergency situation etc. At the time of visiting the hospital, the patient G. Achuthan Nair was 77 years old. He was suffering from more than 20 deceases. The patient was carried inside the hospital by a stretcher. He had breathlessness and restless and he was complaining of chest pain.
i) He was a known diabetic for more than 10 years.
ii) He was a known asthmatic.
iii) He was a known alcoholic.
iv) He was suffering from systemic hypertension.
v) He was suffering from Long standing obstructive pulmonary disease.
vi) He was suffering from Benign prostate hypertrophy.
Ex.A27, the copy of Discharge Summary shows the position of the patient very clear. Since the patient G. Achuthan Nair have difficulty in breathing, X-ray was taken. Ex.A2 is the copy of X-ray report. For the alleged complaint of chest pain, the patient was examined by the 2nd opposite party who is cardiologist Eco Cardiogram was taken and found normal. Ex.A8 is the copy of E.C.G. Report. Since X–ray reveals pleural effusion and the patient has the difficulty in breathing, due pleural tapping was done by a qualified Dr. Vijaya Kumar under the supervision and direction of Opposite parties 2 to 7. In the interest of the patient, the opposite parties have shifted the patient to the Vijaya Hospital where in the patient G. Achuthan Nair continued treatment for 5 months and repeatedly discharged from the hospital. As per Ex.A49, Discharge Summary, the patient G. Achuthan Nair had the following diseases:
FINAL DIAGNOSIS:
- RIGHT PLEURAL EFFUSION ? SYNPNEUMONIC
? TUBERCULOSIS
- S/P ICD (OUTSIDE)
- EXTENSIVE SUBCUTANEOUS EMPHYSEMA
- COPD
- CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT
- LEFT HEMIPARESIS
- RIGHT PARIETAL MULTIPLE CEREBRAL INFARCTS
- BENIGN PROSTATIC HYPERTROPHY
- MILD RENAL FAILURE (RECOVERED)
- SYSTTEMIC HYPERTENSION
- ACID PEPTIC DISEASE
proves that at the age of 77, the patient G. Achuthan Nair has more than 20 diseases. The medical opinion given by the Dr. S. Gopalan in his cross examination very clearly that the has not seen neither the patient nor the records except Discharge Summary issued by 1st opposite party hospital. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party & the Doctors functioning under 1st opposite party.
19. The contention of the opposite parties 2, 3 & 5 to 7 is that the patient G. Achthan Nair aged 77 years old suffering from not less than 20 diseases was properly diagnosed and due treatment as per the medical literature given which reads as follows:
BACKGROUND
In current hospital practice chest drains are used in many different clinical settings and doctors in most specialities need to be capable of their safe insertion. The emergency insertion of a large bore chest drain for tension pneumothorax following trauma has been well described by the Advanced Trauma and Life Support (ATLS) recommendations in their instructor’s manual and there have been many general descriptions of the step by step method of chest tube insertion.
It has been shown that physicians trained in the method can safely perform tube thoracostomy with 3% early complications and 8% late. In these guidelines we discuss the safe insertion of chest guidelines we discuss the safe insertion of chest tubes in the controlled circumstances usually encountered by physicians. A summary of the process of chest drain insertion is shown in fig 1”.
Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties 2, 3 & 5 to 7
20. The contention of the 8th opposite party is that the patient A G. Achuthan Nair was admitted on 17.06.2002 in ICU a moribund with intercostals drainage; had developed sever subcutaneous surgical emphysema. He was acutely breathlessness. He was a patient with cute chronic, obstructive airway disease emphysema, diabetes, hypertension. His X-ray reveals that right lower and middle zones opacity. He was anuric. His BP was 160/90mmHG. He was septicaemic in acute renal failure. His intercostals drainage tube holes were outside the chest wall. Cardiothoracic surgeon immediately reinserted IC drainage tube and the patient became better. After fluid challenge, his urine output increased. At the time of admission, his blood urea, sugar and creatinine were elevated. This opposite party is unable to command the allegations raised against the opposite parties 1 to 7 under these circumstances. The patient G. Achuthan Nair was admitted on 11.11.2002 and the death of the patient on 16.11.2002 due to
“CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT
CARDIO RESPIRATORY ARREST”
The complainants has not claimed any relief against the 8th opposite party. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 2 to 7. Muchless, no medical negligence committed by the opposite parties 2 to 7. The complainants allegation against the opposite parties 2 to 7 in diagnostic, treatment and medical care are not taken is imaginary. The compensation claimed is exorbitant. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that this complaint has to be dismissed.
In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 17th day of May 2019.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
COMPLAINANTS’ SIDE DOCUMENTS:-
Ex.A1 | 12.06.2002 | Copy of O.P. cash receipt issued by M/s. Bharani Hospital |
Ex.A2 | 12.06.2002 | Copy of X-ray report |
Ex.A3 | 13.06.2002 | Copy of Admission card |
Ex.A4 | 13.06.2002 | Copy of advance receipt |
Ex.A5 | 13.06.2002 | Copy of medical prescription by Dr. G. Palanichamy |
Ex.A6 | 13.06.2002 | Copy of the medical bill |
Ex.A7 | 13.06.2002 | Copy of the medical bill |
Ex.A8 | 13.06.2002 | Copy of E.C.G. Report |
Ex.A9 | 13.06.2002 | Copy of the blood test report |
Ex.A10 | 14.06.2002 | Copy of ultra sonogram report |
Ex.A11 | 14.06.2002 | Copy of the medical prescription by Dr. G. Palanichamy |
Ex.A12 | 14.06.2002 | Copy of the medical bill |
Ex.A13 | 14.06.2002 | Copy of the medical bill |
Ex.A14 | 14.06.2002 | Copy of the medical bill |
Ex.A15 | 14.06.2002 | Copy of the medical bill |
Ex.A16 | 14.06.2002 | Copy of the medical prescription |
Ex.A17 | 14.06.2002 | Copy of the medical prescription by Dr. G. Palanichamy |
Ex.A18 | 15.06.2002 | Copy of the medical prescription |
Ex.A19 | 15.06.2002 | Copy of the medical prescription by Dr. G. Thulasi Kumar |
Ex.A20 | 15.06.2002 | Copy of the medical bill |
Ex.A21 | 15.06.2002 | Copy of advance receipt by M/s. Bharani Hospital |
Ex.A22 | 16.06.2002 | Copy of medical prescription |
Ex.A23 | 16.06.2002 | Copy of medical prescription |
Ex.A24 | 16.06.2002 | Copy of medical prescription |
Ex.A25 | 16.06.2002 | Copy of medical prescription |
Ex.A26 | 16.06.2002 | Copy of Bio-Chemistry test report |
Ex.A27 | 16.06.2002 | Copy of Discharge Summary |
Ex.A28 | 16.06.2002 | Copy of Trip sheet |
Ex.A29 | 17.06.2002 | Copy of the medical bill |
Ex.A30 | 17.06.2002 | Copy of the medical bill |
Ex.A31 | 17.06.2002 | Copy of the medical bill |
Ex.A32 | 17.06.2002 | Copy of Doctor’s visiting charges bill |
Ex.A33 | 17.06.2002 | Copy of advance receipt of M/s. Vijaya Heart Foundation |
Ex.A34 | 17.06.2002 | Copy of Doctor’s Professional Fees receipt |
Ex.A35 | 18.06.2002 | Copy of M/s. Bharani Hospital inpatient final settlement bill |
Ex.A36 | 20.06.2002 | Copy of scanning charge bill |
Ex.A37 | 20.06.2002 | Copy of advance receipt of M/s. Vijaya Heart Foundation |
Ex.A38 | 23.06.2002 | Copy of advance receipt of M/s. Vijaya Heart Foundation |
Ex.A39 | 25.06.2002 | Copy of Lab Test bill |
Ex.A40 | 26.06.2002 | Copy of Doctor’s Professional bill |
Ex.A41 | 28.06.2002 | Copy of Scanning Charge bill |
Ex.A42 | 28.06.2002 | Copy of advance receipt of M/s. Vijaya Heart Foundation |
Ex.A43 | 04.07.2002 | Copy of advance receipt of M/s. Vijaya Heart Foundation |
Ex.A44 | 06.07.2002 | Copy of advance receipt of M/s. Vijaya Heart Foundation |
Ex.A45 | 10.07.2002 | Copy of advance receipt of M/s. Vijaya Heart Foundation |
Ex.A46 | 14.07.2002 | Copy of advance receipt of M/s. Vijaya Heart Foundation |
Ex.A47 | 18.07.2002 | Copy of advance receipt of M/s. Vijaya Heart Foundation |
Ex.A48 | 31.07.2002 | Copy of Final bill of M/s. Vijaya Heart Foundation |
Ex.A49 | 31.07.2002 | Copy of Discharge Summary |
Ex.A50 | 01.08.2002 | Copy of Doctor’s Professional Fee |
Ex.A51 | 10.08.2002 | Copy of final bill of M/s. Vijaya Hospital |
Ex.A52 | 11.08.2002 | Copy of Discharge Summary |
Ex.A53 | 18.08.2002 | Copy of Advance receipt of M/s. Vijaya Hospital |
Ex.A54 | 19.08.2005 | Copy of Scanning charges |
Ex.A55 | 20.08.2002 | Copy of Lab Charges |
Ex.A56 | 22.08.2002 | Copy of Lab Charges |
Ex.A57 | 23.08.2002 | Copy of Doctor’s Professional fees |
Ex.A58 | 23.08.2002 | Copy of medical bill |
Ex.A59 | 23.08.2002 | Copy of medical final bill |
Ex.A60 | 23.08.2002 | Copy of discharge summary |
Ex.A61 |
| Copy of Professional Charges |
Ex.A62 | 06.09.2002 | Copy of medical bill |
Ex.A63 | 09.09.2002 | Copy of Advance receipt of M/s. Vijaya Health Centre |
Ex.A64 | 09.09.2002 | Copy of medical bill |
Ex.A65 | 10.09.2002 | Copy of advance receipt |
Ex.A66 | 11.09.2002 | Copy of medical bill |
Ex.A67 | 14.09.2002 | Copy of advance receipt |
Ex.A68 | 18.09.2002 | Copy of Lab charges |
Ex.A69 | 21.09.2002 | Copy of Advance receipt of M/s. Vijaya Health Centre |
Ex.A70 | 23.09.2002 | Copy of Final bill |
Ex.A71 | 23.09.2002 | Copy of medical prescription |
Ex.A72 | 23.09.2002 | Copy of Discharge summary |
Ex.A73 | 08.10.2002 | Copy of O.P. Registration bill |
Ex.A74 | 18.10.2002 | Copy of legal notice issued to the 1st opposite party |
Ex.A75 | 31.10.2002 | Copy of legal notice issued to the 2nd opposite party |
Ex.A76 | 11.11.2002 | Copy of scanning charges |
Ex.A77 | 12.11.2002 | Copy of Advance receipt |
Ex.A78 | 14.11.2002 | Copy of Advance receipt |
Ex.A79 | 16.11.2002 | Copy of Advance receipt |
Ex.A80 | 16.11.2002 | Copy of final bill |
Ex.A81 | 16.11.2002 | Copy of Death Certificate |
Ex.A82 | 28.12.2002 | Copy of legal notice issued to the opposite parties 1, 2 & 4 |
Ex.A83 | 10.01.2003 | Copy of letter by Dr. M. Suresh Kumar addressed to the 2nd complainant |
Ex.A84 | 22.01.2003 | Copy of reply notice though Advocate addressed to the 2nd complainant |
Ex.A85 | 04.02.2003 | Copy of legal notice though addressed to the 3rd opposite party |
Ex.A86 | 17.02.2003 | Copy of reply notice though Advocate addressed to the 2nd complainant |
Ex.A87 | 09.06.2003 | Copy of reply notice though Advocate addressed to the opposite parties 5, 6 & 7 |
Ex.A88 |
| Copy of returned cover with acknowledgement card sent by the opposite parties |
Ex.A89 | 27.07.2003 | Copy of medical opinion of Dr. S. Gopalan, Retired Professor of Surgery and Head of the Department, Government Stanley Hospital, Chennai |
Ex.A90 | 28.07.2003 | Copy of reply notice through an Advocate addressed to the 2nd complainant |
Ex.A91 | 01.08.2003 | Copy of reply notice through an Advocate addressed to the 2nd complainant |
Ex.A92 | 06.08.2003 | Copy of reply notice through an Advocate addressed to the 2nd complainant |
OPPOSITE PARTIES 1 to 3, 5 to 7 SIDE DOCUMENTS:-
Ex.B1 |
| Copy of case sheet of C. Achuthan Nair containing 1 to 45 pages |
Court Exhibits:-
Ex.X1 | 13.03.2015 | Cross examination with Dr. S. Gopalan, Professor of Surgery, Govt. Stanley Hospital, Chennai |
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.