Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/39/2019

Mr. Nammazhwar, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Dean, And 2 others, - Opp.Party(s)

PARTY IN PERSON

18 Feb 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R.SUBBIAH       ... PRESIDENT

            Tmt. Dr. S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI  ... MEMBER

 

C.C. No.39 of 2019

 

                                   Orders pronounced on: 18.02.2022

Nammalvar,

S/o.Rajagopal,

51-3, Kesavan Nagar,

Kallakurichi,

Salem-8.                                               ... Complainant

 

Vs.

 

1. The Dean,

Government Mohan Kumaramangalam

   Medical College and Hospital,

Salem-1.

 

2. The Resident Medical Officer,

Government Medical College and Hospital,

Salem-1.

 

3. The Joint Director of Health Services,

Salem-1.                                                ...Opposite Parties

 

             Complainant, appeared party in person.

 

             Counsel for Opposite Parties :Mr.T.Ravikumar,

                             Standing Counsel for Govt. of TN.

…………

 

          This complaint came up for final hearing on 28.12.2021 and, after hearing the arguments of both sides and perusing the materials on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Commission passes the following:-

 

O R D E R

 

R.Subbiah, J. - President

             The complainant herein has come up with the present case before this Commission by alleging medical negligence against the Opposite Parties/Government Hospital and he seeks to direct the Government of Tamil Nadu to pay him Rs.1,00,00,000/- as compensation.

 

             2.  On a perusal of the complaint, we fail to get any good point/ground there-from as to the cause of action, since it is, although verbose, completely vague, bald and bereft of material particulars, however, to the extent possible, we have culled out the facts below by weeding out the manifold irrelevant details.

             On 10.05.2018 at 5 AM., as the mother of the complainant was stammering and virtually not able to speak, the complainant called for 108 Ambulance and instructed them to take her to a Private Hospital, but, they had taken her to the Government Hospital, where a scan was taken on payment of Rs.500/- and the scan report indicated blockage in brain. The Doctors in the Government Hospital assured that if treatment was given for six days, she would get cured.  After admission in the General Ward, in the evening, when doctors came and asked her as to whether she was doing well, she nodded her head affirmatively; however, she was not able to answer orally.  

        While so, on 11.05.2018, from the morning, no treatment was given except a glucose drip on a fast mode.  As there was still difficulty in breathing, the same was informed to a Doctor, who asked for Rs.3,500/- to take a scan.  By handing over the case sheet, he was asked to collect two bottles of blood from the Lab.  The complainant told a Nurse about the persisting breathing problem of his mother, for which, she shouted that they would not care about a person like his mother, aged 87 year. On such attitude, he started arguing with the Nurse and at that time, 2 Doctors came and, by siding with the Nurse, they quarreled with the complainant.  On the same day at 11 PM., his mother was taken to the ICU Ward with low pulse rate.  On 12.05.2018 at 2 AM., his mother died.

             According to the complainant, contrary to the Doctors’ assurance that his mother would get cured in 6 days, her survival not even lasted for two days, hence, he believes that there was a conspiracy behind the death of his mother.  On that basis, he has come forward with the present complaint seeking compensation as mentioned above and also for waiving the court fee by treating this as an exceptional case.

            

             3. The Opposite Parties have resisted the complaint by filing a written version, wherein, it is stated as follows:

             On 10.05.2018 at 7.25 AM., the complainant’s mother, aged about 87, was admitted in the Emergency Ward of the Salem Mohan Kumaramangalam Government Medical College Hospital, on complaints of ‘Altered Sensoruim” and ‘right sided hemiplegia’, whereupon, CT Brain Scan was taken and the report indicated Cerebrovascular Accident (Stroke).  After starting treatment, at about 10.30 AM, she was shifted to FM3 ward, where her condition was monitored by regularly recording BP level and Pulse rate.   Monitoring was also done by the Neurologist, on whose advice, required treatment was given.   Ryles tube was connected for feeding and giving medicines.  She was given I.V. Fluids, glucose drips, injection Furosemide, Cefotaxime, Ranitidine, Mannitol, aspirin and atoravastatin, as advised by the Neurologist. On 11.05.2018, since the patient had suffocation, she was immediately given oxygen along with I.V. fluids.   As her condition was still not stable, at 10.30 PM., she was shifted to the ICU where, after examination, she was connected to non-invasive ventilation. 

        While so, on 12.05.2018, she suddenly suffered cardio respiratory failure, whereupon, Advance Cardiac Life Support was given and also cardio pulmonary resuscitation with Injection atropine/adrenaline/dopamine infusion.  But, not responding to such continuous special treatment given, at 3 PM. on 12.05.2018, the patient had passed away.  Thus, there being no ground even to suggest any negligence much less medical negligence/deficiency in service, the complaint filed only with ulterior motives is liable to be dismissed in limini.

 

             4.  Both sides have filed their respective proof affidavits and the complainant has marked 42 documents as Exs.A1 to A42. On the side of the Opposite Parties, the case sheet of the patient in the typed-form is marked as Ex.B1.

 

             5.  As adverted to by us at the inception itself, the complaint is replete with irrelevant details and full of bald and vague allegations, which have been carefully omitted while narrating the facts in the preceding paragraphs.  When the complaint prima facie lacks material details even to suggest any cause of action, we hasten to add that the same does not deserve consideration on merits. On legal grounds also, hardly, it can be sustained for the sole and simple reason that the complainant’s mother underwent treatment in the Government Hospital free of cost; as such, the complainant is not even a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  In other words, having not paid any consideration to the Doctors, who are in government service, and having received treatment for his ailing mother free of cost, the complainant has no locus standi to maintain the present complaint.   Further, a scrutiny of the materials made available before us, in particular Ex.B1 reflecting exhaustive details about the course of treatment, ostensibly suggests that the Doctors in the Government Hospital provided treatment for the complainant’s mother to the best extent possible; however, without reference to any valid contra material, on the basis of a self-projected conspiracy theory, the complainant invariably hurls untenable allegations over a big claim of compensation for Rs.1 crore.    At any rate, inasmuch as the present complaint is a clear parable of vexatious litigation and for the prime reason that the complainant does not fall within the purview of “consumer” as stated above, we are not inclined to entertain the same.

             In the result, the complaint is rejected & dismissed as devoid of any merit.  No costs.

    

S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                             R.SUBBIAH, J.

MEMBER                                                      PRESIDENT.

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT.

 

•       Date            Description of Documents

 

1.             12.08.1997   Death Certificate of Complainant’s father

2.             08.12.1998   Legal-heir Certificate

3.             21.03.2012   Acknowledgment for the petition addressed to CM

4.             16.08.2013   Order passed by the High Court

5.             19.08.2014   Bail Petition Dismissal Order

6.             27.10.2015   Corruption Complaint against the Police before CJM

7.             09.12.2015   Forwarding of complaint to the Police Commissioner

8.             22.07.2016   Petition against Police

9.             22.04.2016   Petition to the Chief Minister

10.           17.09.2017   Petition to the DGP against demolition of house

11.           22.09.2017}  Letters from the Secretariat of the President

12.           28.03.2018} 

13.           30.03.2018   Petition sent to the Prime Minister

14.           04.04.2018   Petition to the Chief Minister

15.           13.04.2018   Petition to the CM over providing wrong information

16.           04.05.2018   Reminder on the petition sent to the CM

17.           10.05.2018   Receipt for Rs.500/- for the scan report at the Hospital

18.           11.05.2018   Slip indicating wrong entry of name

19.           11.05.2018   Slip indicating correct name

20.           12.05.2018   Police complaint against the Hospital

21.           12.05.2018   Slip affixed by the police for taking the dead-body

22.           12.05.2018   Death Certificate

23.                    13.05.2018   Slip wrongly issued by the Hospital about the death of complainant’s mother     

24.                    14.05.2018   Complaint before the Medical Officer

25.           21.05.2018   Acknowledgement for the complaint before the Collector.

26.           21.05.2018   Complaint given to the Collector

27.           18.06.2018   Reminder on the complaint to the Collector

28.                    18.06.2018   Acknowledgement for the complaint to the Collector.

29.                    05.07.2018   Letter from the Hospital to appear for enquiry.

30.                    13.08.2018   Petition to the Chief Minister.

31.                    13.08.2018   2^nd reminder for the petition to the Collector

32.           14.09.2018   Petition to CM seeking Departmental Action against the collector.

33.           26.09.2018   District Court’s recommendations against the police

34.           03.10.2018   Reminder to the Human Rights Commission

35.           27.10.2018   Misinformation given to the CM about the complainant

36.           07.11.2018   Petition to the National Human Rights Commission

37.           16.11.2018   Petition to the President of India

38.           10.12.2018   Petition to the Chief Secretary

39.           10.12.2018   Reminder to the petition addressed to the CM

40.           26.12.2018   Petition to the Chief Secretary seeking action against the collector.

41.                    18.01.2019   Letter received from the  NHRC

42.           21.01.2019   Acknowledgement from the Chief Secretary.

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES.

 

•       Date            Description of Documents

 

1.                    Case Sheet (Typed)

 

 

         

 

 

S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                             R.SUBBIAH, J.

MEMBER                                                      PRESIDENT    

 

Index    : Yes  No.

 

ISM/TNSCDRC/Chennai/Feb/2022.