APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Petitioner Mr. Jogy Scaria, Advocate For the Respondent Mr. Nishe R. Shonker, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON : 30th APRIL 2014 O R D E R PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 31.08.2011, passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in FA No. 279/2005, ir Dorabji Tata Trust Aided Hospital Chottanikkara versus Rajeswari,vide which, while partly allowing appeal, the order dated 10.01.2005, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam, allowing the consumer complaint no. 294/2003 filed by the present respondent, was modified. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent is the widow of deceased Hariharan who is stated to have died due to rat fever (leptospirosis) on 16.12.2002. It is stated in the complaint that Hariharan, 50 years old, had body pain and fever on 10.12.2002, after he returned from work. He felt severe pain and high fever on 13.12.2002, whereupon he was taken to the petitioner hospital and admitted as inpatient. However, his physical condition deteriorated day by day. On 15.12.2012, the complainant wanted discharge of the patient for admitting him in Amrita Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre (AIMS). However, OP-4/Petitioner 3 told his relatives that he did not find any reason to discharge the patient to be referred to Amrita Hospital. On 16.12.2004, after testing urine, blood and spit at about 1:30 AM, OP-4/Petitioner 3 informed the complainantsrelatives that Hariharan was suspected to be infected by jaundice, for which there was no facility for treatment at their hospital. The complainant got the patient discharged at about 1:00_PM and brought him to Amrita Hospital around 2:00 PM on the same day. He was taken to the medical intensive care unit of the hospital, where after various tests, the patient was detected to be inflicted by rat fever (leptospirosis). His liver and kidney had been damaged irretrievably due to non-treatment for rat fever, and the patient died that very day at 10.05 PM. The complainant alleged that death could have been avoided, had the disease been detected at the petitioner hospital and treated in time. She filed the consumer complaint in question, requesting directions to the OPs to pay a sum of ` 5 lakh to the complainant, alongwith the cost of litigation. 3. In their written reply before the District Forum, the petitioner stated that the patient was admitted in their hospital as a case of normal viral fever, as there was no other complaint of any disease from the patient. It is also mentioned in the written response that since there were some other cases of leptospirosis, the chances of rat fever to this patient were also kept in mind. Doxycycline capsule 100mg was also given. Further, the only test for determination of leptospirosis is by doing culture of blood, taken from the body of the patient and it takes minimum 10 days for getting the result of culture test. The patient was regularly attended to by the Doctors at the hospital and hence, there was no negligence of any kind on their part. 4. The District Forum, after taking into account the evidence of the parties before them, allowed the complaint in question. The present petitioners, who are OPs 1, 2 & 4 in the complaint were directed to pay a sum of ` 2 lakh, jointly and severally, as compensation to the complainant alongwith ` 2,000/- as cost. OP-3 Dr. Thanky was discharged, saying that she was a paediatrician and had not treated the patient. OP 1, 2 & 4 filed appeal before the State Commission against the order of the District Forum and the State Commission vide impugned order, modified the order of the District Forum and reduced the amount of compensation from `_2_lakh to ` 1 lakh, while retaining the cost of ` 2000/-. It is against this order that the present petition has been made. 5. At the time of arguments before me, the learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the treatment of the patient had been done in accordance with the accepted protocol and no negligence of any kind had been shown in the matter. The learned counsel argued that for finding out whether the patient was suffering from leptospirosis (rat fever), the blood culture test has to be done and it takes about 7 to 10 days for getting report of the said test. The learned counsel has drawn our attention to the statement of Dr. Ganapathy Rao from AIMS, Department of Medicine in which, he has stated that the time of 7 to 8 days is required for diagnosis. The learned counsel stated that there had been no malafide action on their part and hence, they should not be required to pay any compensation to the complainant. In reply, the learned counsel for respondent stated that there had been inordinate delay on the part of the petitioners to refer the patient to other hospital, although they have admitted that they had no facility to treat the patient suffering from leptospirosis (rat fever). It has been stated in their written version before the State Commission that the possibility of suffering from rat fever was kept in mind and some medicines were also given to the patient, which shows it clearly that the petitioners were aware of the possibility that the patient could be suffering from rat fever. The learned counsel stated that in the statement of Dr. Ganapathy Rao, from AIMS, it has also been stated that diagnosis can be made within 24 hours, by applying the anti-body test. The learned counsel argued that the petitioners had themselves admitted that they had no facilities to treat such a patient and hence, they should have referred him to a better hospital. The order passed by the State Commission was, therefore, in accordance with law. 6. I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me. 7. The State Commission have observed in the impugned order as follows:- . We find that the very admission by DW1 the 4th opposite party doctor at opposite party hospital that they suspected the deceased was having rat fever on the next day of admission itself ie, on 14-1-02 considerably strengthen the case of the complainant that there was lapse on the part of opposite parties in not referring the diseased to a higher centre. It is also admitted in the version that there were reported cases of rat fever and that they treated the deceased keeping in mind the above fact. We find that the above statement is not sufficient to explain the delay the referring the deceased to a higher centre. We find that there is serious lapse on the part of the opposite parties in not referring the deceased to a higher centre at the earliest. The deceased was critical when he was admitted to the AIMS. It is noted in the treatment records of AIMS that the complainant was having Weil disease and acute renal failure for which mortality rate is very high as noted in Harrison. 8. It is clear from above that the Doctors at the petitioner hospital had not ruled out the possibility that the patient might have been suffering from rat fever. The petitioners have also admitted during the proceedings before the Consumer Fora that they did not have proper facilities to treat the patients suffering from rat fever. They have, however, taken the line of argument that the diagnosis for rat fever can only be made after blood culture test which takes 7 to 10 days. This version of the petitioners, however, does not get substantiated from the fact that the Doctors at the other hospital were able to diagnose within a matter of hours that the patient was suffering from leptospirosis (rat fever). It has come in the statement of Dr. Ganapathy Rao also that the diagnosis can be made within 24 hours by antibody test. 9. From the above facts, it is quite clear that the concurrent findings of the District Forum and the State Commission by which they have held the petitioners liable for medical negligence cannot be brushed aside, based on the material on record. The State Commission, in their well-reasoned judgement decided to reduce the quantum of compensation from ` 2 lakh to ` 1 lakh. I do not find any irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the said order passed by the State Commission. This revision petition is, therefore, without any merit and it is ordered to be dismissed. The order passed by the State Commission stands confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.