Kerala

StateCommission

RP/12/61

LUFTHANSA GERMAN AIRLINES - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMUEL MATHEWS - Opp.Party(s)

C.S.RAJMOHAN

26 Feb 2015

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.223/13

JUDGMENT DATED :27.02.2015

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.278/2006 on the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram order dated :15.11.2012)

 

PRESENT

 

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR     : JUDICIALMEMBER

SMT.A.RADHA                               : MEMBER

SMT.SANTHAMMA THOMAS      :MEMBER

 

APPELLANT

 

Robinson,

‘Shalem’,

TC 38/339,

Chalai,

Thiruvananthapuram

 

(By Adv.Nalanchira P Krishnankutty)

 

Vs

RESPONDENTS

 

1. SP Fort Hospital,

P.B.No.5017,

Fort,

Thiruvananthapuram – 695023

 

2. Dr.Suresh kumar.M.D

SP Fort Hospital,

P.B.No.5017,

Fort,

Thiruvananthapuram – 695023

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR     : JUDICIAL MEMBER

          Appellant was the complainant in CC.No.278/2006 in the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The complainant was admitted as an inpatient in the first opposite party hospital at Thiruvananthapuram on 10.09.2005. The second opposite party was the treating doctor. At the time of admission the complainant was diagnosed as having diabetes mellitus with nephropathy and acute chronic renal failure. The complainant was also suffering from cough and fever. It is alleged in the complaint that on laboratory examination it was found that his creatinine level had increased to 2.8 mgs on 11.09.2005. During the subsequent days also the creatinine level increased and on 19.09.2005 the creatinine level was 6.2 mgs. Yet the doctors at the first opposite party hospital including the second opposite party did not administer medicines to control the criatinine level resulting in renal complications. Though Dr.Saroja Nair, the consultant nephrologist was available in the hospital, her services were not availed by the hospital authorities. On 20.09.2005 the complainant was reaching sinking stage, then the hospital authorities informed Dr.Saroja Nair. She examined the complainant and advised the complainant to get himself admitted in the India Hospital Trust, Thiruvananthapuram. The complainant was treated in the said hospital from 29.09.2005 to 30.10.2005. The opposite parties failed to administer proper medicines to save the life of the complainant and committed deficiency in service. Hence the complainant sought to recover Rs.1,37,806/- towards the actual expenses incurred for treatment in the India Hospital Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.5000/- towards costs.

          2.      In the joint version filed by the opposite parties they admitted that the complainant was admitted in their hospital on 10.09.2005. The admission was with complaints of non healing ulcer on the amputation site of right big toe fever, cough and breathlessness of two weeks duration. On examination the complainant was diagnosed to have non healing ulcer right big toe with septicaemia with diabetic nephropathy and acute renal failure with lower respiratory tract infection. The second opposite party explained to the patient his wife and son about the diagnosis made and the possibility of worsening of renal failure in view of uncontrolled infection. The patient was initially treated with antibiotics and I.V. insulin. His foot was managed by a surgeon. The non healing ulcer responded to treatment following which skin grafting was done on 14.09.2005 with good result. Due to worsening of his renal function the nephrologist Dr.Saroja Nair of India hospital was consulted on 18.09.2005. She advised administration of medicines and further management was done as per her advice. But renal parameters appeared to worsen. So as advised by the nephrologist the complainant was shifted to India Hospital for expert nephrology treatment including dialysis on 22.09.2005. The allegations in the complainant are contrary to facts and complainant had several complications at the time of admission itself. There was no negligence on deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties.

          3.      Before the consumer forum the complainant gave evidence as PW1 and marked exts.P1 to p8 on his side. Dr.Saroja Nair the nephrologist who treated him was examined as PW2. On the side of the opposite parties the second opposite party gave evidence as DW1. Ext.D1 was marked on their side. Ext.X1 issued from the India Hospital was also marked in evidence. The consumer forum holding that there is no material to establish negligence on the part of the opposite parties dismissed the complaint. Hence the appeal by the complainant. The only question that arises for consideration is whether on the available evidence negligence or deficiency in service is established on the side of the opposite parties if only the answer is on the affirmative, the question of quantum of compensation would arise.

          4.      Even as per the allegations in the complaint at the time of admission of the complainant on 10.09.2005 in the first opposite party hospital, he was suffering from diabetes mellitus with nephropathy and chronic renal failure. He was suffering from cough and fever and was having other complications. On the allegation that during his stay in the hospital the creatinine level in his blood gradually increased but the opposite parties failed to give him proper treatment he is accusing the opposite parties of medical negligence. So the question arises whether  the opposite parties had followed the standard medical protocol and showed the competence of medical experts of reasonable standards in treating the complainant. In order to answer this question Exts.P4, P6, D1 and X1 along with the evidence of PW2, the only expert evidence adduced by the complainant becomes relevant.

          5.      Ext.D1 is the case sheet kept in the SP Fort, Hospital. Ext.P6 is the discharge summary issued to the complainant from the first opp.party hospital. Ext.X1 is the copy of medical records issued from the India Hospital of PW2. PW2 gave evidence with reference to these documents. She is a consultant doctor of the first opposite party hospital also. She deposed that she had examined the complainant as required by the first opposite party hospital authorities on 18.09.2005. She deposed that apart from other ailments the renal function of the complainant was worsening and she decided the treatment for the renal failure. Subsequently on 21.09.2005 she was again consulted. The patient had not shown improvement. Hence she suggested dialysis and for that purpose the patient was shifted to India Hospital on 22.09.2005. At the time of admission in the India Hospital his creatinine level was 6.5 mgs. During his stay in the hospital dialysis was done on three days a week.  She was of the opinion that had the complainant not been shifted to India Hospital even death of the patient was likely.

          6.      On perusing Ext.P4 she gave evidence to the effect that during stay in the first opposite party hospital the level of creatinine in the blood of the complainant was not such that it required dialysis. The kidney became damaged due to chronic infection and septicaemia. She suggested dialysis when renal shut down was likely. She also deposed that there is no specific drug to lower creatinine level. She also opined that there was no delay in calling expert nephrologist.

          7.      So obviously the complainant was admitted due to non healing ulcer at the amputation site of right big toe. The infection aggravated into septicaemia resulting in complications like nephropathy. That was the reason for the increase of creatinine level in his blood. So the basic treatment would be to contain the infection especially when there is no specific drug to reduce creatinine level. So the line of treatment adopted by the opposite parties is the one that would be adopted by any doctor of reasonable standards. So it cannot be said that during the stay of the complainant in the first opposite party hospital from 10.09.2005 till 22.09.2005, the opposite parties failed to give proper treatment to the complainant. When PW2 was consulted at the instance of the opposite parties on 18.09.2005, she also did not find it necessary to go for dialysis. It was only on 21.09.2005 she found it necessary to do dialysis. There was no facility for dialysis in the first opposite party hospital. Hence the patient was shifted to the hospital of PW2. On these facts and evidence on record surely there is no material to hold that the opposite parties were in any way negligent in treating the complainant. There is no error in the findings of the consumer forum to that effect. Hence the appeal is devoid of merit.

In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed but without costs.

 

K.CHANDRADAS NADAR   : JUDICIALMEMBER

 

 

A.RADHA                               : MEMBER

 

 

SANTHAMMA THOMAS      : MEMBER

 

Be/   

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES

 REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHARLANE

 VAZHUTHACADU

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.223/13

JUDGMENT

DATED :27.02.2015

 

                                                                         Be/