By Jayasree Kallat, Member.
The petition was filed on 15.12.04. The complainant had filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 1 & 2. The complainant was admitted in the opposite party -1 Hospital on 21.05.2004 with complaints of vomiting & loose motion. The duty doctor who examined the complainant in the casualty stated that she was suffering from de hydration and subsequently another Doctor from opposite party 1 Hospital examined . ECG was taken and her condition was diagnosed as heart disease. She was admitted as inpatient and discharged on 23.05.2004 on request of the complainant and her relations. She had approached opposite party No.2 Baby Memorial Hospital along with all the relevant records from opposite party 1 hospital. The Doctor of the opposite party hospital who was in the casualty examined and her condition was diagnosed as heart problem. Immediately she was advised to be taken to ICU. The complainant was subjected to several tests. The next day she was discharged from the hospital she was told that she had no heart problem. The complainant alleges that the ECG given from opposite party 1 was mistakenly one of Sri.Moideen. The Doctor in the casualty had gone through the ECG of Moideen and had stated that the complainant was a heart patient. 2nd ECG was taken from Baby Memorial Hospital which showed that the complainant was not having any heart problem. The doctors of the opposite party 2 hospital had informed the complainant’s husband that ECG given from opposite party 1 hospital was mistakenly of one Mr. Moideen which showed that the patient was suffering from heart disease. The variation shown in the ECG of the complainant was only due to the variation caused because of vomiting and loose motion. After observation for some time the complainant had to again undergo all the tests which were done from opposite party 1 hospital. As the complainant was put in the ICU and subjected to several tests including ECG, X-ray and Blood tests she and her relations came under pressure. They had to suffer mental agony. The complainant alleges that there was negligence and deficiency in service from the side of the opposite party 1 & opposite party 2 hospitals. The complainant had to undergo rigorous medical tests unnecessarily which caused financial loss and great mental agony to the complainant and her family. Hence this petition is filed for refund of the hospital bills and expenses along with compensation.
Opposite party No.1 filed version denying the averments in the complaint, except those that are expressly admitted. The complainant was admitted in opposite party 1 hospital on 22.05.04 with complaint of vomiting. The duty Doctor examined the complainant and found dehydration and prescribed IV fluid and injection reglan. She was kept in observation in the casualty. Dr.Radhakrishna Kurup. M.D.Consultant physician of opposite party 1 examined the complainant. The Blood pressure of the complainant was found very low 80/60. In that circumstance Doctor advised to take ECG and admit the patient in the hospital. On 23.05.04 the patient complained of chest pain and pain in her left upper limb. This is the usual symptoms of ischemic coronary heart disease. Doctor suspected of heart disease and directed the patient to repeat the ECG. The repeated ECG was abnormal. Under the direction of the physician tablets were given On 24.05.04 when the doctor examined the patient she repeatedly complained of chest pain and pain in the upper limb. The abnormality in the ECG and also the symptoms of ischemic coronary heart disease necessitated the physician to prescribe requisite medicines tablets and injections, according to the guidelines of all international organizations to protect the patient from suffering from heart attack. But this patient was not given any medicines since the physician in the hospital felt it was better to refer the patient to the cardiology department Medical College for better consultation and treatment. The physician of the Ist opposite party referred the patient to the cardiology department of Medical College for better expert treatment. The physician of the Ist opposite party correctly and promptly acted advised and referred the patient to Cardiology Department. Opposite party No.1 is not aware of the alleged treatment and various tests said to be conducted at opposite party 2 Hospital. opposite party 1 denies the averments in Para -V of the complaint that the opposite party 2 had happened to treat the patient for Cardiac arrest, Since the ECG of the complainant has been interchanged with the ECG of another person Moideen from Vatakara hospital. At the time of discharge the complainant was correctly examined and handed over the ECG to the complainant. Opposite party 1 submits that the ECG examined by the doctors at the 2nd opposite party hospital is actually and correctly that of the complainant herself and not of Moideen. It is a false allegation. There was no negligence on the part of opposite party 1. It is natural to conduct various tests for the benefit of the patient and it is the duty of the doctors to conduct such tests. There was no negligence or breach of duty on the part of opposite party 1. Opposite party 1 is not duty bound to pay any amount as compensation. Hence opposite party 1 prays to dismiss the petition with costs to opposite party 1
Opposite party 2 filed version denying the allegations in the complaint except those that are expressly admitted. Opposite party 2 admits that the complainant was admitted on 24 05.04 at 4.15 P.M. in the casualty of opposite party hospital with complaints of pain in the left upper limb and a history of treatment from a hospital at Vatakara. The ECG taken from Vatakara was abnormal. In the first consultation of the patient at opposite party 2 hospital the condition was not normal. The patient was in anxiety. Blood Pressure was 140/80. It is the primary duty of a doctor to admit such a patient in the ICU, observe the progress advice clinical tests and give adequate medication immediately. The treatment given to the patient was according to the guidelines of all international organizations. Opposite party 2 strictly followed the correct line of treatment for a suspected case of heart disease. Opposite party 2 denies the averment contained in Para -V of the complaint that the opposite party 2 had opined to the husband of the complainant that the ECG has been interchanged with the ECG of another patient from Vatakara hospital. Opposite party 2 had given the minimum required treatment and investigation to the complainant. The ECG was repeated in opposite party 2 hospital which showed minimal ST-T changes in inferior and lateral leads. The management given by opposite party 2 was with the best intention and to cause minimal discomfort and expense. Opposite party 2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant as there was no negligence on the part of opposite party
Points for consideration.
Point No.1 Whether there was any negligence on the part of opposite parties?
Point No.2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief.
Complainant was examined as PW1 Exts.A1 to A12 marked on complainant’s side. RW1,2 & 3 were examined and B1 to B3 were marked on opposite parties side.
Point No.1.
The case of the complainant is that she was admitted in the opposite party 1 hospital as she was suffering from vomiting and loose motion. The duty doctor examined the complainant and admitted in the hospital as she was suffering from dehydration. The blood pressure of the complainant on examination by the consultant doctor was found to be as very low 80/60. The patient was advised to take ECG. She complained of chest pain and also pain in the left upper limb. As this is a symptom of ischemic/Coronary heart disease as the doctor suspected that the complainant was having heart disease. Complainant was directed to repeat the ECG which was found to be abnormal. Patient was asked to take complete rest. The patient complained of chest pain and pain in the left upper limb. The ECG also showed abnormality so the consultant doctor prescribed requisite medicine according to the guidelines of all international organization to protect the patient from suffering from impending heart attack. As the physician felt it better to refer the patient to the cardiology department medical college for better consultation and treatment by expert cardiologist, the prescribed medicines were not given to the patient but she was referred to cardiology department medical college. The complainant instead of admitting herself in Medical College hospital was admitted in the Baby Memorial hospital opposite party No.2. The opposite party 2 hospital had taken extra caution and admitted the complainant in the opposite party 2 hospital and put her in the ICU because the complainant was complaining of pain in the left upper limb and history of treatment of Vatakara hospital ECG which was abnormal was found to be symptoms of heart disease. The physical condition of the patient was not normal the patient was in anxiety blood pressure was 140/80. Ext.B3 produced by RW2 is the inpatient record of opposite party No.2. The complainant is mainly depending upon Ext.A4 which is alleged to be an ECG report of one Moideen but A4 does not show who has issued the report from which hospital and issued by which authority. No signature or seal is attached by which we can conclude whether A4 is given by any authority included in this case. Thus the production of A4 is not proof enough to establish that negligence has occurred at the hands of opposite parties. The complainant is of the firm belief that opposite party 1 and opposite party 2 had treated her on the basis of A4. According to RW1 the patient was admitted with complaints of vomiting and loose stool. She had dehydration and on examination the blood pressure was found to be very low. That was the circumstance for advising the complainant to take ECG. The complainant had complained to the doctor that she had chest pain and also pain to her upper limb. According to RW1 & RW2 this was a usual symptom of ischemic Coronary heart disease. According to RW1 the ECG also was abnormal. So they had followed strictly in accordance with the guidelines of international organization to protect and save a patient from suspected heart attack. The patient was immediately referred to cardiology department of medical college, Kozhikode. The complainant had admitted herself in opposite party 2 hospital. In the opposite party 2 hospital also on examination the complainant showed symptom of ischemic coronary heart disease. She was advised to take ECG. The ECG taken from opposite party hospital also showed that it was abnormal with variations. Ext.A10 the discharge card of Baby Memorial hospital mentioned that there was some changes in the ECG taken. For these reasons she was admitted in the ICU of opposite party 2 as great precautions. RW3 has deposed that the serum electrolytes’ test was done on the complainant. It showed some abnormality.; Potassium level was 5.7 , normal value according to RW3 is 3.6 to 5. This was a high value. RW1 continues “If the potassium level goes up patient have cardiac arrest. We gave injections of sodium bicarbonate which is the usual procedure. Next day she became normal. RW 3 has explained in his deposition page No.3 what is Ischemic heart disease. It happens when blood circulation to the heart decreases. The symptoms as explained by RW 3 are severe chest pain and pain in limbs, vomiting etc. This patient also showed the same symptoms. The ECG taken from opposite party 2 hospital also showed variations. From the evidences of the witnesses and the documents produced by both sides it has come out that the complainant was weak from dehydration and also complained of chest pain and pain in the upper limb. She had vomiting and her Blood Pressure was fluctuating from very low to high. Hence doctors advised ECG which showed slight variations. She was referred to Higher hospitals to safeguard her own safety . She had consulted expert Cardiologist of opposite party 2 hospital . The Doctor had appeared before the forum and has given evidence that as the complainant showed symptoms of Ischemic heart disease from the opposite party 1 hospital and also he had thoroughly checked the patient and given correct treatment according to the international guidelines. The complainant had recovered and opposite party had completely ruled out any possibility of heart disease. The forum has looked into all the aspects presented before us and has come to the conclusion that there was no negligence on the part of the opposite parties.
Point No.2
As the forum did not find any negligence on the part of the opposite parties we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled for any amount from the opposite parties.
In the result the petition is liable to be dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open court this is the15th day of March 2011.
Date of filing:15.12.2004.
SD/-PRESIDENT SD/- MEMBER SD/ MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1.ECG of the complainant
A2. Follow up card of Sahakarana Hospital vadakara of the complainant
A3. Cash bill receipt (2 in series) of Vatakara Sahakarana hospital dtd.22.05.04.
A4. Copy of ECG report dtd.23.05.04.
A5. Discharge certificateof Vadakara Sahakarana hospital dtd.24.05.04.
A6. Cash bill receipt dtd.24.05.04,25.05.04 for Rs.38/-,65.53 etc.
A7. Computerised electro cardio gram of Baby Memorial hospital dtd.24.05.04
A8. Echo cardio graphic Diagnosis of Baby Memorial hospital.
A9. Cash bill receipt of Baby memorial hospital(5 in Nos.)
A10. Discharge card of Baby Memorial Hospital dtd.25.05.04.
A11. Cash bill receipt of baby Memorial hospital dtd.24.05.04 for Rs.205.17.
A12. Computerised electro cardio gram of Baby Memorial Hospital dtd.24.05.04.
Documents exhibited for the opposite parties:
B1.Observation records and Doctors order sheet of Vadakara Sahakarana Hospital
(10 in series)
B2.Case sheet of Moideen Out patient card of vadakara sahakarana hospital(9 in Nos.)
B3 .In patient record book of Baby Memorial Hospital of the complainant
Witness examined for the complainant:
PW1. Pushpavally(complainant)
Witness examined for the opposite party:
RW1. Dr.Radhakrishna Kurup, Chief consultant physician, Co-Operative
Hospital,Vadakara.
RW2. P.V.Rajendran, C.I.Dream City Apartment, Puthiyara.PO, Calicut-4
RW3. Dr.Asokan Nambiar, Hrdya, Mavoor Road, Calicut.
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
