1.      This revision petition has been filed by Bommu Sri Hari against the order dated 28.11.2014 of the Andhra Pradesh, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (in short ‘the State Commission), passed in FA No.802/2013.

2.      The facts of the case are that on 05.11.2011 the father of the petitioner/complainant aged 80 years named B. Ramaiah was admitted in Sri Padmavathi Multi Specialities clinic Tirupathi and CT scan was taken. CT scan report showed Diffuse Cerebrum and Cerebella Atrophy.  The doctor advised treatment to dissolve clots.  On 11.11.2011, patient’s condition deteriorated and he was admitted to ICU.  On 13.11.2011 due to financial constraints the complainant got his father discharged from the private hospital Sri Padmavathi Multi Specialities Clinic Tirupathi.  On 14.11.2011, at zero hours, the petitioner/complainant brought his father at Government Hospital where the petitioner/complainant was advised on the basis of the CT Scan taken on 05.11.2011 that there was no cure for the patient’s conditions and as the condition of the patient had deteriorated, he was admitted and palliative treatment was provided.  The complainant’s father passed away at 15:30 hrs on the same day.  The complainant/petitioner then filed a consumer complaint bearing No.20/2013 before the District Forum.  It was alleged in the complaint that the opposite party unnecessarily admitted the patient to ICU and heavily charged the petitioner whereas the OP knew that there was no treatment for the disease of the patient.  The complaint was resisted by the opposite party by filing the written statement on the ground that the father of the petitioner was brought to the hospital for the treatment, who was aged about 80 years and he was given the best treatment and there was no negligence on the part of the OP.   On 10.07.2013, the District Consumer Forum passed its order dismissing the complaint.  Appeal No.802 of 2013 was preferred by the complainant before the State Commission against the order dated 10.07.2013 of the District Forum.  On 28.11.2014, Appeal No.802 of 2013 was dismissed by the State Commission confirming the order of the District Forum.

3.      Hence the present revision petition.

4.      Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

5.      Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that when his father was admitted in the opposite party hospital/clinic, he was admitted in the ICU and treatment started without any consent having been given by the complainant.  As it was very expensive and the condition of father of the complainant deteriorated so he was shifted to Government hospital where the doctor told that the disease of the father of the complainant was not treatable.  The learned counsel stated that when the disease was not treatable and curable then there was no point that the opposite party, hospital should have admitted him in the ICU and that too without any consent given by the complainant.  In this way, the opposite party has extracted Rs.50,000/- from the complainant and he would have spent more amount had he not shifted to a Government Hospital.   Thus, there is a clear deficiency on the part of the opposite party. However, both the fora below have not appreciated this fact that when the disease was not curable and treatable what was the need for the opposite party to put the patient in the ICU.  This was done only to extract the money from the complainant.  Thus, due to this clear deficiency, the complainant is liable to get atleast refund of amount paid to the opposite party. 

6.      Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the following case in support of his arguments:-

(i) Suresh Chandra Mytle & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., 2016 SCC Online NCDRC 299.  It has been held that:-

“14.       In Samira Kohli V. Dr. Prabha Manchanda, (2008) 2 SCC 1: AIR (2008) SC 1385, the following view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with respect to consent to be obtained from the patient.

(i) A doctor has to seek and secure the consent of the patient before commencing a ‘treatment’ (the term ‘treatment’ includes surgery also).  The consent so obtained should be real and valid, which means that: the patient should have the capacity and competence to consent; his consent should be voluntary; and his consent should be on the basis of adequate information concerning the nature of the treatment procedure, so that he knows what is consenting to.”

7.      Rebutting the above arguments, the learned counsel for the opposite party/respondent stated that when patient is brought to any hospital, the treatment is given to the patient according to his condition.  The condition of the patient in the present case demanded that he should be admitted in the ICU for his treatment.  First of all, if the patient is brought to a hospital, it is expected that he wants treatment in that hospital and his implied consent is already there. Moreover in the present case, the consent form was signed by the wife of the complainant and therefore, it cannot be said that no consent was taken. Consent of the family member is allowed if the patient is unable to sign the form of consent.

8.      I have carefully considered the arguments of both the parties and have examined the record.  From the record, it is clear that one consent form has been signed by the wife of the complainant. It has been alleged by the complainant that she is an illiterate lady and the form was got signed by her without giving her the details and other information about the treatment.  Thus, it was not an informed consent.  This argument of the complainant is not tenable, because if a person signs the declaration form, it is supposed that he has understood the contents and risks involved.  Complainant should have objected then and there and should have insisted to sign the form himself. When a patient is brought to a hospital the duty of the hospital and doctor therein is to start treatment immediately for saving the life of the patient, if the patient is serious.  Even if the disease is incurable, atleast symptomatic treatment is to be given to the patient so that his sufferings are minimized.

9.      Both the fora below have given a concurrent finding in this matter and the scope under the revision petition is quite limited in such cases as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654, as under; 

“Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view that what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous)  interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two fora.”

10.    Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 28.11.2014 of the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission.  Revision Petition No.1238 of 2015 is accordingly dismissed.