THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KASTURBA HOSPITAL MANIPAL AND ANR. - Complainant(s)
Versus
SRI S.R.KRISHNA SINGH - Opp.Party(s)
SHYAM PADMAN
02 Feb 2010
ORDER
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 1115 OF 2006
(Against the Order dated 10/04/2005 in Appeal No. 1291/2003 of the State Commission Karnataka)
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KASTURBA HOSPITAL MANIPAL AND ANR.
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. SRI S.R.KRISHNA SINGH
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.P. SINGH ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :
NEMO
For the Respondent :
NEMO
Dated : 02 Feb 2010
ORDER
The factual matrix are that Shri S.R. Krishana Singh, the respondent/complainant came to the Out Patient Department of the petitioner institution which is a hospital on 16th April, 1998 with complaints of pain, bluish discoloration in left finger tips since four days, exertional breathlessness and chest pain since two years and history of diabetics since ten years and also being hypertensive. The respondent on examination was referred to the Cardiology Department and was advised admissions in the hospital as indoor patient. After obtaining prescriptions for required drugs the respondent left and later came on 23-4-98 for admission. He was examined by a specialist including Dr. S.G.S. Prabhu of Department of Cardiology, Kasturba Hospitals, Manipal and was advised necessary tests and investigations. The respondent, on being advised, underwent ECG, Tread Mill Tests and Doppler study of upper limb on 29-4-98. The investigations indicated Ischemic Heart Disease (IHD), slight discrepancy in systolic pressure between the right and left upper limb despite upper limb Doppler study by the Radiology Department. High cholesterol level was noticed and he was found overweight. It is against these backdrops that respondent was advised coronary angiography as well as Selective Sub-clavion Arteriography on basis of definite indications. Though the coronary angiography showed some lesions in the coronary artery and Selective Sub-clavion artery did not show any lesion and there was no pressure gradient also. The respondent was discharged from Surgery Department on 2-5-1998 with certain directions. A Discharge Summary was also issued by the petitioner hospital. Since in the Discharge Summary issued by the petitioner hospital angiography report revealed Triple Vessel Disease i.e. Coronary Artery Disease and nuclear scan revealed dilated LV in stress and patient was advised to undergo CABG as early as possible. He considered it better to have a second opinion in the matter and accordingly got himself admitted in the Wockhardt Hospital and Heart Institute, Bangalore on 18-6-1998 for further treatment and operation. After admission in the said hospital cardiac catherisation and angiography was done which, however, disclosed (I) Insignificant Coronary Artery Disease; (II) Insignificant narrowing of left anterior descending artery and lefts circumflex; (III) Normal lefts ventricular function ; (IV) 80% stenosis of Ist part Left Subclavian Artery and 90% stenosis of origin of left vertebral artery and (V) 90 mm TLG gradient across the stenosis of the left sub clavion artery. Following a positive report revealed in the angiography suggesting the patient to not undergo CABG there being no Coronary Artery Disease, respondent obtained film of his angiography test conducted in the hospital of the petitioner and he was shocked to notice that the film supplied to him on the basis of which he was advised CABG was that of another patient, Mukunda K.B.. Alleging gross negligence on the part of the doctor and the hospital a legal notice was issued by the respondent/patient following which a consumer complaint came to be filed before the District Forum. Both the parties led evidence of affidavits during proceedings pending before the District Forum and the District Forum on analysing the issue involved, accepting complaint finding deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner, directed the opposite parties No.1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay to the respondent/complainant Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 23-6-1998 till the date of payment. The opposite parties No.1 and 2 were also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of proceedings. The appeal too, preferred before State Commission, by those found answerable to pay compensation by the District Forum was dismissed finding deficiency in service against them. The facts of the case tell a tale. The defence of the petitioner was that though some errors happened to be there under the heading conclusions in the Discharge Summary, the said report was quite provisional which cannot be construed to be conclusive findings of the doctor who examined respondent. That apart, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that a Discharge Summary suggesting the patient to undergo CABG as early as possible was issued by Dr. Shiny of the Surgery Department without discussing with Dr. Prabhu and that apart she was not in service of the opposite party-hospital. The petitioner would flatly negated the advice tendered in the Discharge Summary to the patient about early CABG just against the weight of mass of evidence on the record. The Discharge Summary is quite eloquent which shows that the patient was advised to undergo CABG as early as possible. Now the entire blame is thrown on senior Registrar of the hospital who gave a provisional angiography report without consulting Dr. Prabhu. Taking assistance from certain observations made in the Discharge Summary, Dr. Prabhu, who was examined on affidavit and the proceeding before the District Forum would stated that the patient was also advised to turn up for further checking after two months which was not followed by him. These defences by Dr. Prabhu was quite untenable in view of the facts which are writ large by suggesting that despite there being no evidence about Triple Vessel Disease following angiography, he was advised CABG to be done as early as possible. That apart Dr. Prabhu, in cross-examination candidly admitted in following terms the fault committed:- We did not find Thoracic Outlet Syndrome or the Triple Vessel Disease in the complainant. These were only possibility of thought of so that they could be ruled out by investigations. As respondent had experienced stress and strain following mistaken report given by the petitioner hospital and he spent a lot over the treatment at the petitioner-hospital as well as in Wockhardt Hospital he sought adequate compensation from the petitioner hospital. The respondent also spent Rs.50,000/- over the travel in going to Bangalore for being admitted in the Wockhardt Hospital. There too, it is stated that he incurred expenditure of Rs.1,60,822.16/- for which he has placed on record supporting voucher issued by non else but the Wockhardt Hospital which is not challenged by the petitioner-hospital. The State Commission having taken notice of expenses incurred by the respondent in connection with treatment and investigations has rightly awarded compensation to mitigate his suffering. The expenditure incurred by the petitioner in the two hospitals in view of the supporting voucher for them cannot possibly be disputed. We too share anxiety of the patient that he had to undergo stress and strain which in fact cannot be estimated in monetary terms but modest estimations can, however, be made which the State Commission had taken notice of. Despite persuasive arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner such gross negligence cannot be construed to be human error. We do not find fault with the finding recorded by State Commission which is based on meticulous appreciation of the issues and accordingly endorse the finding and dismiss the revision petition.
......................JB.N.P. SINGHPRESIDING MEMBER ......................S.K. NAIKMEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
