Appeared at the time of arguments: For Petitioners | : | Dr. K. Venkata Rao (Petitioner No. 2 in Person) | For R-1 | : | Ms. S. Radha Pyari, Advocate | For R-2 | : | Mr. S. Yashwant Prasad, Advocate | For R-3 | : | Mr. Akash Tandon, Advocate | For R-4 | : | Ms. Akanksha, Advocate |
Pronounced on: 14th February 2023 ORDER Dr. S. M. KANTIKAR, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. The Petitioners have filed the instant Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the Order dated 10.04.2019 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’) in Appeal No. 1574 of 2012, wherein the State Commission dismissed the Appeal filed by the Petitioners. 2. The facts in brief are that Smt. V. Varalakshmi Complainant No.1 was diagnosed as a cancerous tumour of left kidney and approached St. John’s Medical College Hospital for treatment. She was admitted on 13.05.2009 for surgery to be performed on 15.05.2009. It was alleged that Dr. Mohan did not perform the surgery on 15.05.2009 because of non-payment of ex-gratia amount by the Complainants. Thus, it was deliberate misconduct and medical negligence of OP-1. Her husband - the Complainant No. 2 was a regular blood donor and wanted to donate blood for the operation, but, it was refused by the blood bank (OP-4), stating that he was unfit. It was further alleged that the OP-3 without touching the patient, decided to discharge her on 15.05.2009. The Complainants were totally upset and got operated in KIMS on 26.05.2009. Being aggrieved, the Complainants filed the Consumer Complaint before the District Forum, Bangalore. 3. The OPs filed their written version and denied the negligence on their part. 4. The District Forum dismissed the Complaint. 5. Being aggrieved, the Complainants filed First Appeal before the State Commission, Karnataka. 6. The State Commission dismissed the Appeal with the following observation: “It is no doubt true that the District Forum before it dwelled upon the facts of the case narrated about the principles that has to be followed in cases of medical negligence from Para No.1 to 37 that itself cannot be a ground to interfere with the order passed by the District Forum. Having regard to the detailed analysis done by the District Forum, it has to be held that there are no any strong reasons to interfere with the order passed by the District Forum. Accordingly, the appeal fails.” 7. Being aggrieved by the Order of the State Commission, the Complainants filed the instant Revision Petition. 8. Heard the arguments and perused the material on record. The short delay of 16 days in filing the instant Revision Petition is condoned. 9. We gave our thoughtful consideration. The hospital is a charitable hospital, having highly qualified doctors to provide best quality medical service. After investigation, the left renal tumour was diagnosed and radical nephrectomy was decided. As the tumour was confined to kidney, therefore, there was no immediate threat to life. However, the patient’s husband became panicky and insisted that the surgery to be conducted immediately. Therefore, as an exception, the patient was admitted. As the Complainant No. 2 was insisting, the OP-2 made arrangements for surgery on the next date i.e. 15.05.2009. The husband was advised to arrange two units of blood, but he did not arrange the same and instead came to the blood bank alone. He reported the blood bank at 2.00 pm. Subsequently, screening test with filling of donor questionnaire and screening tests were conducted till 3.00 pm. However, based on screening test, he was declared unfit to donate the blood owing to his age and health conditions (high BP). The rejection was done as per the standard guidelines prescribed by the Drug Controller and Ministry of health. Therefore, on that issue, Complainant No. 2 made a huge ruckus and did not want the patient to be operated in the OP-1 hospital and sought immediate discharge. We note from the blood bank record that two units of blood was cross matched and kept it ready on 14.05.2009 for the scheduled surgery on the next date. The two units were sent to operation theatre, but returned without utilisation on 15.05.2009. Even it is evident that the patient or her legal representatives, did not sign the consent for the surgery. Therefore, the preparation for surgery was stopped and in absence of consent, operation could not be performed. Therefore, the patient was discharged. 10. In the instant case, apprehension of Complainant No. 2 to get operated her wife immediately was wrong. The CT scan and other investigations clearly showed it was a separate mass confined to left kidney and as such there was no emergency. Such operation needs number of units of blood, and thus, without pre-operative arrangements, surgery could not be performed. The denial or deferral of the operation does not constitute medical negligence. We do not find any deficiency or dereliction in the duty of care from the St. John’s Medical College Hospital and / or the treating doctors. 11. The District Forum and the State Commission gave concurrent findings of facts and held that the Complainant failed to establish deficiency and negligence of the OPs. Based on the discussion above, within the meaning and scope of section 21(b), we find no grave error in appreciating the evidence by the State Commission. There was no jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, as may necessitate interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction from this Commission. 12. The Revision Petition, being misconceived and devoid of merit, is dismissed. |
