Date of Filing : 09.02.2021
Date of Disposal: 15.05.2023
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc.,B.L., .....MEMEBR-I
THIRU.P.MURUGAN,M.Com.,ICWA(Inter)., B.L., ....MEMBER-II
CC. No.23/2022
THIS MONDAY, THE 15th DAY OF MAY 2023
1.Mr.P.Nallamayan,
S/o.Periyandi Thevar,
2.Pandiammal,
W/o.Nallamayan,
Both are residing at
No.21, Bharathiyar Nagar 3rd Street,
Ernavoore, Manali, Chennai 600 057. ……Complainants.
//Vs//
Sugam Hospital,
No.349, Thiruvotriyur High Road,
Thiruvotriyur, Chennai 600 019. ..........Opposite party.
Counsel for the complainant : M/s.C.Jayaprakash, Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite party : AAV Partnets.
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 20.04.2023 in the presence of M/s.C.Jayaprakash counsel for the complainants and AAV Partners counsel for the opposite party and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging medical negligence in the treatment against the opposit party along with a prayer to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- for the death of complainant’s son due to medical negligence by the opposite party and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards the cost the proceedings to the complainants.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
Being dissatisfied and aggrieved by the death of their son due to the alleged medical treatment given by the opposite party the present complaint was filed.
It was the case of the complainants that their son one Mr.N.Sivapandian consulted the opposite party hospital on 04.01.2019 with complaints of abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting as outpatient and was advised to take echo cardiogram, Abdomen and KUB Scan one by Dr.D.B.D.Sathikumar, M.D. As per the doctor’s advice he took the same. After getting the report, it was shown to the doctor and no adverse remarks made by the doctor and after giving injection and medicines Mr.N.Sivapandian was advised to go home. On 05.01.2019 as their son got severe pain again he came to the opposite party hospital and admitted as inpatient. Immediately after admitting him as inpatient various scans and blood test etc. were taken and he was shifted to ICU with O2 support and the opposite party charged nearly Rs.1,00,000/- for the treatment during that night. On 06.01.2019 without giving any proper information about the condition of the patient, the opposite party hospital informed that the condition of the patient was under control and he was normal. In spite of being informed the patient’s condition as normal the opposite party hospital did not allow the complainants to see the patient. Suspecting about the act of the opposite party hospital, the complainants wanted to meet the Chief Doctor to know about the condition of the patient but was not allowed. Out of fear about the health condition of the patient, the complainant’s relatives started gathering at the opposite party hospital. The attitude of the opposite party hospital totally changed after the complainant’s relatives started gathering. The opposite party was trying to chase away the relatives of the complainants with the aid of their bouncers in the guise of security. On 06.01.2019 at about 01:30pm the opposite party hospital forcefully discharged the patient without consent of the complainants in an ambulance accompanying with a doctor and nurse to Stanley Government Hospital. Thus left with no other option the complainants admitted Mr.N.Sivapandian in Stanley Government Hospital at about 02:05pm on 06.01.2019 and in spite of treatment given in Stanley Government Hospital Mr.N.Sivapandian passed away at 1am on 07.01.2019. In the death memorandum issued by the Stanley Government Hospital, the cause of death was mentioned as “Acute Pancreatitis IMODS/Sudden Cardiopulmonary Arrest”. In the test that was taken by the opposite party hospital on 05.01.2019 it was identified that the level of Billirubin (Direct) is 0.8mg/dl i.e. it is higher than the reference value of 0.1 to 0.4 mg/dl which is a symptom of acute pancreatitis. But in spite of knowing it the opposite party failed to give proper treatment for the same i.e. to provide adequate early fluid resuscitation within the first hours of onset, nutritional support, pain control, doing Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatograpy and the opposite party has dragged the medical procedure with various other scans and tests. Instead of following the procedures of giving treatment in saving the life of the patient, inspite of various advanced medical facilities available in the medical world, there was lapse on the opposite party hospital in identifying and giving proper treatment to Mr.N.Sivapandian which resulted in the death of patient which amounts to medical negligence on their part. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite party the present complaint was filed to direct the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for causing of death of the complainant’s son due to the medical negligence on the part of the opposite party and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainants.
The crux of the defence put forth by the opposite party:
The opposite party filed version disputing the complaint allegations contending interalia that the present complaint was barred by limitation and evidently filed to harass and extort money from the opposite party. The complaint has to be dismissed on the ground of non joinder of necessary party. It was further submitted that on preliminary examination it was found that the patient was a chronic alcoholic for the past 12 years although his vitals were found to be normal. It was submitted that the patient had approached the Opposite party Hospital for the first time on 04.01.2019 at about 5:45 a.m. with complaints of abdominal pain over epigastric region(upper central region of the abdomen) for 2 days, nausea, vomiting for 2 days, passing of dark yellow urine and history of chest pain. The patient was seen by the Casualty Medical Officer in the Out-Patient Department of the Opposite party Hospital. On preliminary examination, it was found that the patient was a chronic alcoholic for the past 12 years although, his vitals were found to be normal. The patient was advised to undergo an Abdomen and KUB Scan for accurate diagnosis. At this juncture, Casualty Medical Officer had prescribed Inj.Pantoprazole L.V., Inj. Emeset I.V. and other supportive drugs. On the same day 04.01.2019, the patient again approached the Opposite party Hospital with the report of the said Abdomen and KUB Scan and also complained of severe symptoms. The scan report depicted Mild Hepatomegaly (medical term for an enlarged liver). Immediately, the patient was admitted to the Opposite party Hospital at about 12:20 a.m. (05.01.2019). At this juncture the Casualty Doctor made a provisional diagnosis for the patient namely Abdomen pain for Evaluation and a query was raised for Acute Pancreatitis. It is submitted that blood test witnesses the dysfunction of the patient's Liver, Pancreas and Kidney. It is placed on record that at the inception itself, the same was identified by the Doctors at the Opposite party Hospital and the Complainants were briefed on the patient's serious condition and the risk involved in light of the disfunction of these important organs. On 05.01.2019, when the Duty Doctor had examined the patient at 08:00a.m he had complaints of chest pain, profuse sweating and sluggish bowel sounds. Furthermore, the blood pressure of the patient was found to be high, hence the Ward Doctor had immediately shifted the patient to the ICU for further management. In the ICU, the patient was seen by the General Surgeon and Medical Gastroenterologist, the patient was administered NTG infusion (Nitroglycerin is used for relaxation of vascular smooth muscle and consequent dilatation of peripheral arteries and veins, especially the latter) under close observation and further, nephro supportive, potassium binder and liver supportive medication were administered. Since, the patient had complaints of Chest pain, the patient was immediately seen by the Cardiologist and his opinion was obtained and an Echocardiography was performed. Further, the Medical Gastroenterologist had also examined the patient and the patient was found to have Acute Severe Pancreatitis with Multiorgan disfunction. It would not be out of place to mention herein that all the required specialist Doctors had seen the patient and had administered timely treatment to the patient. Thus they sought for the complaint to be dismissed.
On the side of complainants proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.8 were marked on their side. On the side of opposite party proof affidavit was filed and document Ex.B1 was marked.
Point for consideration:-
whether the complaint allegations as to medical negligence in the treatment given to the complainants’ son by the opposite party resulting in his death amounts to deficiency in service and whether the same has been successfully proved by the complainant.
If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?
Point No.1:-
On the side of complainant the following documents were filed for proving the complaint allegations;
Education certificate of deceased was marked as Ex.A1;
Aadhar card of deceased was marked as Ex.A2;
Medical treatment record of deceased issued by the opposite party hospital dated 05.01.2019 was marked as Ex.A3;
Medical report of Stanley Government Hospital was marked as Ex.A4;
Death certificate of deceased dated 05.03.2019 was marked as Ex.A5;
Legal heir certificate of N.Sivapandian dated 28.05.2019 was marked as Ex.A6;
Leal notice issued by the complainants to the opposite party dated 08.08.2019 was marked as Ex.A7;
Reply notice issued by the opposite party dated 07.09.2019 was marked as Ex.A8
On the side of opposite party the following document was filed in proof of their defence;
Medical records and consent form of the patient, late Mr.N.Sivapandian dated 05.01.2019 was marked as Ex.B1;
It was endorsed by the counsel for the complainant that the written arguments filed by them may be considered as oral arguments. The opposite parties adduced the oral arguments. Hence this commission considered the written arguments of complainant and oral arguments of opposite parties along with the pleadings and material evidence to decide the complaint on merits.
The crux of the arguments submitted by the complainant is that the complainant’s son Mr.N. SivaPandayan consulted the opposite party hospital on 04.01.2019 with complains of abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting as outpatient. As per the advice of Dr.D.B.D.Sathiakumar scan was taken but no adverse remark was made. As he got severe pain on 05.01.2019 again their son was admitted and various scans blood test were taken and he was shifted to ICU. On 06.01.2019 the opposite party forcefully discharged their son who was admitted in Stanley Government Hospital where he died on 07.01.2019.
The main allegation by the complainant is that though the tests taken by the opposite party’s hospital on 05.01.2019 shows the level of Billirubin is 0.8mg/dl which is symptom of acute Pancreatitis, the opposite party failed to provide proper treatment i.e. to provide adequate early fluid resuscitation within the first hours of onset, nutritional support, pain control, doing Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatograpy but has dragged the medical procedure with various other scans and tests. Thus, instead of giving treatment to save the life of the patient, inspite of various advanced medical facilities available in the medical world, there was lapse on the opposite party hospital in identifying and giving proper treatment to Mr.N.Sivapandian which resulted in the death of patient which amounts to medical negligence on their part. The doctors names who treated the deceased were not revealed by the opposite parties. Being mother and father of the deceased they are entitled for compensation. Further defence taken by the opposite party that the deceased is an alcoholic was false. Thus it was argued that the complainant’s son died only due to the negligent treatment by the opposite party.
On the other hand, the opposite party’s learned counsel Ms.Sanjana appeared and argued that the deceased though consulted them on 04.01.2019 with abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting on 05.01.2019 he was brought in a very serious condition and hence he could not be operated for acute pancreatitis as his condition was very worst. Referring to the monitoring chart and the medical prescription it was argued that every consent was taken in treating the patient. By referring to the Discharge Summary it was argued the patient got discharged against the advice and only with the consent and it was false to state that the patient was forcefully discharged by the opposite party. Even in the Discharge summary death was clearly mentioned as “Acute Pancreatitis IMODS/Sudden Cardiopulmonary Arrest” and the history of present illness “complaint of diffuse abdominal pain more over epigastric region for 2 days, nausea, vomiting for 2 days. History of chest pain (+). Further the condition of the patient was not stable and the consent form stands as proof for the same wherein it has been stated about his condition by his father. The allegation of the complainant that they spent Rs.1,00,000/- is false as no bill was produced by the complainant. Further ambulance was provided at the time of discharge and hence there was no forceful discharge by the opposite party. The level of serum bilirubin as 1.6 mg/dl is only an indicative of the liver condition and not Pancreatitis as alleged by the complainant.
The decisions rendered in the following cases were cited by the counsel for the opposite party in support of their defence;
Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.1658 & 2322/2010 in Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre Vs Asha Jaiswal and Ors dated 30.11.2021,
Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.1385/2001 in Kusum Sharam and Ors Vs Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre and ors dated 10.02.2010,
Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No3318/1979 in Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and ors dated 20.02.1996,
Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos.7380, 8118 & 6933/2009 in Harish Kumar Khurana Vs Joginder Singh and ors dated 07.09.2021;
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in RP No.233/2004 and Appeal No.1331/2001 in Kamla Bai Pandey Vs P.C.Dwivedi & Ors dated 03.12.2008.
In toto the counsel argued that being chronic alcoholic the complainant’s son died and not due to the treatment given by them and there is no negligence or deficiency in service on their part in the matter of treatment rendered the counsel sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
On appreciation of the entire pleadings and materials this commission is of the view that the present complaint has to be dismissed as no medical negligence was made out by the complainants by the following reasons;
Though the complainant argued that the deceased was not a chronic alcoholic person for the 12 years no proof was submitted by them but in the discharge summary it was clearly mentioned that the deceased was diagnosed as chronic alcoholic. Thus when medical evidence supports the version of the opposite party, the same cannot be disregarded.
Though it is admitted by the complainant that the deceased was married and has wife and son, they were not made as party to the proceedings and did not join with the complainants. The reason was not explained by the complainants.
The medical records clearly pointed out that the course of treatment given to the complainant’s son was given in a proper manner and even at the time of admission as inpatient on 05.01.2019 his pulse was recorded as 62 per minute and found to be anxious. The provisional diagnosis was alcoholic gastritis and acute Pancreatitis. The Billirubin was found to be 1.6mg/dl wherein the normal level for adult is 0.3 to 1.3. This shows that the health condition of the deceased even at the time of admission was critical.
It is also seen vide the medical records that blood test, abdomen and KUB scan, Eco cardiogram, CECT scan of whole abdomen etc. were taken even on the date of admission as in patient i.e. on 05.01.2019. Hence the allegations that no proper treatment procedure was followed by the opposite party could not be accepted.
It is also seen that proper consent was obtained before the treatment was accorded to the patient. The Condition Informed Consent was also obtained from the father of the patient on 05.01.2019 itself. In the said condition informed consent it is seen that the 1st complainant has elaborately described about the ailment suffered by the deceased, admission made shifting of ICU and their treatment given to him.
Vide Condition Informed Consent dated 06.01.2019 the 1st complainant had mentioned about the seriousness of the health condition of the patient/son and the danger in shifting the patient in ambulance and stated that they are shifting the deceased. This clearly disproves the allegation that suddenly on 06.01.2019 the patient was discharged forcefully by the opposite party.
Even in the death memorandum issued by the Stanley Government Hospital the cause of death was mentioned as Acute Pancreatitis IMODS/Sudden Cardiopulmonary Arrest. As per medical literatures the cause for death could not to have developed in a short span of one or two days due to the treatment rendered by the opposite party.
Absolutely no medical literature or expert opinion was produced by the complainants to show that the line of treatment given by the opposite party for the deceased was not the standard line of treatment to be given for the ailment suffered by the deceased.
In such circumstance we are of the view the complainant had miserably failed to point out any deviation by the opposite party from the standard treatment resulting in medical negligence leading to deficiency in service. This point is answered accordingly in favour of the opposite party and as against the complainant holding that no medical negligence & deficiency in service was made out by the complainant.
Point No.2:-
As we have held above that the complainants failed to prove that the opposite party had committed any medical negligence, they were not entitled any relief from the opposite party as claimed in the complaint.
In the result the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 15th day of May 2023.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER -I PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 ............... Education certificate of deceased. Xerox
Ex.A2 ............... Aadhar card of deceased. Xerox
Ex.A3 05.01.2019 Medical treatment record of deceased N.Sivapandian. Xerox
Ex.A4 07.01.2019 Medical report of Stanley Government Hospital. Xerox
Ex.A5 05.03.2019 Death certificate of N.Sivapandian. Xerox
Ex.A6 28.05.2019 Legal heirship certificate of N. Sivapandian. Xerox
Ex.A7 08.08.2019 Legal notice issued by the complainants to the opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A8 07.09.2019 Reply notice issued by the opposite party. Xerox
List of document filed by the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 05.01.2019 Medical records and consent forms of the patient, Lae Mr.N.Sivapandian. Xerox
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
