BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY
THURSDAY, the 12th day of January, 2017
C.C. No.5/2013
1. K. Anjalai, W/o (late) Krishnajayanthan
2. K. Chitradevi, D/o (late) Krishna Jayanthan
3. K.Jothimani, S/o (late) Krishna Jayanthan
All are residing at No.43, Behind D.M. School,
Pudukuppam, Vridhachalam Taluk,
Cuddalore District.
Vs.
1. Dr. Sumathi Elanglovan, M.D., D.M.,
A.G.Padmavathy’s Hospital Ltd.,
Villianur Main Road, Arumbarthapuram,
Puducherry.
2. Dr.Elangovan, M.D., D.M.,
A.G.Padmavathy’s Hospital Ltd.,
Villianur Main Road, Arumbarthapuram,
Puducherry.
3. Dr.Nachiyappan, Surgery Doctor,
A.G.Padmavathy’s Hospital Ltd.,
Villianur Main Road, Arumbarthapuram,
Puducherry.
BEFORE:
HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN
PRESIDENT
TMT. K.K.RITHA,
MEMBER
THIRU S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE,
MEMBER
FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
Tvl. N.Nagarathina & R.Ravikumar,
Advocates, Puducherry
FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
M/s Law Solvers,
Puducherry
O R D E R
( By Tmt. K.K.Ritha, Member, M.A., M.H.R., B.L.)
This is a complaint filed by the three complainants for the alleged medical negligence committed in treating the deceased Krishnajayanthan by the three opposite parties and prays for a compensation of Rs.25,00,000.
2. The facts of the case are that the deceased Krishnajayanthan was referred to the Opposite Parties Hospital on 07.01.2011 by one Dr. V.N. Selvam, M.D. from Virudhachalam, since he was suffering from chest pain. The first opposite party conducted necessary tests/investigations, gave some medicines for 15 days and kept under observation. On 21.01.2011, the patient felt severe pain and came back to O.P.s hospital wherein coronary angiogram was done and since two blocks were detected , the opposite parties suggested to go for coronary artery bypass surgery The surgery was done on 25.01.2011 by 3rd opposite party at 12.45 p.m. to 2.45 p.m., but the patient died at 10.31 p.m. on the same day. The complainants alleged that the bypass surgery ought to have been advised on 08.01.2011 itself when the patient visited the hospital at the first instance and the delay in taking the decision caused the death of the patient. Moreover, the opposite parties refused to give the records and the compact disc (CD) and thus caused negligence and carelessness on their part. Hence, the complainants filed the complaint seeking compensation and costs.
3. The opposite parties denied the allegations made by the complainants. It is not disputed that the patient visited O.P.s hospital on 08.01.2011 and given necessary treatment. On that date itself, the opposite parties advised coronary angiogram and CABG, but the patient refused to undergo CABG and hence medicines were prescribed to him. Again, on 21.01.2011 the patient reported to the hospital and agreed to undergo coronary angiogram. Accordingly, the patient underwent the test and since two blocks were found, he was suggested to undergo bypass surgery. On 25.01.2011, the surgery was started at 12.40 hrs. and completed at 15.10 hrs. There were no undue problems during surgery and the patient was shifted to the post-operative intensive care at 15.30 hrs. The patient was stable till 18.30 hrs with all parameters maintained on ventilator. At about 19.40 hrs., there was a fall in blood-pressure and the patient slipped to cardiac arrest, even though continuous attention was given. During this period, the patient's son, i.e. the 3rd complainant was informed frequently and permitted to see inside the intensive care unit. The patient's wife, i.e. 1st complainant, refused to come to the intensive care unit floor. After all the efforts made to sustain, the patient died at 22.31 hrs. on 25.01.2011. The post-mortem was done by forensic expert and found the death occurred due to acute myocardial infarction. The opposite parties have exercised reasonable care in treating the deceased and there is no negligence on their part. The opposite parties, therefore, prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The 3rd complainant examined himself as CW1 and filed and marked Exs.C1 to C9. The 1st opposite party has been examined as RW1 and marked Exs.R1 to R4.
5. We heard the arguments put forth by learned counsels for the complainants and the opposite parties and perused the documents placed before by both sides and come to the following observations:
6. The main allegation of the complainants is that when the deceased Krishnajayanthan visited O.P.s hospital for first time on 08.01.2011, the opposite parties ought to have advised for coronary bypass surgery on that particular day itself
and the failure to do so, has caused death of the patient. Another allegation leveled against the opposite parties is the refusal to give the case records and CD of the deceased to the complainants.
7. It is seen from the complaint and from the records that the complainant visited the opposite parties hospital on 08.01.2011. He was given medicines for fifteen days and again on 21.01.2011 reported to the hospital .On that day he underwent the test and since two blocks were found surgery was suggested. On 25.01.2011 coronary bypass surgery was conducted and the patient expired on the same day.
8. While perusing the records, it is evident that the patient was suffering from Diabetes Mellitus and he was a smoker and alcoholic. Ex.R4, dated 08.01.2011 indicates the first visit of the patient to O.Ps hospital. The prescription shows that the patient was complaining of heart-burn and back pain and medicines were prescribed to him. The prescription,ExR4 clearly shows that the patient was advised to undergo CAG but, it is indicated that the patient was "not willing at present". At this instance, the cross-examination of CW1 is reproduced below:
"Whether they asked my father to undergo angiogram is known to my
mother and not known to me".
9. This statement has been made by CW1, i.e. complainant No.3. that he is not aware whether the opposite parties have advised coronary angiogram, but it is known only to his mother, i.e. 1st complainant. To find out whether angiogram was known to his mother can be proved only by examining her, but she was not examined to prove complainant’s stand. Hence, the allegation that CABG was not done at the first instance on 08.01.2011 cannot be taken into consideration for the alleged medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties. Moreover, the opposite parties have filed the document, dt.08.01.2011 which is the vital document to prove this case, wherein, it is clearly mentioned that the patient was advised CABG but not willing at present . Hence, the allegation made by the complainants that CABG was not advised at the first instance is not proved to fix negligence on the part of the O.Ps. For bypass surgery, the patient has to undergo coronary angiogram. Since it is proved that the patient was not willing to undergo coronary angiogram on 08.01.2011 the question of conducting bypass surgery during the first visit of the patient is ruled out. From this, it is clear that the opposite parties have followed the prescribed medical pattern in treating the patient. Hence, the allegations made by the complainants cannot be sustained.
10. Further to prove the case, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case “Martin F.D’Souza Vs. Mohd. Ishfaq “ (2009), the judgment of a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of “Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab and Anoather” (2005) lucidly elaborating the general principles relating to medical negligence and in the case of “Bolam Vs. Friern Hospital Management Committee”, and summarized the relevant principles which are to the following effect:
a) The practitioner must bring to his task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence is what the law requires.
b) It is well established law that it is sufficient if he exercises the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man exercising that particular art.
c) a medical practitioner is not liable to be held negligent simply because things went wrong from mischance or misadventure or through an error of judgment in choosing one reasonable course of treatment in preference to another.
11. From the above landmark judgments and the facts and circumstances, it is proved beyond doubt that the opposite parties followed the normal course of treatment by advising the patient to undergo CAG, but, it was denied by the patient. This amply shows that the doctors are not at fault that the surgery was not suggested to the patient during his first visit to the O.P.s hospital.
12. Another allegation leveled against the O.P.s that the case records and the C.Ds were not handed over to the complainants. It is seen from the records and from the argument of the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the entire records were seized by the Police for investigation. Hence, there is no substance in the above
allegation and it has to be discarded.
13. As discussed above, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that there is no negligence on the part of the opposite parties in treating Krishnajayanthan, the deceased. Since there is no medical negligence on the part of opposite parties, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.
Dated this the 12th day of January, 2017..
(Justice K.VENKATARAMAN)
PRESIDENT
(K.K.RITHA)
MEMBER
(S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)
MEMBER
LIST OF COMPLAINANTS’ WITNESSES:
CW1 – K.Jothimani, 3rd Complainant, Proof-Affidavit filed on 25.09.2014 and cross-
examined on 08.02.2015.
LIST OF COMPLAINANTS’ EXHIBITS:
Ex.C1 – Copy of F.I.R.No.14/2011, dt.04.01.2011 of Reddiarpalayam P.S.,
Puducherry, marked through CW1.
Ex.C2 – Copy of Medico-Legal Post-Mortem Examination Report, dt.27.01.2011,
issued by Indira Gandhi Govt. General Hospital, Puducherry, marked
through CW1.
Ex.C3 – Copy of Form of supply of Information to the Applicant under RTI Act, dt.
18.05.2012, marked through CW1.
Ex.C4 – Certificate of Death, issued by Oulgaret Municipality, marked through CW1.
Ex.C5 – Copy of Legal-heirship Certificate, issued by Revenue Department, Taluk
Office, Vridhachalam, Cuddalore District, marked through CW1.
Ex.C6 – 20 Nos of prescriptions and cash vouchers for the purchase of medicines,
etc., by A.G.Padmavathy’s Hospital, Puducherry, marked through CW1.
Ex.C7 – Copy of Case Summary relating to deceased, issued by O.P.No.3, marked
through CW1.
Ex.C8 – Copy of Salary Slip for the month of November, 2010 of deceased, Issued by
TNSTC, Villupuram Division, marked through CW1.
Ex.C9 – Copy of Death Certificate of one Thangammal, issued by Revenue
Department, Govt. of Tamilnadu, marked through CW1.
LIST OF OPPOSITE PARTIES’ WITNESS:
RW1 – Dr.Sumathi Elangovan, O.P.No.1, Proof Affidavit filed on 16.04.2015 and
cross-examined on 20.08.2015.
LIST OF OPPOSITE PARTIES’ EXHIBITS:
Ex.R1 – 10 pages of Copy of Out-Patient Record relating to deceased KrishnaJjyan
than, maintained by A.G.Padmavathy’s Hospital Ltd., marked thro’RW1.
Ex.R2 – 19 pages of Copy of In-Patient Record relating to deceased Krishna
jayanthan, maintained by A.G.Padmavathy’s Hospital Ltd., marked through
RW1.
Ex.R3 - 30 pages of Copy of Out-Patient Record relating to deceased Krishna
jayanthan, maintained by A.G.Padmavathy’s Hospital Ltd., marked through
RW1.
Ex.R4 – Copy of Prescription, dt.08.01.2011 to deceased Krishnajayanthan, issued
by O.P.s 1 and 2, marked through RW1.
(Justice K.VENKATARAMAN)
PRESIDENT
(K.K.RITHA)
MEMBER
(S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)
MEMBER
