IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 30th day of July, 2022.
Filed on : 02.02.2022
Present
- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar BSc.,LL.B (President )
- Smt.P.R Sholy, B.A.L, LLB (Member)
-
CC/No.28/2022
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Dr. Thulasi Somanandan 1. The Administrative Officer
W/o Dr. G. Somanandan K.M Cheriyan Institute of
Sreenilayam Veedu Medical Science,Kallisseri
Anjilipra, Thattarambalam.P.O Chengannur-689124
Alappuzha
(Adv. C. Ajith Sankar) 2. Chairman
K.M Cheriyan Institute of
Medical Science, Kallisseri
Chengannur
(Adv. V.O.Robinson)
O R D E R
SMT. SHOLY.P.R (MEMBER)
Complaint filed u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
1. The averments in the complaint as follows:-
The complainant’s husband was admitted immediately after the stroke at the opposite party’s hospital, i.e on September 19th 2021. The covid test report was negative for both the complainant and husband. After that the patient was admitted to the MICU. Covid test was done on September 27t h and that day also the result was negative. The complainant was the bystander and even after 9 days of admission, no room was provided for the bystander.
After 16 days the patient started continuously coughing and the doctor had given medicine for cough. The complainant enquired and got to know that two of the patients in the MICU was reported covid positive and after knowing that the complainant’s husband was tested and the result was positive. At the same time, the complainant and relatives were tested and result was negative. Which states that the complainant’s husband had got covid from the MICU. Even after knowing that one of the patients got covid +ve , the opposite party had not taken any actions to isolate the diseased person or take care of the rest of the patients in the MICU. After knowing the result got positive the opposite party forcefully, tried to discharge the complainant’s husband and they did not even considered the critical situation of the patients. But after protest the patient was moved to covid ICU. Even before the result got negative, the opposite parties tried to discharge the patient and the complainant questioned the same to the doctor and the doctor said that the decision was taken by the management and he had nothing to do with it.
When the complainant demanded itemized bill from the authorities of the hospital they did not given the same. Subsequently on 26/10/2021 the itemized bill given by the opposite parties realized that the opposite parties obtained more amount for the treatment of covid-19 than the treatment of stroke.
It happened only due to the negligence of the opposite parties that the complainant’s husband has been affected covid +ve at their hospital in a critical condition of his disease and resulting to obtain a huge amount of Rs. 5,68,807.92/- from the complainant. The opposite parties are liable to treat the complainant’s husband free of cost since he was affected from opposite parties hospital. Complainant’s husband will be still alive if not affected covid+ve from the opposite party hospital. He was died on 9/11/2021 due to post covid complication after being discharged from opposite party hospital. The opposite party is also liable to refund Rs.3,13,558/- being obtained from the complainant as excess amount for covid treatment of her husband. Hence filed this complaint seeking refund of the said amount from the opposite parties.
2. Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed a joint version mainly contenting as follows:-
The above complaint is not maintainable either in law of facts. The complainant’s husband Mr. G. Somanandan was admitted to K.M. Cherian Institute of Medical Science on 19/9/2021 for treatment relating to stroke. After initial diagnosis, it was concluded that a temporary pacemaker implantation was necessary as suggested by the cardiology department. But following Mr. G.Somanadan’s bystander’s strict refusal for the same, the opposite parties were forced to continue on medical management of the patient. The complainant was allowed to stay as a bystander for Mr. G. Somanandan.
A Covid test was done on Mr. G.Somanandan before he was admitted to the MICU where it was observed that he was negative. While undergoing, treatment, Mr. G Somanandan suffered from persistent cough, following which another covid test was performed on him, which showed the result as positive, following which appropriate treatments were made accordingly.
The contention of the complainant that 2 patients in the MICU were already Covid positive is completely false and denied as the complainant had not sufficient or able means to inquire or find out about the same. Mr. G. Somananndan’s treatment in the MICU he had started to show considerable improvement in his conditions. His neurological status had not worsened and was improving, following which on 5/10/2021, he was shifted to the ward of the bystander’s choice. It is practically impossible to say from where Mr. G Somanandan had received covid. The opposite parties deny the fact that they were negligent to the complainant’s husband.
No other patients in the MICU were suffering from Covid at the time when Mr.G somanandan was admitted. The opposite parties have not received any kind of complaints or information about the same from the other patients in the MICU. All patients are subjected to a mandatory covid test before being admitted into the hospital and they are admitted to the MICU only after the test result shows them as Covid negative. The opposite parties have followed this mandated protocol and have never been negligent regarding the same. No incidents of a patient in the MICU turning covid +ve, other than Mr. G. Somanadan, were reported. Hence, the contention of the complaint that Mr. G Somanadan turned positive due to the negligence of the opposite parties is baseless and is denied.
Mr. G.Somanandan had not been forcefully discharged. Mr. G. Somanandan’s bystanders were given the following options after he was tested covid +ve, as the required protocol mandated.
a. To have shifted to the Covid ICU
b. To have Taken home with medical support.
c)To have shifted to a Covid care centre.
Mr. G. Somanandan’s by standers opted to have him shifted to the Covid ICU which was followed with all the required and necessary treatment and care. Under the direct care of the medical ICU in –charge. Throughout the duration of Mr. G. Somanandan’s stay in the hospital, his by-standers were updated with the patient’s condition on a regular basis. All treatment procedures and further steps have been taken by these opposite parties by following the mandated medical procedures and other necessary protocols.
The contention that the opposite parties refused to give the itemized bill to the complainant is false. The itemized bill could be made available to the complainant only on discharge of the patient and was made available to the complainant at that time since it is the general practice that is followed. Mr. G. Somanandan had been subjected to both neurological treatment as well as covid treatment, both which follows 2 different distinct treatments and protocols and comparing expenses for both would be a foolhardy practice. The treatment protocols for both are entirely different and for the same reason, the quota of expenses would be different for both. The patient had been discharged from the hospital on 26/10/2021 only after subjecting him to all the required treatments and only after making sure that he was covid negative. The opposite parties have duly served Mr. G. Somanandan with the discharge summary and had also been duty bound in advising him to follow the prescribed medicines without default along with other special instructions. The opposite parties have committed their mandated duty regarding this and have not been negligent in any manner. The opposite parties have not induced the complainant to pay any amount other than what they owe to the opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled to any relief prayed for in the complaint.
3. On the above pleadings the points raised for consideration are:-
1. Whether the husband of the complainant received covid due to the negligence of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the bills charged for treatment of covid are liable to be refunded to the complainant?
3. Reliefs and cost?
4. Evidence in this case consists oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1, A2 series and A3 series from the side of the complainant and oral evidence of RW1 and RW2 and Ext.B1 and B2 and Ext.B3 series to B7 series from the side of opposite parties. Opposite parties filed notes of argument. Heard both sides.
5. Point No. 1 and 2:-
PW1, is the complainant in this case. She filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and got marked Ext.A1, A2 series and A3 series.
RW1 is the billing co-ordinater of the opposite party hospital. He filed an affidavit stated that the husband of the complainant has undergone treatment in opposite party hospital from 19/9/2021 to 26/10/2021 and during this period an amount of Rs.5,68,807.92 has been incurred for the treatment and issued a detailed bill for the same. The husband of the complainant was treated as inpatient in the covid ICU of opposite party hospital for a period of 18 days and collected its charge of Rs. 14,0400/- @ Rs. 7,800/- per day. He got marked Ext.B1 and Ext.B2. Ext.B1 is the copy of detailed bill regarding the treatment of the husband of the complainant at opposite party hospital.Ext.B2 is the copy of government order dtd. 7.7.2021 with respect to the Covid-19 treatment charges in private hospitals for the walk in patients. (Other than KASP Beneficiaries and Government referred patients). He also stated that the balance amount in the bill is the combined expense for the treatment of Covid-19 and stroke sustained by the husband of the complainant and the expense for covid 19 treatment was obtained only as per the direction made in Ext.B2. There was no negligence or deficiency on the part of opposite parties hospital
RW2 who is working as consultant neurologist at opposite party hospital. She had treated the husband of the complainant at opposite party hospital. The document shown during chief examination verified and stated that the same is the treatment records of the husband of the complainant from 19/9/2021 to 26/10/2021 and got marked Ext.B3 series to B7 series. The patient was referred from nearby hospital due to a fall in bathroom and at the time he was brought there the patient was unconscious. He underwent a bypass surgery earlier and was having Diabetic and Hypertension. He was admitted in MICU and was treated there till 5/10/2021. Rw2 had seen the patient first on 20/9/2021, 11. AM. He was very weak during that period and subsequently the condition improved while the treatment was going on.
The patient was shifted to the room on 5/10/2021 where on 6/10/2021 he showed cough. Since the period was covid-19 pandemic and Patient sustained cough tested covid test and found positive on 7/10/2021. Opposite parties suggested 3 options to the complainant as per the mandated protocol, such as ,
1. To have the patient shifted to the covid ICU.
2. To have the patient home since the patient and wife, the complainant are doctors.
3. To have the patient shifted to a covid care centre.
They opted to continue treatment at Covid ICU. The patient was discharged on 26/10/2021. Injection was taken through drip by diluting with 100ML Saline. The patient was treated by the doctors of other departments. There needed 12-15 bottles of 100ML Normal Saline for a day for taking injection only. Saline will be used for other purpose also since the patient was having stroke. There was 3 or 4 doctors examined the patient a day and altogether 9 numbers of nurses has to be caring the patient and since the said period was covid pandemic each time separate gloves used on each visit. If any one affected covid at MICU the infection control team of the opposite party hospital will do 3 steps of treatment at MICU, i.e disinfection, decontamination and deep cleaning and as per protocol the patient was shifted to step down ICU and after taking the above 3 steps the patient was returned to the MICU.
Bystanders were allowed at MICU subjected to a mandatory covid test resulted negative. The relatives of the patients treated for stroke also allowed to visit the patients since their presence would changed the condition of the patient subject to the mandatory covid test of negative and wearing PPE Kit.
A patient named Lilly was undergone treatment at opposite party hospital at ER ICU which is at ground floor of the hospital building. MICU is at 2nd floor and the husband of the complainant was shifted from there at 5th floor. Covid 19 is an airborne disease and will affected immediately to a person having some other co-morbidities. The physical condition of the complainant’s husband was at high risk and his condition was stable at the time of discharge from hospital comparatively at the time of admission at hospital.
The substance of the evidence is discussed above. On 19/9/2021 husband of the PW1 was admitted to the MICU of opposite party hospital for treatment relating to stroke. Before being admitted, the complainant and her husband were subjected to a mandatory covid test and were given admission only after obtaining a negative result. On 5/10/2021 he was shifted to the room and it was observed that the husband of the complainant started to suffer from persistent cough and another covid test was done on the patient and resulted as positive. Subsequently as chosen by the complaint and her husband he was referred to covid ICU and treatment continued there for both covid and stroke. Thereafter he was discharged on 26/10/2021 only after subjecting him to all the required treatments and only after making sure that he was covid negative. PW1 contented that there were 2 covid Positive patients in the MICU during the time the husband of PW1 had undergone treatment at MICU and that it was from this source that the husband of the complainant affected covid positive. Accordingly complainant alleged that her husband received covid in the MICU itself due to the negligence of the opposite party and that no covid protocols have been follows by the opposite parties. The complainant further contented that the opposite parties had obtained exorbitant amount for covid treatment than the stroke.
After being discharged from hospital on 26/10/2021 the complainant’s husband died on 9/11/2021. It is also alleged that the death was due to the morbidities sustained by post covid complications. According to PW1 the only source is MICU of opposite party hospital where 2 patients had already tested covid positive. Alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the side of opposite parties the complainant filed this complaint for getting the amount being obtained by the opposite parties from the complainant in excessive for treatment of covid affected to the husband of the complainant due to the negligence of the opposite parties which resulted the death of the husband of the complainant. Complainant claims an amount of Rs.3,13,558/- from the opposite parties to be claimed as excess amount obtained unnecessarily from the complainant for the covid treatment of her husband. Opposite parties 1 and 2 filed a joint version denying the allegations. According to them covid affected to the husband of the complainant nowhere at opposite party hospital. Opposite parties also categorically stated that they had collected the covid treatment charges as per the Ext.B2, Government circular. However it is to be noted that the only point brought into the main discussion is the source of covid to the husband of the complainant. The depositions of RW2 itself negative their own contentions regarding the matter. The counsel appearing for the complainant pointed out that the complainant’s husband died due to the post covid complications. It was reiterated by the deposition of RW2, viz Progress Dff Patient \v covid __m[n-¨m complication Dm-Ip-sa-¶-dn-bmw It is also deposed RW2 that “. Xm¦-fpsS hosptial  sh¨v patinet \v covid _m[n-¨-Xn-\m carelessness sImmWv patient acn-¨-sX¶v ]d-bp-¶p. (Q) ]d-bm³ Ign-bn-Ã. (A) Here Rw2 answered in uncertainity and in further questioning she deposed that she did not saw the patient (husband of the complainant) after affecting covid. She was also having no direct knowledge of the condition of the patient further more.
It is also to be noted that though RW2 has no knowledge about the covid to the patient named Lilly at opposite party hospital, it was admitted by Rw1 during cross examination by the leaned counsel appearing for the complainant that it was informed to the government the affection of covid to the patient named Lilly at MICU. In the said circumstances the other facts like availability of Covid ICU, functioning of infection control team, shifting of affected patients to ICU etc are not relevant in case of death due to covid. It is also to be noted that the husband of the complainant was affected covid positive after 18 days of his admission at MICU of opposite parties hospital. Opposite parties categorically stated in their version and their witnesses RW1 and RW2 specifically deposed that during the period they were complied all the protocol for admission of patient, treatment, allowing visitors and bystanders etc, especially allowing the visitors and bystanders subject to the testing of covid negative. Accordingly there was no access of outside affection of covid to the husband of the complainant. Hence we are of the opinion that the husband of the complainant has affected covid at MICU of opposite party hospital and which is only due to the negligence of opposite parties and hence complainant entitled to refund the amount as admitted by RW2 during cross examination that the hospital is liable to treat the patient free of cost if affected the disease due to the negligence of the hospital. Moreover regarding Ext.A2 series, B1 and B3 series to B7 series (All are one and the same) as contented by the complainant medicines were prescribed excessive and it is unbelievable to use 17 bottles of 100 ML NS to a single patient per day because in our knowledge antibiotic is using a maximum of 6 hours intervals in a day. During cross examination also RW2 did not answered in the question of usage of such a quantity of saline. Ofcourse it is only due to the carelessness and negligence on the part of opposite party hospital to affect Covid to the husband of the complainant since the same was reflected after 17 days of 1st test which resulted negative, especially he was under the control of MICU being continued with strict protocol of Covid-19, which is within the incubation period of 1-14 days stipulated in medical science and we realized that there was no chance for contact with any outside of covid-19 in the MICU. On all over evaluation of the evidence in this case proved the complaint and thus complainant along with other legal heirs of the deceased entitled to return the amount of Rs.3,13,558/- from the opposite parties.
Point No. 3:-
In the result, complaint is allowed.
a) Opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the amount of Rs.3,13,558/- (Rupees three lakh thirteen thousand five hundred and fifty eight) before this Commission within a month of receipt of this order and the same shall be disbursed to the Legal Representatives of the deceased Somanandan, the husband of the complainant on production of the Legal Heirship certificate from the Authority concerned.
b) Both parties shall bear their respective cost.
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 23rdday of July 2022.
Sd/-Smt.Sholy.P.R (Member)
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar (President)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Dr. Thulasi Somanandan(Complainant)
Ext.A1 - Lawyers Notice
Ext.A2 - IP Refund Voucher & Discharge summary details & Bills.
Ext.A3 - Discharge Summary
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Shinto Jose
RW2 - Dr. Preethy .V. Varghese(Witness)
Ext.B1 - Discharge Bill Summary &Details
Ext.B2 - Copy of Order dtd. 7/7/2021 from Health &Family Welfare
Department
Ext.B3 to B7 series- Discharge Bill details
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:- Assistant Registrar
