| Final Order / Judgement | Date of filing:22.11.2014 Date of Disposal:23.08.2023 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMR DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH) DATED: 23rd Day of August 2023 PRESENT Mr. K B SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER Mrs.M.DIVYASHREE : LADY MEMBER APPEAL NO. 1618/2014 ORDER BY Mr. K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: Pri. Dist. & Session Judge (R)- JUDICIAL MEMBER: - This is an appeal filed by complainant in CC/07/2012 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chickmagalur aggrieved by the order dated 03.03.2014.
- Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order and heard learned counsels for parties to the appeal. (The parties in this appeal will be referred herein after as their rank assigned to them by the Forum below.)
- One Mr.D.D.Chandregowda, S/o Devegowda initiated complaint against OP Nos.1 to 7 alleging medical negligence in not treating his mother had sought compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. It was his case that his mother was admitted to Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology with a complaint of lymph-node in her right neck below the ear. After her admission in the said hospital OP Nos.2 to 5 has not treated her properly to remove the lymph-node and he alleges that they have not done a surgery to remove the said lymph-node in spite of repeated requests. OP Nos.2 to 5 are none other Prof. of Surgery, Prof. of Anesthesia, Prof. of Radiation, Prof. of Anesthesia (Pain Killer) of the OP1 hospital while OP6 is ENT specialist a private doctor of Chickamagalur and OP7 is M/s Chethana Nursing Home. In other words, OP Nos.6 and 7 are from one entity while OP Nos.1 to 5 are from another entity attached to the OP1 Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology.
- The OPs have contested the complaint of whom OP1 submitted version denying categorically allegations as to medical negligence on the part of OP Nos.2 to 5. While OP Nos.2 to 7 have adopted version submitted by OP1.
- Smt.Hoovamma, mother of complainant was aged about 85 years as found from Ex.P1 issued by OP7 nursing home. It is found from enquiry OP6 referred their patient Smt.Hoovamma to the OP1 hospital with history of lymph-node in the neck. She was hospitalized for such treatment for one month and during her hospitalization OP Nos.2 to 5 conducted several medical tests and examination to arrive whether surgery has to be conduct or not or other alternative method have to be adopted for treatment. It is found from enquiry that on 16.09.2009 she was re-admitted to OP1 hospital for further diagnosis, since patient was advised to re-admit one month after her discharge from OP1 hospital. However, the Forum found that Smt.Hoovamma, was taken out from the hospital without the knowledge of OP1 against the medical advice and the complainant had not explained reasons for taking the patient from OP1 hospital against medical advice. It is found from the evidence of OP2 that patient was examined at head and neck-2 and after due detailed clinical examination her right cervical swelling was diagnosed as MUO (Metastasis of unknown origin-neck). As such she was advised basic investigation such as Blood tests, Hemogram, Liver Function tests (LFT), Renal Function tests (RFT), HIV (for ADIS), Hbs Ag (Jaundice-Hepatitis), Chest X-ray, Heart evaluation at Jayadeva, Slide review, FNAC of Cervial II Lymph node, X-ray neck, AP & LATERAL, Upper Gi endoscopy (OGD), Oesophago Gastro Duodenoscopy. The FNAC was done at OP1 hospital and noticed that Metastatic poorly differentiated Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Further during the course of enquiry of OP2 Forum below found surgery was not opted to the patient Smt.Hoovamma and they have come to the conclusion that she has to be given radio therapy and accordingly OP4 had conducted radio therapy during hospitalization. The Forum below found evidence to state that patient was asked to come after one month and found she was treated as out-patient and not as an in-patient. They found patient is an old case of CVA (Cardio Vascular Stroke), CVS (Cardio Vascular System) atrial fibrillation with pulmonary hypertension, RS (Respiratory system), crepts ++basal, basal crepitations also indicate fluid in the lung or head strain. The most important fact which the Forum below found was in view of her old age her general condition was poor tolerance assessed by walking and climbing stairs, poor cardiovascular pulmonary reserves, unconsciousness on and off, respiratory extra sounds in the lungs and also prolonged surgery for more than 03½ hours proposed. In such circumstances, OPs were of the opinion that she was extremely high risk for surgery. OP3 has explained the method of treatment given to her. It is found from evidence of OP4 that there was no delay in the delivery of radiation treatment and during the course of evidence OP4 explained the method of treatment given to Smt.Hoovamma, mother of complainant during her hospitalization. OP5 in his evidence explained patient was referred to pain clinic and she was treated from 20.11.2009 to 23.11.2009. On 22.11.2009 patient’s pain relief was not adequate; hence oral morphine was titrated according to the pain. On 23.11.2009 her condition was drowsy and administered I.V. Fluids and symptomatic treatment. She was not on Oral Morphine from 12.11.2009 to 19.11.2009 and on 23.11.2009 at 2:10pm her condition was explained to the attendant and the attendant wished to take her home in spite of their advice not to take her home at such stage.
- In the above such circumstances, as the Forum below examined all the medical records of the OP1 Hospital and the line of treatment adopted by OP Nos.2 to 5, thereby found there is no any minor negligence on their part in treating mother of complainant. In our view even from re evaluation of the evidence on record Forum below has to be held right that negligence could not be attributed to Ops even on any remote circumstances.
- The enquiry reveals that Smt.Hoovamma was admitted to OP7 hospital where she died and for such death he cannot allege medical negligence on the part of OP Nos.6 and 7. The most important fact to be observed herein that complainant had not produced any secondary medical expert’s opinion that Smt.Hoovamma was not properly treated by OP Nos.2 to 5. Whether surgery for removal of lymph node is necessary or not were to decide by OP Nos.1 to 5 considering her old age, since she was sufficiently aged, when referred by OP6 to go to OP1 was 85 years. In our view and on our re-evaluation of the treatment modalities during the course of her treatment in the OP1 hospital were to be held right judgment. On the contrary, complainant has failed to place an alternative experts evidence to rebut their evidence was also rightly appreciated by the Forum below. The enquiry also reveals that while patient was admitted to OP1 hospital about obtaining cardiac evaluation report from Jayadeva Institute of Cardiology, Bengaluru and obtaining of CT and GTCS from Nimhans, Bengaluru, as already stated above, since she was taking treatment for GTCS since 2001.
- According to complainant being loving son lymph node in neck may be simple but facts remain that the OP Nos.1 to 5 are experts and some time lymph nodes can also be a sign of cancer, including a type of blood cancer called lymphoma, since his age of mother was 85 and in such circumstance what the OPs of OP1 hospital have taken decision could not be fault with and we cannot attribute medicinal negligence.
- In view of the above discussions, Commission did not find any errors either on facts or on law committed by Forum below in not attributing medical negligence on the part of OP Nos.1 to 5 and OP Nos.6 and 7. Hence proceed to dismiss the complaint with no order as to cost.
- Remit back the LCR to Commission below.
- Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties to the appeal.
Lady Member Judicial Member *GGH* | |
