Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/100/2016

Athiya Banu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Hosmet Hospital Pvt Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

M. Suresh

05 Dec 2016

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON : 28.10.2016

     DISPOSED ON: 05/12/2016

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA

CC. NO. 100/2016 DATED:  05th  December 2016

PRESENT :-     SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH      PRESIDENT                                      B.A., LL.B.,

                        SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY             MEMBER

                                         B.A., LL.B.,          

COMPLAINANTS	1. Athiya Banu, W/o Muneer Pasha, Age: 58 Years,   2. Anwar Pasha, S/o Muneer Pasha, Age: 40 Years, Civil Police Constable, Rampura Police Station, Molakalmuru Taluk, Chitradurga District.   (Rep by Sri.M. Suresh, Advocate)
OPPOSITE PARTIES	The Hosmet Hospital Pvt. Ltd., No.45, Magrath Roa, Richmond Road, B’lore-560025. Reptd.by it’s   1. Managing Director, 2. Dr. Chandi, 3. Dr. Praveen, 4. Dr. Satish, 5. Dr. Santhosh, 6. Dr. Jekab, 7. Dr. Ravishankar.   (Rep by Sri.Mohammed Sheriff, Advocate)

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH. PRESIDENT.

ORDERS ON MAINTAINANILITY

The complainant has filed a complaint U/s 12 of C.P. Act 1986 against the OPs for a d irection to the OPs to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as damages towards medical negligence, Rs.4,00,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.5,00,000/- towards physical discomfort and future treatment/medical expenses  and such other reliefs.

2.     The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that, complainant No.1 Athiya Bhanu got admitted to OP Hospital on 08.12.2014 for the complaint of pain in knee.  On 10.12.2014 the left leg knee was replaced in OP’s Hospital by the OP No.2 to 7 and shifted to ward.  As she was suffering from pain, she asked the duty Nurse to consult Doctor to give medicine to reduce the pain, but the duty Nurse was not obliged either to call the Doctor to attend the patient.  On 11.12.2014, OP No.3 visited the patient and given treatment to reduce the pain.  Thereafter, she became week due to pain and suffering and loss of blood.  Two bottles of blood was transfused to Athiya Banu.  Again on 15.12.2014 she was taken to O.T for replacement of knee of right leg.  At that time, her condition was not stable but, the doctors have taken her for operation in order to fulfil the corporate Hospital condition by the doctors suppressing the condition of the patient.  After completion of operation process the team of Doctors informed to complainant No.2 that, the heartbeat of complainant No.1 was stopped for two minutes and with great efforts saved.  It is further submitted that, on 18.12.2014 complainant No.1 gain conscious and she was shifted to a ward No.200B from ICU and her condition was not good and she behaved like a mad.  Again on 20.12.2014 she shifted to ICU.  On enquiry, OP No.3 expressed that, there is no fault in replacement procedure, the problem is with OP No.6, i.e., in giving Anesthesia.  It is further submitted that, on 24.12.2014 in the telecast in 24 x 7 Kannada News OP No.3 admitted that, he has given information about the negligence of OP No.6 and OP No.2 took responsibility to give better treatment to complainant No.1, which shows that, the Doctors of Hosmet Hospital have failed to give proper service to complainant No.1 as required by the prudent medical practice and they have neglected in taking precautions before giving anesthesia to the patient/complainant No.1.  The Anesthesia has their own advantage and disadvantage.  Over dosage or the method of giving Anesthesia is the risk factor.  In the discharge summary, Ops have manipulated the Anesthesia proceedings followed by the Hospital.  It is further submitted that, on 24.01.2015 when the complainant No.1 went for urinals along with House Keepers she fell down in the bath room.  It is further submitted that, when complainant was not in a walking condition, why she was taken to wash room is a mysterious thing, she could not have been provided with bed pan, which is a negligence of the Ops in housekeeping.  After the said incident, house keeper baby was removed and by name Surya was substituted for the house keeping.  As the complainant fell down in the bathroom, her left leg patella was broken and she was taken for patella operation on 31.01.2015 by taking signatures of complainant No.2 on several printed forms and blank papers.  After some time, Doctors came out and expressed that, due to mental imbalance, patient is not co-operating for operation as she is shaking her legs as she lost control of her leg due to brain damage and applied POP and told that, in future complainant No.1 cannot fold her leg or she cannot travel in Public Transport and shifted her to ward.  It is further submitted that, the Hospital Management Committee called the complainant No.2 and advised him to take her mother to home as there is no treatment and they will provide physiotherapy and housekeeping in their place and the patient was discharged from the Hospital on 07.03.2015 and she was shifted to Rampura in the OP’s Ambulance with snatcher and wheel chair and bed and medicine for two months and after two months the OP Hospital has sent the medicine through courier but, failed to keep up the promises made at the time of counselling, for which complainant No.1 lost her consciousness and memory and she also unable to fold her left leg and she has lost control over passing of urine and motion.  It is further submitted that, on 22.05.2015 complainant No.2 took her mother to Sagar Hospital, Bangalore for further treatment, there they have asked for medical report.  The OP Hospital has not handed over the treatment papers and details of operation conducted to the complainant No.1, only a discharge summary and medical prescription was given at the time of discharge.  Complainant asked the OP Hospital to give all these details but, the same were not yet received till today.  It is further submitted that, due to negligence on the part of OP No.6 in giving Anesthesia and the staff of OP Hospital, complainant No.1 was suffering from pain and mental agony which is a deficiency of service and prayed for allowing the complaint.

3.     On service of notice, OPs appeared through Sri. Mohammed Sheriff, Advocate and filed preliminary objections stating that, the complaint is based totally on presumptions and conjectures drawn by the complainants and not based on any cogent and valid documents or opinion, the same is vexatious and ought to be dismissed under the provisions of 26 of the Act with cost.  It is further submitted that, the complainant has suggested total falsehoods solely to suit this convenience, on this ground alone the complaint ought to be dismissed with cost.  The services rendered by the OP Hospital was performed at the address shown in the cause title, is outside the jurisdiction of this Forum and this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate in this matter.  It is further submitted that, the cause of action as stated in the complaint does not attract the provisions of Sec.11 of the C.P Act, 1986. It is just and necessary, the objections regarding the territorial jurisdiction should be taken at the earliest opportunity in this case and the OP Hospital does not carry on business or services or have a branch within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.    

        4.     Heard Arguments.

5.     Now the Points that arise for our consideration for the decision of the complaint are that:

 

Point No.1:- Whether the complainants prove that, the complaint filed by them before this Forum is maintainable or not?

 

Point No.2:- What order?

        6.     Our findings on the above points are as follows:

 

        Point No.1:- Negative.

        Point No.2:- As per the final order.

                                        ::REASONS::

 

7. Point No. 1:- It is not in dispute that, on 08.12.2014 complainant No.1 got admitted in the OP Hospital for her knee pain and her left leg knee was replaced on 10.12.2014 by the Doctors of OP Hospital and she was shifted to ward.  On 11.12.2014, OP No.3 visited the patient and given treatment to reduce the pain.  Thereafter, she became week due to pain and suffering and loss of blood.  Again on 15.12.2014 she was taken to O.T for replacement of knee of right leg.  It is the contention of the complainant No.1 that, at that time, patient’s condition was not stable but, the doctors have taken her for operation in order to fulfil the corporate Hospital condition by the doctors suppressing the condition of the patient.  On 18.12.2014 complainant No.1 gain conscious and she was shifted to a ward No.200B from ICU and her condition was not good and she behaved like a mad.  Again on 20.12.2014 she shifted to ICU.  On enquiry, OP No.3 expressed that, there is no fault in replacement procedure, the problem is with OP No.6, i.e., in giving Anesthesia.  On 24.12.2014 in the telecast in 24 x 7 Kannada News OP No.3 admitted that, he has given information about the negligence of OP No.6 and OP No.2 took responsibility to give better treatment to complainant No.1 but, the Doctors of Hosmet Hospital have failed to give proper service to complainant No.1 as required by the prudent medical practice and they have neglected in taking precautions before giving Anesthesia to the patient/complainant No.1.  Over dosage or the method of giving Anesthesia is the risk factor.  In the discharge summary, OPs have manipulated the Anesthesia proceedings followed by the Hospital.  As the complainant fell down in the bathroom, her left leg patella was broken and she was taken for patella operation on 31.01.2015 and after some time, Doctors told that, due to mental imbalance, patient is not co-operating for operation as she is shaking her legs as she lost control of her leg due to brain damage and applied P.O.P and told that, in future complainant No.1 cannot fold her leg or she cannot travel in Public Transport and shifted her to ward.  The Hospital Management Committee called the complainant No.2 and advised him to take her mother to home as there is no treatment and they will provide physiotherapy and housekeeping in their place and the patient was discharged from the Hospital on 07.03.2015 and she was shifted to Rampura in the OP’s Ambulance with medicine for two months and after two months the OP Hospital has sent the medicine through courier but, failed to keep up the promises made at the time of counselling, for which complainant No.1 lost her consciousness and memory and she also unable to fold her left leg and she has lost control over passing of urine and motion, it is due to negligence on the part of OP No.6 in giving Anesthesia and the staff of OP Hospital, for which complainant No.1 was suffering from pain and mental agony therefore, filed a complaint.

8.     It is the contention of the OPs that,  the complaint  is vexatious and ought to be dismissed under the provisions of 26 of the Act and the  services rendered by the OP Hospital was performed at the outside the jurisdiction of this Forum and this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate in this matter.  The cause of action as stated in the complaint does not attract the provisions of Sec.11 of the C.P Act, 1986 and the OP Hospital does not carry on business or services or have a branch within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

9.     On hearing the rival contentions of both the parties and on perusal of the complaint, version and the documents, it is very clear that, the complainant No.1 got admitted in the OP Hospital, at Bangalore and took treatment for her both knees at Bangalore only.  Having considered the arguments addressed on behalf of the parties and having perused the records, we are of the considered opinion that the question of jurisdiction should be first decided by us before going into the merits of the case on hand.  Here in this case, the OP Institution is residing at Bangalore and the cause of action also has arisen at Bangalore, therefore, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and the complainants have to get their redressal by filing a complaint before the proper Forum, where the cause of action took place i.e., at Bangalore.  Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered. For the foregoing reasons, we pass the following.

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainants U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is disposed off. 

The complainants are hereby directed to file a complaint before the proper Forum for their redressal. 

Office is hereby directed to return the original complaint with documents to the complainants by keeping a copy of the same.  

(This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 21/11/2016 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures.)

 

 

 

                                                                                        

MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT

 

Rhr.