SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT. This is a complaint for seeking compensation and costs etc. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: On 8.12.2004 at about 6.45a.m. the complainant went to Parabhraahma Specialty Hospital and Research Centre, Oachira for consultation as he was suffering from stomach pain. The 2nd opp.party was the consultant physician and the complainant approached him and after examination the 2nd opp.party directed the complainant to take ECG. After seeing the ECG the 2nd opp.party prescribed certain medicine and suggested to be admitted as an impatient in the ICU for 3-4 days. But instead of admitting him in the ICU he was admitted at room No.321 saying that he will be shifted to ICU after a while.. One of the friend of the complainant who visited him at the hospital on the same day hearing the news asked about the illness and the 2nd opp.party told him that the complainant requires 4 to 5days admission in the ICU for curing his illness. When the nurse came the complainant asked her about the admission in the ICU and she said that the 2nd opp.party directed her to admit the complainant in the ICU at 4 pm. At 6.45 PM on that day, the complainant was shifted to the ICU. On 10.12.2004 at 1 PM the stomach pain of the complainant considerably increased and the complainant asked the nurse to call the doctor and immediately the surgeon on duty Dr. Suiresh rushed to the complainant and examination advise to take X-ray and scanning. He removed the tubes fitted in the body of the complainant and gave an injunction for pain. At 4 p.m. the complainant met Dr. Suresh along with the X-ray and result of scanning and after perusing them he told that he is suffering from the complaint of Kidney stone and Dr. Suresh discharged the complainant from ICU and directed to continue inpatient treatment till the Urologist come and examine him on the next day. But ehe 2nd opp.party prescribed the same medicines which were prescribed earlier on 10.12.2004 also. The complainant purchased them and on 12.12.2004 also the 2nd opp.party forced the complainant to continue the same medicine. The complainant refused as he could realize that it is harmful. Dr. Suresh advised the complainant not to take that medicine since it is not useful for the decease of the complainant. On 14.12.2004 the Urologist came and examined the complainant and after verifying the X-ray and scan report and conformed that the complainant was suffering from Kidney stone and he prescribed the medicine for that and discharged the complainant. Thereafter the complainant consulted Dr. V. Rajan, working in the District Hospital, Kollam who after verifying the records and medicines said that the complainant was not suffering from any disease which necessitated the medicine prescribed by the 2nd opp.party . Hearing about the admission of the complainant in the ICU the daughter of the complainant residing at Coimbatore rushed to the hospital. The news caused much mental agony and fear to the complainant, his wife and children. The complainant was unnecessarily admitted in the ICU after taking the ECG fully knowing that he does not require admission and treatment in the ICU . There is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. Hence the complaint. The first opp.party filed version contending as follows: The first opp.party hospital is owned by the Temple Administration Board, Oachira a Charitable Society registered under TC, Library, Scientific and Charitable Societies Act XII of 1955. The main source of income isderived from the contributions from the thousands of devotees of the Oachira Parabrahma Temple. There is no profit motive in running the hospital. As per the hosp-ital records the complainant is under the treatment of Dr. Ravikumar, Physician since 14.9.04. He is a known case of Diabetic Mellitus. He was admitted by the duty doctor on 8.12.2004 from the casualty with Gastro enteritis with Ischaemic heart disease and referred to the physician Dr. Ravikumar. The ECG showed changes of unstable Argina and inferior wall Ischaemic. The whole thing was explained to the patient and since there was no vacancy in the ICU he was temporaily admitted in Room No.321 and the patient agreed the same and subsequently he was transferred to ICU at 6.30 pm on the same day. On 9.12.04 in the morning the patient was seen byDr. AC. Rao Consultant Intervention Cardiologist SUT hospital, Thiruvananthapuram and he did not ordered to discontinue the cardiac drugs. On 10.12.04 since the patient was having abdominal pain he was referred to the Surgeon by Dr. Ravikumar. The patient was seen by Dr. Suresh at 11.15 am and he advised X-ray abdomen and Ultra Sound Scan. Subsequently the patient was shifted to room and the surgeon also advised to continue the medicines prescribed by Dr. Ravikumar for the cardiac problems and Diabetics. It is not true that Dr. Suresh, has advised the complainant to discontinue the medicines prescribed by the physician. The X-ray and Scanning report showed that the patient was also having Renal Calculus. Hence the surgeon prescribed the medicines for the same. Myocardial infarction may sometime present with abdominal pain. The Surgeon only advise to start the medicines for the treatment of Renal complaints but never advised to discontinue the cardiac medicines. This was confirmed by the duty nurse. He was also advised urology consultation and the diagnosis was confirmed by the Urologist. The patient was on cardiac medicines till the date of discharge along with the medicines for the treatment of Renal complaint. The complainant was admitted in the ICU for the bonafide purpose of treading the cardiac problem. The contention of the complainant that he had no cardiac problems is quite unfounded and against the facts. The physician, Dr. Ravikumar is a very senior physician who attended the complainant and now Dr. Ravikumar was not working in this institution Both the cardiac and renal problems were subsided at the time of discharge the complainant remained in the ICU for about only 1.5 day as against 6 days of total period. The allegation that the patient is unnecessarily retained in the ICU is false. There is no violation of medical ethics or deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opp.party. Hence the first opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint. Opp.party 2 remained absent. Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. 2. Reliefs and casts. For the complainant PW.1 and 2 are examined. Ext. P1 toP5 are marked For the opp.party DW.1 is examined. Ext. D1[a] and b are marked. Points: The case of the complainant is that he has approached opp.party 1 hospital at about 6.45 a.m.on 8.12.2004 with complaint of abdominal pain and he was examined by the 2nd opp.party who directed him to take ECG and to do other tests and after that he was prescribed certain medicines and told that he has cardiac problem and so he has to be admitted in the ICU. But instead of admitting him in ICU he was admitted in room No.321 and shifted to the IC unit in the evening where he remained under treatment for 5 days. The contention of the complainant is that there was no proper diagnoses of illness by the 2nd opp.party and had he been suffering any cardiac problem, he would have been admitted in the IC unit rather than in Room No.321. Further case of the complainant is that on 10.12.2004 at about 1 pm his abdominal pain increased considerably and one Dr. Suresh examined him and under his direction ECG was taken and scanning was also done and after perusing the same Dr. Suresh has directed for the removal of the fittings in his body Dr. Suresh further stated that he is having stone in the kidney and discharged the complainant in IC unit with direction to continue treatment as inpatient till the urologist examined him on 14.12.2004. Urologist examined him and after verifying the scan report and X-ray confirmed the finding of kidney stone and prescribed medicines and discharged him. It is the case of the complainant that he was given unnecessary medicines without proper diagnosis and that the diagnosis by opp.party 2 that he was having cardiac problem created mental agony to him as well as his relatives. As a matter of fact the 2nd opp.party who is alleged to have treated the complainant finding that he had cardiac problem did not appear. DW.1 is the medical Officer who has given evidence for and on behalf of the opp.party 1. On a perusal of the evidence of DW.1 it can be seen that he has no idea as to the period during which opp.party 2 worked in opp.party 1 hospital or the date on which the complainant was admitted in the opp.party 1 hospital. He would not remember whether he has examined the complainant at the time of his admission or the date of admission opp.party 1 has stated in the affidavit that the complainant was under treatment in opp.party 1 hospital from 14.9.04. DW.1 does not know from where such an information has been received. To a pointed question by the learned counsel for the complainant in cross examination that the complainant was admitted on 8.12.2004 he would say that it is on 14.9.2004 . According to him the complainant was referred to the 2nd opp.party as it was noticed that he was diabetic and considering the age of the complainant on the apprehension that such a person is likely to develop cardiac problems. In further cross examination DW.1 has stated that the complainant was referred to opp.party 2 as he was a physician and on taking ECG it was noticed that there was variation in the ECG. In further examination DW.1 has stated that he is unable to state the time it which the complainant was referred to the ICU examined. To another pointed question if a person is having cardiac problem will he be not immediately admitted in the ICU he would say that it is the discretion of the physician and that the reason for keeping the complainant in the room from the morning till the evening can be stated by the physician only. Ext. D1 I is the case sheet produced by DW.1 in respect of the treatment of the complainant. The ECG alleged to have been taken is not produced before the Forum. According to the opp.party the ECG was handed over to the complainant where as the contention of the complainant is that the ECG was never handed over to him. Whether the complainant is having any cardiac problem or not can be confirmed only if the ECG is produced and the burden to establish that the complainant was having cardiac problem requiring admission in the ICU is on the 2nd opp.party. DW.1 has no idea on whose direction the complainant was discharged from the IC Unit. Had it been as per the direction of the opp.party 2 it would have been there is in Ext. D1. Absence such details leads to an inference that the case put forward by the complainant is probable. According to the complainant the medicines prescribed by opp.party 2 have been changed by another Doctor who also directed to remove the tuber etc. fitted on his body as per the direction of opp.party 2. The medicines prescribe ed by opp.party 2 have also been discontinued. It is also come in evidence that a urologist examined the complainant and confirmed the version of Dr. Suresh, surgeon who has also told the complainant that he was having stone in his kidney which is a reason for the abdominal pain. It is obvious from the evidence now before us that the diagnosis made by opp.party 2 after examining the complainant is not proper. The conduct of opp.party2 in admitting a patient who is alleged to have cardiac problem and diabetic complaints in a room rather than in the ICU also shows that there is negligence on the part of opp.party 2. Every prudent doctor who finds cardiac problem coupled with diabetic complaint and pain in the abdomin would admit the patient immediately in the ICU rather than asking him to wait in a room which also establishes negligence on the side of the opp.party.2 As a matter of fact no expert opinion was adduced by either side. The burden to establish that the complainant was having cardiac problem coupled with diabetic complaints necessitating admission in the ICU is on the 2nd opp.party who failed to appear before the Forum. The definite contention of the complainant is that he who approached the opp.party 1 hospital with abdominal pain was admitted in the ICU alleging falsely that he has cardiac complaint by the 2nd opp.party with a view to extract money from him. DW.1 has stated that he cannot say anything regarding the illness of PW.1 but only an expert can say whether the complainant was having such problems and an expert opinion is lacking in this case. As pointed out earlier the burden to establish that the complainant had cardiac problem coupled with diabetic complaint necessitating admission in the ICU is on opp.party 2. There is force in the contention that opp.party 2 is reexamining absent evenafter paper publication with a view to escape from liability . From the evidence adduced in this case we are of the view that the diagnosis made by the 2nd opp.party cannot be said to be proper and that there is negligence on the side of the 2nd opp.party. Point found accordingly. In the result the complaint is allowed in part, directing the 2nd opp.party to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.12,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards cost. Dated this the 30th day of November, 2009. . I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – Sadanandan Pillai PW.2. –Shahudeen Kutty List of documents for the complainant P1. – Medical Bills P2,. –Notice copy P3. – Postal receipt P4. - Notice of opp.party returned unserved P5. – Acknowledgement card. List of witnesses for the opp.party DW.1. – Dr. Ajith List of documents for the opp.party D1[a] and[b] – Case sheet. | 
