BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 26th of December 2011
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.223/2010
(Admitted on 21.08.2010)
Mr.M.Vivek Prabhu,
So. Raghavendra Prabhu,
RA. Ananta Prasad,
Ashoknagar, Dambel,
Mangalore 575 006. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri.Chandrashekhara Holla).
VERSUS
1. The Medical Director,
Spandana Hospital and
Institute of Neuro Sciences,
Opp Professional Couriers,
Mannagudda New Road,
Bockapatna,
Mangalore 575 003.
(Advocate for Opposite Party No.1: Sri.M.S.Krishna Prasad)
2. Dr.K.Mohan Pai,
Mangalore Heart Centre,
No.8, City Point, Kodialbail,
Mangalore – 575 003. ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2: Sri.P.P. Hegde)
***************
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The Complainant stated that, his mother Smt.Shantha Prabhu admitted to the Opposite Party No.1 hospital for treatment as an inpatient on 27.05.2008 and she was discharged on 02.06.2008. While she was in the said hospital she was treated by Opposite Party No.2 as well as Dr.K.S.Madhava Rao. It is stated that, at the time of discharge no discharge summary was issued. It is further stated that, the Complainant has filed a case before this FORA against Opposite Party No.2 alleging medical negligence while treating his mother Smt.Shantha Prabhu at Omega Hospital Mangalore in CC No.59/2009 which was pending for disposal. It is stated that, to obtain the hospital records pertaining to his mother, Complainant submitted an application dated 29.04.2009 to the said hospital demanding the certified copies of the hospital records relating to the treatment given to his mother for the period from 27.05.2008 to 02.06.2008. But the Opposite Party No.1 informed the Complainant that the entire case sheets and other records pertaining to his mother are handed over to Opposite Party No.2 and therefore they are unable to furnish the copies of the said hospital records to the Complainant. Immediately the Complainant forwarded one more letter dated 02.05.2009 under certificate of posting to the said hospital informing them to hand over the documents and also asked the hospital authority not to hand over the documents to any doctors. It is stated that, thereafter the Opposite Party No.1 forwarded a letter dated 06.05.2009 to the Complainant stating that they will not furnish the copies of the hospital records of his mother to him. It is stated that, the Opposite Party hospital are duty bound to furnish the certified copies of the hospital records pertaining to his mother but they have wantonly did not furnish the certified copies of the medical records pertaining to his mother and the documents were handed over to Opposite Party No.2 against whom the Complainant filed a medical negligence case. It is stated that, the service rendered by the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency in service and filed the above complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and hardship suffered by the Complainant.
2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel filed separate version.
Opposite Party No.1 i.e., hospital stated that, they have not refused nor denied the grant of copies to the Complainant. It is stated that, the medical records are confidential records and if any competent court or authority summons, they will produce the same. It is further stated that, at the time of discharge of Smt.Shantha Prabhu on 02.06.2008 the attendant one Dr.M.Sandhya Prabhu was present and she received all the documents, including the discharge summary and she had acknowledged the same in the acknowledgement form. It is further stated that, the discharge summary contained all required information and the said document was given to the patient and contended that there is no deficiency on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The Opposite Party No.2 Dr.Mohan Pai stated that there is no consumer dispute. It is stated that, he is unnecessary party to the complaint and the allegations made in the complaint are false and baseless. In fact, he has to approach the Spandana Hospital and the records pertaining to the patient is in hospital administrative custody, Opposite Party No.2 has no role to play in the administration or policy matters of Opposite Party No.1 and stated that there is no deficiency and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In support of the complaint, Mr.M.Vivek Prabhu (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex C1 to C6 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure in detail. One Dr.M.Nagesh Bhat (RW1), Medical Director of the Opposite Party No.1 and one Dr.Mohan Pai (RW2), Opposite Party No.2 filed counter affidavits and answered the interrogatories served on them. The Complainant as well as Opposite Parties produced notes of arguments along with citations.
4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Affirmative.
Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
Reasons
5. Point No. (i) to (iii):
In the instant case, the facts which are not in dispute is that, the Complainant’s mother Smt.Shantha Prabhu was admitted to Opposite Party No.1 i.e., Spandana hospital for treatment as an inpatient on 27.05.2008 and had taken treatment, thereafter discharged on 02.06.2008. When she was in hospital, she had taken treatment from Dr.K.S. Madhava Rao and Opposite Party No.2 i.e., Dr.Mohan Pai.
Now the point in dispute between the parties before this FORA is that, the Complainant stated that, he had filed a medical negligence case against Opposite Party No.2 in CC No.59/2009 on the file of this FORA, which was pending, during the pendency, he filed an application before the Opposite Party No.1 to furnish a hospital records pertaining to his mother Smt.Shantha Prabhu but the Opposite Parties not given the hospital records and thereafter the Complainant sent the representation through under certificate of posting even though the Opposite Party No.1 hospital not furnished the documents pertaining to his mother and also stated that they had not issued even the discharge summary. Hence came up with this complaint.
The Opposite Party No.1 on the other hand interalia contended that the hospital records pertaining to Smt.Shantha Prabhu is a confidential record and if at all it is summoned by the competent court or any other authority they will produce the document and also stated that the discharge summary and other documents were handed over to one Dr.M.Sandhya Prabhu, daughter of Smt.Shantha Prabhu and sister of the Complainant who was always with the patient during hospital stay, she had acknowledged the same.
Opposite Party No.2 stated that, he is unnecessary party to the complaint and has no role to play in the administration of Opposite Party No.1 hospital.
The Complainant filed oral evidence by way of affidavit and produced Ex C1 to C6. Opposite Parties also filed oral evidence by way of affidavit.
On perusing the admitted as well as documentary evidence available on record before us, we find that, admittedly the Complainant’s mother Smt.Shantha Prabhu was admitted to Opposite Party No.1 hospital for treatment as inpatient on 27.05.2008 and she was discharged on 02.06.2008. While she was in the said hospital, she was treated by one Dr.K.S.Madhava Rao and Opposite Party No.2 in the said hospital as stated by the Complainant. Now the contention of the Complainant is that, the Opposite Parties inspite of giving representation dated 29.04.2009 i.e., Ex C1 and 02.05.2009 i.e., Ex C2 not issued the certified copy of the hospital records pertaining to Smt.Shantha Prabhu. But the Opposite Party No.1 on the other hand stated that, they issued a discharge summary as well as other documents to the daughter of Smt.Shantha Prabhu who was with the patient and also stated that since it is a confidential record pertaining to Smt.Shantha Prabhu they have not issued to the Complainant. We do not agree with the Opposite Party No.1 hospital because if any request is made for certified copy of the medical records either by the patient or authorized attendant or legal authorities involved, the same may be duly acknowledged and document shall be issued within the period of seventy two hours as per the Code of Ethics Regulations 2002 (Amendment 2010) of Medical Council of India Regulation 1.3.2. The Opposite Party No.1 hospital should not forget that the patient one who treated in the hospital are/were paid service not a free service. The medical records are important documents to prove the innocence of the doctor concerned and that the consultant under the Medical Ethics are suppose to give the medical records to the patient or the patient party on demand. It is necessary for the hospital authorities to furnish copies of such medical records to the patients or to her near relatives. The hospitals cannot claim confidentiality in the matter of the copies of the medical records. In the instant case, the Complainant is none other than the son of Smt.Shantha Prabhu, he has every right to obtain certified copy of the medical records any number of times from the Opposite Party No.1 hospital by paying prescribed fee if any. The Opposite Party No.1 hospital in turn duty bound to issue certified copies of the medical records to the Complainant by taking necessary service charges if any as stated supra. But in the instant case, the contention raised by the Opposite Party No.1 hospital that the documents pertaining to Smt.Shantha Prabhu is a confidential and they will be produced only before the Court of Law or any other authority cannot be accepted as legally justifiable. The Opposite Party No.1 being a hospital governed by Rules and Regulations and served the patient by taking service charges, when that being so, the Opposite Party No.1 hospital cannot avoid their obligations to issue a certified copies of the medical records pertaining to the patient any number of times to their near relatives herein the Complainant.
Furthermore, we have noticed that, the Complainant filed a medical negligence case against Opposite Party No.2 in CC No.59/2009 on the file of this FORA which was pending at the time of submitting the representations dated 29.04.2009 and 02.05.2009 before the Opposite Party No.1. When that being so, the Opposite Party No.1 hospital should not have refused to issue a certified copy of the medical records by giving a reason that it is a confidential or otherwise. Being a prudent hospital more so giving valuable services to the general public, the Opposite Party No.1 hospital should be very fair and honest with the patients as well as patient’s party / legal representatives. But in the instant case, the Opposite Party No.1 hospital by giving a flimsy reason avoided to furnish a medical records to the son of Smt.Shantha Prabhu definitely amounts to deficiency in service, for that the Complainant is adequately compensated in this case.
By considering the above aspects, we are of the opinion that, because of the lapse on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 hospital, the Complainant was deprived of taking information from the hospital records pertaining to his mother in advance. By considering the above aspect as well as the harassment caused to the Complainant, we direct the Opposite Party No.1 hospital to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the deficiency of service and also pay Rs.1,000/- as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
The Opposite Party No.2 in this case is a treated doctor and is nothing to do with the administration of the Opposite Party No.1 hospital. If at all the hospital records taken by the treating doctor, it is the bounden duty of the Opposite Party No.1 hospital to call for the records from the treated doctor and furnish the certified copies within the time stipulated under the Code of Ethics Regulations 2002 of Medical Council of India. No such attempt was made in this case. The Opposite Party No.2 is not personally liable to hand over the certified copies of the medical records to the Complainant. Hence, the complaint against Opposite Party No.2 is hereby dismissed.
6. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is partly allowed. Opposite Party No.1 is hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the Complainant as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
On failure to pay the aforementioned amount within the stipulated time as mentioned above the Opposite Party No.1 is hereby directed to pay interest at the rate of 10% p.a. on the total amount from the date of failure till the date of payment.
Complaint against Opposite Party No.2 is hereby dismissed.
The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge or sent to the parties under postal certificate and thereafter the file shall be consigned to the record room.
(Page No.1 to 11 dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 26th day of December 2011.)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Mr.M.Vivek Prabhu – Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1 – 29.04.2009: Copy of the letter submitted by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.1.
Ex C2 – 02.05.2009: Copy of the letter submitted by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.1.
Ex C3 – 06.05.2009: Copy of the letter sent to the Complainant by the Opposite Party No.1.
Ex C4 – : Copy of the Karnataka Private Medical Establishments Act, 2007.
Ex C5 – 06.04.2002: Copy of the Code of Ethics Regulations, 2002.
Ex C6 – : Certified copies of the hospital records in complaint No.59/2009 (it contains 14 pages).
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1 – Dr.M.Nagesh Bhat, Medical Director of the Opposite Party
No.1.
RW2 – Dr.Mohan Pai, Opposite Party No.2.
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Dated:26.12.2011 PRESIDENT
