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.224/2010
(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,
Yenepoya Hospital,
Kodialbail,
Mangalore.
2. Dr.K.Mohan Pai,
Mangalore Heart Centre,
No.8, City Point, Kodialbail,
Mangalore – 575 003. ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for the Opposite Parties: 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, the mother of the Complainant Smt.Shantha Prabhu was admitted to Opposite Party No.1 hospital for treatment as inpatient on 03.06.2008 and she was discharged on 07.06.2008. At the time of discharge, discharge summary was issued. It is stated that, the Complainant has filed a case before this District Forum against the Opposite Party No.2 alleging medical negligence while treating his mother Smt.Shantha Prabhu at Omega Hospital, Mangalore. The Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1 hospital to obtain copies of the hospital records pertaining to his mother and submitted an application dated 26.04.2009 to the said hospital demanding certified copies of the hospital records relating to the treatment given to his mother for the period from 03.06.2008 to 07.06.2008. The person who is in charge of the hospital records informed the Complainant that the entire case sheets and other records pertaining to his mother are handed over to Opposite Party No.2 on 04.04.2009 and they are unable to furnish the copies and also showed the medical records requisition form for having taken the said hospital records by the Opposite Party No.2. Thereafter, the Complainant forwarded another letter dated 27.04.2009 the Opposite Party No.1 forwarded a letter dated 26.05.2009 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 No.1 hospital is a private medical hospital and the private medical establishment shall within 7 days make available such copies and the Opposite Party No.1 hospital had legal obligation to furnish the copies of the hospital records of his mother to the Complainant but the Opposite Party No.1 hospital on 11.05.2009 issued a letter mentioned that the records relating to Smt.Shantha Prabhu were not furnished to the Complainant at the instance of Opposite Party No.2. It is stated that, the Complainant has paid all the necessary charges to the Opposite Parties towards the treatment to his mother and hired the services of the Opposite Parties for consideration. Inspite of that, the Opposite Parties have wantonly did not furnish the certified copies of the medical records pertaining to his mother which amounts to deficiency of service and hence the above complaint filed 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, there is no consumer dispute and stated that the Complainant applied for the copies of medical records pertaining to the treatment given to his mother at Yenepoya Hospital, the hospital not refused nor denied to grant copies on the other hand they had stated that the medical records are confidential records and if any competent Court or authority summon the documents they will produce the same and stated that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the hospital authority.
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 Yenepoya 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.Mohan Pai (RW1), i.e., Opposite Party No.2 filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on them. The Complainant as well as Opposite Parties produced notes of arguments. The Complainant produced copy of the Code of Medical Ethics 2002 (Amendment 2010) and 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 hospital i.e., Yenepoya Hospital Mangalore for treatment as an inpatient on 03.06.2008 and taken treatment and discharged on 07.06.2008. Thereafter the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1 hospital to obtain copies of the hospital records pertaining to his mother by submitting an application dated 26.04.2009.
Now the dispute between the parties before this FORA is that, the Complainant stated that, his mother Smt.Shantha Prabhu had taken treatment in Opposite Party No.1 hospital as an inpatient and thereafter applied for the hospital records pertaining to his mother submitting an application dated 26.04.2009 but the hospital authority refused to give copies of the hospital records to him and further alleged that, the hospital records pertaining to Smt.Shantha Prabhu handed over to the Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.2 not supposed to retain the hospital records of the patient Smt.Shantha Prabhu. Further stated that, Opposite Party No.1 hospital is a private medical hospital coming within the purview of Karnataka Medical Establishment Act 2007 and as per the said Act, when a request is made for clinical records of any patient by his family members, the hospital authority shall within seven days make available such copies and they have legal obligation to furnish the copies but the same has not been complied. Hence came up with this complaint.
Opposite Party No.1 on the other hand contended that, they have not refused to grant the hospital records pertaining to Smt.Shantha Prabhu but the Opposite Party No.1 contended that the medical records are confidential records and if any competent court or authority summons they will produce the medical records and there is no deficiency.
Opposite Party No.2 contended that, he is unnecessary party to the proceedings and he has no role to pay in the administration or policy matters of the Opposite Party No.1 hospital.
The Complainant filed oral evidence by way of affidavit and produced Ex C1 to C6. Opposite Party No.2 also filed oral evidence by way of affidavit.
On perusal of the admitted as well as documentary evidence available on record before us, we find that, the Complainant M.Vivek Prabhu is the son of one Smt.Shantha Prabhu. Smt.Shantha Prabhu admitted as an inpatient on 03.06.2008 to the Opposite Party No.1 hospital and taken treatment and thereafter discharged on 07.06.2008 in this case. The Ex C1 is the application dated 26.04.2009 produced before this FORA reveals that, the Complainant applied for certified copies of the entire hospital records i.e., admission card, doctor’s orders, nurses record, medication sheet, treatment record maintained by the hospital authority pertaining to the patient Smt.Shantha Prabhu i.e., the mother of the Complainant by mentioning the hospital I.D Number before the Opposite Party No.1 hospital. The above said application was received by endorsing by the hospital authority on 27.04.2009. We also noted on the obverse side of the application, wherein, the staffs of the hospital authority endorsed that file taken on 04.04.2009 by Dr.Mohan Pai. Then again on 27.04.2009 i.e., Ex C2 the Complainant submitted the application under U.C.P. addressed to the Opposite Party No.1 hospital, wherein, he has specifically stated that the person in charge of the hospital refused to furnish the certified copies of the above mentioned hospital records to the Complainant and informed that the hospital records are handed over to Dr.Mohan Pai and it is in his custody and again he demanded to furnish the hospital records through the above said letter. In reply to the above letter the Opposite Party No.1 specifically stated that, certified copies of the case sheet and other records pertaining to Smt.Shantha Prabhu not to be given to the Complainant but they will produce the Court. From the reply given in hospital records as well as the version filed by the Opposite Party No.1 hospital clearly reveals that, the Opposite Party No.1 hospital refused to issue a certified copy of the hospital records pertaining to his mother Smt.Shantha Prabhu in this case without there being any valid/justifiable cause. It is a settled position of law that, the hospital records being public documents are to be maintained in the hospital and they cannot hand over to any of the doctors for their personal use. Further the concerned person request for the certified copies of the hospital record, the hospital authorities are duty bound to furnish the copies to the patient or his or her authorized person or legal heirs. Further Section 13 of the Karnataka Private Medical Establishment Act 2007 is within the knowledge of the Opposite Party No.1, as per the said Act when a request is made for clinical records of any patient by his family members, the same shall be given to them within seven days from the date of application. Even under that head, the Opposite Parties are having legal obligation to furnish the medical records to the patient. Apart from that, the Medical Council of India in their notification dated 11th March 2003 published in Gazette of India dated 6th April 2002 clearly stated the procedure is to be adopted by the hospital with regard to the maintenance of the medical records and other documents. The Medical Council of India also issued a Gazette publication to the hospital authority with regard to the maintenance of the hospital records. The Opposite Parties cannot contend that it is a confidential record pertaining to the patient. In the instant case, the Complainant is none other than the son of Smt.Shantha Prabhu in this case and he filed a medical negligence case as against the treating doctor in CC No.59/2009 on the file of this FORA which is disposed off on 04.11.2011 definitely he required the documents in order to substantiate his grievances pertaining to his mother in the above case. But the Opposite Parties failed to furnish the copies of the hospital records pertaining to Smt.Shantha Prabhu shows gross negligence on the part of the Opposite Party No.1. It is the obligation on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 that, if any request is made for 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. In the instant case, the attitude of the Opposite Party No.1 clearly shows that, they have wantonly did not furnish the certified copies of the medical records to the Complainant in this case which amounts to deficiency in service. We further observed that, the Opposite Party No.1 should not forget that the treatment availed by the Complainant’s mother is a paid service and the patient as well as their party has got every right to claim the certified copy of the medical records in this case. The Complainant is neither a third party nor stranger in this case.
In view of the above discussion, we hold that the Opposite Party No.1 hospital without furnishing the medical records pertaining to Smt.Shantha Prabhu to the Complainant committed deficiency in service as stated supra. 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 documents 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. The Opposite Party No.1 is hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony, deficiency of service and inconvenience caused to the Complainant. 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.
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 12 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 – 26.04.2009: Copy of the letter submitted by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.1.
Ex C2 – 27.04.2009: Copy of the letter submitted by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.1.
Ex C3 – 26.05.2009: 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 – : Copy of the Code of Ethics Regulations, 2002.
Ex C6 – : Certified copies of the hospital records in complaint No.59/2009 (it contains 22 pages).
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1 – Dr.Mohan Pai, Opposite Party No.2.
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Dated:26.12.2011 PRESIDENT
