BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE.
DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 4432/2010
Sri R. Govindan, S/o Late Sri V. Ramu, Aged about 63 years, No.19, 2nd Cross, Saraswathipuram, Jogupalya, Ulsoor, Bangalore 560 008. (By Sri S. Suresh Kumar) | ……Appellant/s |
V/s
The Medical Director, Chinmaya Mission Hospital, Indiranagar, Bangalore 560 038. (By M/s DUA Associates) | ..…Respondent/s |
ORDER
MR. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.20.09.2010 passed in CC.No.1247/2010 on the file of 1st Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore.
2. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder;
It is the case of the complainant that his son C. Satish Kumar aged about 22 years died in the Opposite Party hospital on 03.12.2007 who was admitted as an inpatient. He was an employee of MPHASIS BFL Limited at Bangalore and he had obtained insurance benefit card issued by the said employer. Infact the son of the complainant admitted to Cambridge Hospital, ulsoor, Bangalore on 18.11.2007 with an history of fever, vomiting and tiredness wherein he was suspected of Jaundice and advised to go to the Opposite Party hospital as there was no doctor to treat Jaundice. Based on the advise, the son of the complainant was admitted to Opposite Party hospital at about 9.00 p.m. and the duty doctors informed his colleagues that the medical reimbursement to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- was available to the patient. On 19.11.2007 at about 10.00 a.m. son of the complainant was taken to ICU and glucose was injected and nobody was allowed to see the patient. On 21.11.2007 at about 12.00 p.m. at midnight the nose ventilator was kept and signature of the mother of the patient was obtained and it was continued till 29.11.2009. Again on 30.11.2007 signature of the complainant was taken and informed that the water was accumulated and it was removed from the patient body. On 02.12.2017 at about 9.00 p.m. the duty doctor Dr.Sudhir informed the father of the patient i.e. complainant that an injection has been given to the patient and if he survived it is well and good otherwise the survival is not guaranteed. On 03.12.2007 at about 6.25 a.m. the son of the complainant died and the reason was not revealed by the Opposite Party hospital. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging medical negligence on the part of the Opposite Party hospital as there was no disclosure of cause of death.
3. After filing the complaint, the District Commission heard the complainant on admission and dismissed the complaint vide Order dt.20.09.2010.
4. Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellant/ complainant is in appeal. Heard the arguments.
5. On going through the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the Order and documents produced by the complainant before the District Commission, we noticed that the complainant’s son was admitted to the respondent hospital on 18.11.2007. Thereafter the treatment was started, but, subsequently on 03.12.2007 the son of the complainant died. The District Commission after heard from the appellant/complainant side ought to issue notice to evaluate whether there is deficiency in service/medical negligence on the part of the Opposite Party or not. But, without bringing the Opposite Party on record, the District Commission has discussed the matter by quoting en-number of decisions and concluded that there is no medical negligence on the part of the Opposite Party and dismissed in liminie. We noticed that the District Commission has quoted number of decisions which are supposed to discuss after trial. The decisions narrated in the Order passed by the District Commission no way help the District Commission to dismiss the complaint at the stage of admission itself. The District Commission ought to know the line of treatment and cause of death of the son of the complainant. In the absence of such, the District Commission made an error in dismissing the complaint without appearance of the Opposite Party. Hence, it is proper to remand the matter to the District Commission to adjudicate the matter by issuing notice to the Opposite Party and to receive evidence from both parties on merits expeditiously. Hence, the following;
ORDER
The appeal is disposed off.
The matter is hereby remanded to the District Commission to adjudicate the same on merits expeditiously.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
