D.O.F:15/03/2018
D.O.O:30/11/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.No.45/2018
Dated this, the 30th day of November 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Janaki, W/o Narayanan,
Kanthikkare, Kudlu Village,
R.D.Nagar Post, Madhur Village, : Complainant
Kasaragod Taluk and District
(Adv: Mohanan Nambiar .M)
And
The Medical Offficer/ Superindent,
K.A.H.M Multispeciality Hospital,
Cheruvathur, Hosdurg taluk, : Opposite Party
Kasaragod District.
(Adv: Raveendran.V.V)
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
The complaint is filed under section 12 of consumer protection act.
The case of complainant is that her daughter Remya suffered a throat strangulated injury on 16-11-2017 in her matrimonial house at Cheruvathur. She was taken to Opposite Party hospital for treatment. It was reportedly told by doctor that she lost her life. Despite request Opposite Party did not check whether anything can be done to save her life but advised to remove her to KMC hospital Mangalore on the way at Thalappady noticed that oxygen cylinder provided by Opposite Party is emptied due to insufficient oxygen and thereby she suffered brain damage. She was taken to Indiana Hospital nearby, instead of KMC Hospital. Her life is saved but brain damaged involving complicated medical treatment and procedure continued spending huge amount. She lost her job also. Due to abrupt stop of oxygen supply during bag mask ventilation Remya suffered pulmonary edema, resulted in brain injury. The complainant suffered financial loss and also suffered mental tension and agony. For that, complainant claims compensation of Rupees five lakh and cost of litigation.
2. For Opposite Party Advocate V.V.Raveendran appeared and filed version. The Opposite Party denied all the allegations and stated that there was no negligence. Remya was brought to the Opposite Party hospital in unconscious condition, due to strangulation by hanging. She was not accompanied by complainant or her husband. The Opposite Party hospital took all necessary measures to revive her health including high oxygen and medication. Patient showed signs of breathing and timely advised for better treatment in Mangalore. On the way KMC hospital they opted to treat the patient in Indiana hospital Mangalore on their own wish patient life was saved due to timely treatment by Opposite Party hospital and case is filed to make money from Opposite Party with false allegations.
3. The complainant filed chief affidavit and is cross examined as PW1, Ext A1 to A4 documents marked from her side. Ext A1 is discharge Bill, Ext A 2 is discharge summary, Ext A3 is lawyer notice copy and Ext A4 is its replay. The Opposite Party filed chief affidavit and cross examined as DW1 no documents from their side.
Following points formulated for consideration in this case.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service in the matter of treatment or supply oxygen by the Opposite Party hospital thereby patient suffered brain damage and whether Opposite Party is liable to pay compensation to the complainant and if so for what relief?
- As per oral evidence adduced by complainant, due to abrupt stoppage of oxygen supply during bag mask ventilation, Remya sustained pulmonary edema, hypokinesia resulted in severe brain injury. Her condition became so grievous only due to non-providing of sufficient oxygen with nursing staff assistants.
- Ext A2 is the discharge summary issued by Indiana Hospital Mangalore. On admission she was found unconscious, gasping, pulse feeble,systolic,BP70. In arrival she was gasping, hypoxic with minimal flexion of upper limp, feeble peripheral pulses. On 19-11-2017 patient became restless. Her neurological condition is gradually improved understating command obeys simple commands. She was discharged on 05-12-2017.
6. Specific case of the complainant is that Remya’s condition became so bad due to brain injury sustained pulmonary edema, hypokinesia resulted in severe brain injury. Her condition became so grievous only due to non-providing of sufficient oxygen with nursing staff assistance. Neither ambulance driver or nursing staff or any other person who accompanied the patient to Mangalore is examined in the case to know correctness of version of complainant that there was no sufficient oxygen facility with assistance of nursing staff and it contributed more harm to brain and thus negligence is attributed to incur liability to pay compensation to complainant. Doctor attached to Indiana Hospital is also not examined in the case to prove the case of the complainant.
7. The doctor with an experience of more than 22 years is examined as Dw1. He admitted that in strangulation cases if SPD 2 level is low bag mask ventilation facility is to be made in the ambulance. Depends upon distance oxygen to be available. He deposed that two cylinders were available but not knowing its quantity. There is a suggestion that patient did not get sufficient care or treatment. There is no reason to disbelieve the doctor Dw1 in the case.
8. In medical negligence case if there is gross negligence then medical negligence can be attributed. In the particular case doctor of both hospitals treated the patient. It is a suicidal attempt by strangulation but did not succeeded and miracle escape. No specific pleadings in the complaint about medical negligence attributable to hospital or its doctors. Here the patient is alive and regained her precious life. Nobody can be blamed for complication of her health when everything went from her control in a weak moment by strangulation (hanging) and she suffered serious brain damage and recovered by timely treatment.
9. A medical practitioner attending and treating the patient as per accepted medical practice is not an insurance cover against the risk factors involved in the treatment nor he/she is liable for the same. In the light of above mentioned facts this commission finds no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and they are not liable to compensate the complainant.
10. The Opposite Party says they provided oxygen facilities during travel to Mangalore. But he denied knowledge regarding paucity of oxygen throughout journey or from Thalapady. The Opposite Party denied patient was removed in their ambulance and stated that ambulance arranged by relatives of Remya. No steps taken to identify the authority of ambulance. Driver of the ambulance is also not made party to the case.
11. There is nothing on record to prove negligence or due to any act of gross negligence or otherwise, patient suffered injury or complication is due to any act or omission of Opposite Party hospital. Hence complainant did not succeed in proving gross medical negligence and for reasons aforesaid complaint is liable to be dismissed.
In the result complaint is dismissed without costs.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1 : Series Medical bills
A2 : Discharge Summary
A3 : Lawyer notice
A4 : Replay notice
Witness Examined
Pw1- Janaki.D
DW1- T.K.Muhammadali
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
