D.O.F:30/07/2020
D.O.O:25/08/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.86/2020
Dated this, the 25th day of August 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Lalitha Shetty, aged 63 years,
W/o Ramesh Shetty
R/at Kanilbentimaru House,
Durgippalla, Badaje Post and Village,
Manjeshwar Taluk and Kasaragod.
(Adv: Mohanan Nambiar M. & Rajani) : Complainant
And
The superindent/Chief Medical Officer
K.M.C Hospital,
Attavara, Mangalore – D.K.
Karnataka.
(Adv: Abhishek K Bhat & Chethan Krishna B.) : Opposite Parties
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
The complaint filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019:
The case of the complaint is that she is a reputed house wife. On 05/05/2019 complainant was assaulted by Prashanth and others as a result she sustained grievous injury on neck and suffered fracture.
The complainant approached opposite party hospital and narrated the incident giving names of the aforesaid assailants. On 22/05/2019, she is discharged from opposite party’s hospital offer undergoing various treatments. The complainant still suffering various complications due to the aforesaid injurious and she is still in medication.
The complainant further states that though she had given names of the aforesaid assailants to the duty doctor and noted the same in complainant’s presence, the particulars of the discharge summary and other documents issued by opposite party No.1 does not show the aforesaid facts and the names of the assailants.
The above named persons factually managed to influence opposite party’s duty doctor and other staff to get the discharge summary to the effect that complainant sustained the injuries stating “slip and fall one week back” the said record is made by opposite party deliberally by suppressing the facts with malafide intentions to help the assailants from criminal offences. In the result, the opposite party has issued discharge summary dated 22/05/2019 to the complainant falsely stating “slip and fall one week back” in order to screen the offenders from criminal liability of attacking and causing injury to the complainant. Thus the police authorities did not take any actions to the aforesaid wrong doers for want of proper medical records to show the cause of injury. Therefore complainant constrained to lodge complaint against the aforesaid persons for the offences committed.
In view of facts, the complainant approached the opposite party several times to get proper wound certificate and discharge summary to her showing the correct facts of her statement regarding the injury caused. The complainant was not been interacted by the helm of affairs manager/superintend of the opposite party by falsely saying by the officials that he is busy. The opposite party did not bother to hear the grievances of the complainant by deputing a responsible officer/manager, but was taken casually. Being fed up with acts of the opposite party, she caused to issue and advocate’s notice dated 09/10/2019 to the opposite party calling upon him to issue proper discharge summary and other medical records.
The complainant therefore prays,
- For directing the opposite party to issue proper and correct discharge summary and other records to the complainant.
- Directing opposite party to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation and cost of the complaint.
Version filed by the opposite party is as follows:
The opposite party being a hospital is not “service provider” under the act 2019 and hence complaint is not maintainable. The provision of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 is not applicable to the facts of the cases. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The relief saught in the above complaint cannot be adjudicated under Consumer Protection Act and can be entertained only before civil court, as it requires detailed evidence and cannot be gone into the summary proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act.
The actual facts are the complainant bearing hospital No.81203489 was brought to opposite party hospital on 3/5/2019 at 6.37 pm with alleged history of fall 4 days ago, as narrated by her and her husband. She was diagnosed to have fracture in the neck and right femur and was advised admission to undergo hip surgery. The above history of the fall 4 days also was narrated by her to on call doctor of the opposite party.
However complainant was not willing to be admitted and undergo treatment citing financial constraints and wanted to get admitted at a later date after ESI approval. Thereafter complainant visited opposite party’s hospital again on 6/5/2019 at 6.05 pm with the same history of alleged fall of one week ago. She underwent total hip replacement surgery on 7/5/2019 at opposite party hospital. Post operations, she was agitated and restless for which she was seen by psychiatrist and was diagnosed as a case of mood dysthymia and treated accordingly. Appropriate treatment was given to her. She was discharged on 22/5/2019 with oral medication and physiotherapy.
It is submitted that thereafter complainant during the follow up period, persons claiming to represent orthopaedic OP department and request alleged history of on call post graduate doctors to change the assault instead of fall of which she was clearly informed that such request cannot be considered as there is no error by opposite party hospital. With regard to the entry of history and it was herself and her husband who had given the said history. At no point of time during the treatment. Complainant or her husband had informed the opposite party hospital or its staff about the assault by same assailants, the same is an afterthought of complainant. Moreover if the complainant had given history of “assault“ opposite party hospital herin would have issued an intimation to the local police station about the same. And would have categorized the above case as a Medico Legal Case (MLC).
Above demand of the complainant is totally an afterthought which cannot be entertained as in the hospital as there is no procedure for changing the history of the patience as per their whims and fancies.
The averments made in para.1 of the complaint that, the complainant is a reputed house wife or that on 05/05/2019, she was assaulted by same antisocial named 1) Prashanth, 2) Jayarama, 3) Pushparaj and some other persons as a result of which she had sustained grievous injury of Tran cervical neck of femur fracture of her right side is false. It is denied that immediately complainant approached opposite party hospital and narrated the incident giving names of the aforesaid assailants. However it is true that complainant discharged on 22/5/2019 after undergoing treatment and it is denied that complainant is still suffering from various complications due to the aforesaid injuries and she is still on medication. Patient had come for follow up 2 times. But regularly following up thereafter. The averment made in para.2 are denied. Opposite party denied the complainant given names of the aforesaid assailant’s to the duty doctor and had taken down the same in the complainant’s presence.
As stated above, the complainant approached opposite party hospital 28/08/2020, seeking changing of hospital records and issuing of wound certificate to the effect. The complainant was clearly informed that no such changes can be made to the case sheet as there is no error from opposite party hospital in making entries and it is the complainants and her husband who had given the history, it is denied that complainant was not been interacted by the helm of affairs manager/superintend of the opposite party by falsely saying the officials that he is busy. It is denied that opposite party did not bother to bear the grievances of the complainant by deputing a responsible officer but was taken casually. The lawyer notice issued on behalf of complainant has been properly replied by the opposite party. There is no cause of action for filing of above complaint. The complainant is misusing the provisions of law, and prayed for dismissing the complainant.
The complainant filed chief affidavit and cross examined as PW1. Ext. A1 to A4 documents marked. Ext.A1 is the discharge summary dated 22/05/2019, Ext.A2 is the copy of lawyer notice, Ext.A3 is reply notice, Ext.A4 is private complaint copy. The opposite party filed chief affidavit. Patient records summoned and produced. It is marked as Ext.X1.
As per pleadings following points arise for consideration:
- Whether complainant is entitled for the relief claimed in the complaint.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service from opposite party hospital? Whether complainant is entitled for compensation? If so, for what reliefs?
The prayer in the complaint is for a direction to the opposite party hospital to issue proper and correct discharge summary and medical records to the complainant.
By law, complainant has the right to ask for correction of errors in his medical records if really, there are mistaken entries. Law allows to request amendments to the medical records if there are errors:
Thus processes for making this type of correction can be as simple as just lettering health care provider know that something was recorded incorrectly so health care provider can change it.
Types of errors can include:
- Typographical spelling errors or may not require correction…
- Errors in the spelling of name to require correction because this can prevent records from being shared properly among different providers, and it can affect payment for services.
- If your phone number or address is incorrect or outdated, you’ll want to make sure it gets corrected immediately. Failure to do so will result in the wrong information being copied in to the future medical records or an inability for your medical term to contact you if needed.
- Any inaccurate information, about symptoms, diagnosis, or treatment should be corrected. Overall, party to make his own judgment about which part of the medical record to be corrected if errors are found.
Here, according to complainant there are wrong entries relating to name of assailants and reasons for causing injury which requires correction and thereafter to issue corrected copy of entries. Doctors or hospital authorities are not really expected or legally bound to note the names of assailants or who caused injury or how it is caused in the hospital records. But having made entries that injury is suffered by slip and fall and when complainant asserts that she did not mention it and instead she told the names of assailets and reasons as assault by those persons it is the duty of the authorities to receive the application and show the corrected entries separately in an additional sheet and to issue its added entries as an additional entry on request of party.
The complainant made a clear information as to mistake is not recording names of assailants and wrongly noting cause of injuries.
Make a copy of the page where the errors occur, if it is a simple correction, then strike one line through the incorrect information and handwrite the correction.
Here the correction is required by the party to include name of assailants and cause of injury. The complainant says that she told to the doctor names of assailants. Further she also told the doctor that she suffered injury by assault by those persons.
The opposite party maintains that entries in records are made correctly as stated by complainant and her husband. Hence no corrections are possible.
The stand of opposite party that no corrections are possible in the hospital records for any reasons is not acceptable. If wrong entries are made and when it is brought to the notice of authorities if request is found to be genuine both original entries and proposed corrections are to be issued to the party.
The request for making additional entries relating to cause of injury as stated in the request and to show names of assailants as stated by injured both entries to be shown in admission records wherever such entries to be made including discharge summary and issue a copy of additional information is made to the complainant without stricking of original entries.
The opposite party refused to make entries as request even though complainant is assertive that wrong entries are made and necessary entries are omitted and refusal is found to be without justifiable reasons there is deficiency in service from opposite party and for which complainant is entitled for compensation. Considering the nature and circumstances of the case we direct opposite party to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.3,000/- as cost of the litigation.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part.
The request for making additional entries relating to the cause of injury as stated in the request and to show names of assailants stated by injured both entries to be shown in admission records whenever shows entries to be made including discharge summary and issue a copy of discharge summary with additional information is made to the complainant without stricking of original entries within one month from date of service of the order. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation, for deficiency in service and Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation within one month of the receipt of the order.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1 – Discharge summary
A2 – Copy of lawyer notice
A3 – Reply notice
A4 – Private Complaint copy
X1 – Patient Record
Witness cross-examined
PW1 - Lalitha
DW1 – Dr. B. Seetharama Rao
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
JJ/
