Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

                   The complainants filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986.

2. The case of the complainant is stated as follows:  The complainant Aleyamma Abraham is the W/o Late Abraham O.V who died in opposite party’s hospital on 11/09/2014.  The complainant contented that on 13/08/2014 on their way to Ernakulam complainant’s husband suffered from stomachache and body weakness.  He was admitted at Century Hospital, Mulakkuzha, Chengannur from 14/08/2014 to 16/08/2014.  When the condition of her husband was becomes worse he was referred to Lakeshore Hospital, Ernakulam from 16/08/2014 to 19/08/2014.  Later he was admitted to opposite party’s hospital for further treatment.  It is contended that the opposite parties were not given proper information regarding the treatment as well as the condition of the patient.  Though the complainant spends huge money for the treatment they did not allow the complainant and her relatives to see the patient in his last days.  The complainant further contended that only on the day prior to his death the hospital authorities informed the complainant that he was critical.  On 11/09/2014 the complainant’s husband died in opposite party’s hospital.  According to the complainant the death was caused due to the negligence of the Medical Officer and the hospital authorities.  It is further contented that as a consumer the complainant availed the services of the opposite parties but they committed deficiency of services in treating and diagnosing the patient’s diseases.  Hence the opposite parties are liable to the complainant and they have to be and the complaint has to be compensated by them.  Hence the complaint, for the refund of the medical expense Rs. 10,00,000/- compensation cost etc.etc.

3. This Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to opposite parties for their appearance.  Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed a joint version as follows.  This opposite parties denied all the allegations in the complaint other than specifically admitted by this version.  According to them as per the discharge summary of the patient at Lakeshore Hospital dated: 19/08/2014 it reveals that the patient was beyond treatment and that he was shifted to opposite party’s hospital against medical advice.  It is further contended that the opposite parties are explaining the patient condition every day morning and evening by the doctor concerned to the close relatives of the patient and they are also allowed to visit the patient at 10.30 AM and 5.00 PM every day.    Every day the condition of the patient was e-mailed to the complainant when she was in United State.  The opposite parties are only received Rs. 4,03,909/- for 21days of ICU care with ventilator support and costly antibiotics from the complainant.  It is also contended that the patient was admitted to opposite party’s hospital in a critical condition and the best was done by opposite parties for the patient.   According to them there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice committed from their side and also contended that the impleading of the New India Assurance Company is necessary for the proper trial of this case.  Therefore this opposite parties prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost of them.

4. In the light of the version of opposite parties 1 & 2 the complainant filed a petition to implead the insurance company as additional opposite party 3 in this case.  Hence the New India Assurance Company was impleaded as additional opposite party 3 on 09/12/2015 and filed their version as follows.  According to additional opposite party 3 the complaint is vague, misleading and wrong.  It is contended that opposite parties 1 & 2 have done possible medical treatment to the patient.  According to this additional opposite party 3, opposite parties 1 & 2 had not committed any medical negligence as contended by the complainant.    It is admitted that there was a valid policy of insurance in respect of Thiruvalla Medical Mission Hospital was in force at the time of this incident.  The insurance companies only indemnify the claim arising out of bodily injury, death of any patient caused by or alleged to have been caused by Error, Omission or Negligence in Professional Service rendered by the hospital or doctors named in the schedule or any technical staff of that hospital.  The insurance company does not cove “mental injury, anguish or shock” by emotional reasons.  In order to get a substantial amount from insurance company from U.S.A the complainant raised a medical negligent against the hospital authorities.  This additional opposite parties 3 also quoted a decision reported in (2009)3 SCC 1 in Martin F.D’ Souza Vs. Mohamad Ishaq of our Hon’ble Supreme Court of substantiate their case.  In view of the above submission this additional opposite party 3 prayed to dismiss this case with cost of them.

5. This Forum perused the complaint, version and records before us and framed the following issues:

1.  Whether the opposite party 1 & 2 committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
2.  Whether the additional opposite party 3 is liable to pay any

    compensation to cover the liability of opposite party 1 & 2?

3.  Regarding relief and costs?

6.  In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his proof affidavit and examined her as PW1.  Through the PW1 Ext. A1 to A4 were marked. Ext. A1 is the discharge summary of Thiruvalla Medical Mission Hospital.  Ext. A2 is the copy of death certificate of Abraham dated:17/09/2014.  Ext. A3 is the death report of District Police Chief, Alappuzha dated: 24/09/2014.  Ext. A4 is the true copy of final bill issued by Thiruvalla Medical Mission Hospital dated: 14/09/2014. Ext. A5 is the discharge summary of Lakeshore Hospital, Ernakulam.   On the other side DW1 filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and marked Ext.B1. Ext. B1 is the answer to interrogatories of opposite parties.   After the closure of evidence of the case was posted for hearing.  Though we have given so many posting for hearing either the complainant or the complainant counsel did not appear before the Forum.  At last we posted this case for orders.

           7. Point No.1 to 3:- For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No. 1 to 3 together.  It is true that the complainant’s power of attorney holder one Gee Varghese U. Varkey filed this complaint for and on behalf of the complainant.  When we peruse the proof affidavit of PW1 the complainant it can be seen that the contents of the proof affidavit is more or less as per the tune of her complaint.  It is alleged that after the discharge of her husband from Lakeshore Hospital, Ernakulam on 20/08/2014, he was admitted for a better treatment at opposite party’s hospital, Thiruvalla and at last on 11/09/2014 he was died in opposite party’s hospital. It is deposed that the opposite parties received a lumpsum of money from the complainant in the name of this treatment and either the complainant or relatives were not given proper information regarding the treatment as well as the condition of the patient.  It is again alleged that even in his last days the opposite parties did not allow the complainant or her relatives to see the patient at opposite party’s hospital. 

8.  In order to substantiate the case of the complainant the complainant produced and marked Ext. A1 the death summary of the patient which was issued by the opposite party’s hospital.  When we peruse Ext. A1 it reveals that the patient was 75 years old and he was treated at Lakeshore Hospital, Ernakulam.  This discharge summary shows that the patient was so weak at the time of admission in opposite party’s hospital.  It also shows that the patient was shifted from Lakeshore Hospital to Medical Mission Hospital, Thiruvalla on request of patient relatives on 20/08/2014.  In Ext. A1 it is noted ‘on 20/08/2014 the patient not responding to painful stimuli, on mechanical ventilator maintaining spo2 of 96% with FIO2 of 60% on SIMV mode, with bladder catheter, central line and intercostals drainage tube on left side’.  When we peruse this report it can be inferred that the patient was so critical on 20/08/2014 and almost all the system of the patient was failed like anything.  Ext. A2 death certificate shows that the patient was died on 11/09/2014 at opposite party’s hospital (Thiruvalla Medical Mission Hospital).  When we peruse Ext.A3 the death report the cause of death is described as ‘Natural Death’ and he was undergoing treatment at Thiruvalla Medical Mission Hospital as in patient.  The doctor is certified that the death was sudden cardiac arrest.  As per Ext. A3 it reveals that the cause of death of the patient was a natural death and the reason for that death was due a sudden cardiac arrest.  When we refer Ext. A1 death summary of the patient which was issued by 1^st opposite party hospital it can be presumed that the death of complainant’s husband happened on due course.  Ext. A4 is the final bill issued by opposite party’s hospital in favour of the complainant.  The PW1 in cross-examination answered to a question “ഹർജി എനിക്കുവേണ്ടി  P.A. Holder ആണ് file ചെയ്തത് ടി ഹർജി ഞാൻ ഇന്നാണ് കണ്ടത്.  Case കാര്യങ്ങള് ഇന്നാണ് ഞാൻ മനസ്സിലാക്കുന്നത്.   3þmw paragraph അനായ്യത്തിൽ 10 lakh  രൂപ ചികിത്സയ്ക്ക് വാങ്ങിയെന്നത് എനിക്കറിയില്ല എൻറെ proof affidavit - ൽ 10 lakhs രൂപ ചികിത്സയ്ക്ക് ചെലവായി എന്നത്  calculation  ശരിയല്ല P.A. Holder – നെ ഞാൻ ഈ കേസിൽ വിസ്തരിക്കാൻ ഞാൻ ഉദ്ദേശിക്കുന്നില്ല”.   As per the deposition of PW1 it can be inferred that PW1 has not a consistent case with regard to the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- which was allegedly paid to the  opposite parties 1 & 2 as hospital expenses.  It is also so interesting to see that at the time of cross-examination she answered that Ext. A1 is absolutely wrong “ഞാൻ ഹാജരാക്കിയ  documents എൻറെ തെളിവിൽ ഉണ്ട് എൻറെ husband acute Myo Cardial Ischemia, Ishemic Hepatitis Acute Kidney injury, Bilateral Temporal lobe Infarct, Parkinsons Disease  എന്നീ രോഗങ്ങള് ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നില്ല. എൻറെ husband ന് prostrate surgery മാത്രമെ ചെയ്തിട്ടുള്ളൂ. ആയതിൻറെ രേഖ ആവശ്യമെങ്കിൽ ഹാജരാക്കാം ”.  Here also we can see that PW1 denied the content of Ext.A1 and also deposed that prostrate surgery was only done to him.  It is also evident to see that even in Lakeshore Hospital, Ernakulam the patient was in ventilator and on ventilator support the patient was brought to opposite party’s hospital.  She adds in-cross “acWw hsc ventilator support D­m-bn-cp-¶p.   Ventilator support - ൽ ഇരുന്ന സമയം അല്ലേ  husband മരിച്ചത്? (Q) ആയിരിക്കാം(A)”.   When we evaluate the evidence adduced by PW1 it can be inferred that PW1 has no consistent case with regard to the incident.  Though PW1 alleged a medical negligence against opposite party 1 & 2 but she did not take any steps to adduce any convincing evidence in support of her case.  On the other side the Medical Superintendent of opposite party’s hospital Dr. P.C. Cherian was examined as DW1 in this case.  At the time of examining the DW1 the interrogatories of DW1 was marked as Ext.B1.  He also relied Ext. A1 which was produced and already marked as Ext.A1 in this case.  Though the complainant’s counsel cross-examined DW1 in detail nothing brought out to disbelieve the case of opposite party 1 & 2.

9.  When we evaluate the evidence adduced by PW1 and DW1 it is so clear to find that though the complainant alleged medical negligent against opposite party 1 & 2 the complainant is miserably failed to adduce any positive evidence against opposite party 1 & 2 with regard to medical negligence or with regard to excess medical expenses.  If the complainant has any bonafide in respect of these issues what prevented her to adduce any evidence in this regards.  It is also pertinent to see that we have given so many opportunities to the complainant to substantiate her case but she was reluctant to do it.  More over the inconsistent deposition of the complainant at the time of her cross-examination which was also affected the credibility of her case.  In the light of the above discussion we find that the case of the complainant is not proved and the complainant case has to be dismissed.  Hence Point No. 1 to 3 are also found against the complainant.

               10.  In the result, we pass the following orders.

1. The complainant case is dismissed.

2. No order of cost.

      Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of April, 2017. 

                                                                                      (Sd/-)

                                                       P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,

                                                                       (President)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member)           :  (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Aleyamma Abraham

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Discharge summary of Thiruvalla Medical Mission Hospital. 

A2 :  Copy of death certificate of Abraham dated:17/09/2014. 

A3 :  Death report of District Police chief, Alappuzha dated: 24/09/2014. 

A4 :  True copy of final bill issued by Thiruvalla Medical Mission Hospital

        dated: 14/09/2014.

A5 :  Discharge summary of Lakeshore Hospital, Ernakulam.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1  :  Dr. P.C. Cherian

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1 : Answer to the Interrogatories of opposite parties

                                                                                                    By order

Copy to:- (1) Aleyamma Abraham,

                    Powethil Padickal House,

                    Kallissery, Chengannur, Alleppey.

               (2) The Administrator, Medical Mission Hospital,

       Thiruvalla.

                     (3) The Medical Superintendent, Medical Mission Hospital,

                               Thiruvalla.         

                 (4) The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company,     

                      Chengannur Branch, Poovathoor Building, Chengannoor.

                 (5) The Stock File.