Aditya Hospital & Anr vs Baby Vignesh

Baby Vignesh a four months child at the relevant time was examined by one Dr. Kalaivani on 10.8.2008. She advised taking the child to Aditya Hospital and also spoke to respondent Dr. Kavitha who was attached to the said hospital. The child was then taken to Aditya Hospital and admitted there on 10.8.2008. Intravenous medicines were given to the child in the hospital. The IV line having blocked, it had to be changed two times. The first IV administration was through the right hand whereas the second IV administration was through the left hand of the child. The third IV administration was through her left leg. The child was discharged on 12.8.2008. The case of the complainant is that at the time the child was discharged, she was crying badly and her left leg had become black, indicating development of Gangrene. However, in the Discharge Summary issued by Aditya Hospital, no discoloring or Gangrene was shown. The case of the Aditya Hospital and Dr. Kavitha is that in fact, no discoloration had happened and no Gangrene had developed till the child was in their treatment.

In the night intervening 13/14th August, 2008, the mother of the child contacted Dr. Kavitha on telephone. She told her that she was in another hospital and it would not be possible for her to come before 10.00 a.m. on 14.8.2008. She advised the mother of the child to take her to Govt. Children Hospital. The child was accordingly taken to children hospital and according to the complainant, she was also seen by Dr. Kalaivani in the said hospital on 14.8.2008. The child was thereafter shifted to Dr. Mehta's Hospital where she was admitted on 14.8.2008 itself and discharged on 25.8.2008. She was again admitted in the said hospital on 29.8.2008 and discharge on 31.8.2008. The Discharge Summary issued by Dr. Mehta's Hospital at the time of first discharge would show that on local examination, discoloration of the left foot was noticed which could be Gangrene. It is also noted in the said Discharge Summary that the child had developed discoloration of the left foot after discharge from the 'previous hospital'. As a consequence of the child developing Gangrene, her all five fingers had to be amputated. Alleging negligence in her treatment at Aditya Hospital and by Dr. Kavitha, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of a consumer complaint.

The complaint was resisted by both the opposite parties who denied any negligence in the treatment of the child and also claimed that the condition of the child had improved at the time she was discharged.

As noted earlier, the Discharge Summary issued by Aditya Hospital did not indicate any discoloration or Gangrene in the foot of the child. However, the case of the complainant is that the foot of the child was black even at the time she was discharged from Aditya Hospital. The Discharge Summary of Mehta's Hospital also shows that when the child was admitted, it was diagnosed as a case of acute Ischemia of the left foot. Therefore, it would be necessary to find out as to whether the acute Ischemia or Gangrene in the left foot of the child had developed as a result of her treatment in Aditya Hospital or due to her treatment in Child Health Hospital, Chennai.

The complainant filed before the State Commission, a document which according to them was issued by Govt. Child Health Hospital. The said document shows Gangrene in the left foot in its Column No.3. The admission time is shown 12.15 p.m. on 14.8.2008 and the discharge is shown at 6.00 a.m. on 15.8.2008. It would be pertinent to note here that admittedly the child had been admitted in Mehta's Hospital on 14.8.2008 itself. Therefore, she could not have been discharged at 6.00 a.m. on 15.8.2008.

The information obtained by Aditya Hospital under RTI Act would show that the said document was not issued by Medical Education Department of the Child Health and Hospital for Children, Chennai. It was also stated in the information supplied under RTI Act that the child was admitted firstly, at 4.50 a.m. on 14.8.2008 and then at 12.15 p.m. on 14.8.2008. It also shows that the patient absconded from the hospital at 6.00a.m. on 15.8.2008. The information provided under RTI at least to the extent it says that the patient absconded from the hospital at 6.00 a.m. on 15.8.2008 is patently incorrect since the child was in Mehta's Hospital at that time, she having been admitted there on 14.8.2008 itself. But the reply given under the RTI Act raises serious doubt with respect to authenticity of the document purporting to be from the Child Health Hospital Chennai, which the complainant had filed before the State Commission.

Since the child was having acute Ischemia / Gangrene of the left foot at the time she was admitted in Dr. Mehta's Hospital on 14.8.2008, it would be necessary to find out whether it happened in Aditya Hospital or after discharge from the said hospital which in turn, could be either at the residence of the complainant itself or in Child Health Hospital, Chennai. This is more so considering that admittedly some treatment was given to the child in Child Health Hospital, Chennai, though the duration of the treatment was rather brief.

In her legal notice, the complainant alleged that Dr. Kalaivani had seen the child in Child Health Hospital on 14.8.2008 and had noticed Gangrene. However, Dr. Kalaivani was not examined as a witness. If she had seen the child in the morning of 14.8.2008 at Child Health Hospital and had noticed Gangrene/Black foot/Acute Ischemia at that time, that would lead to the inference that either the said Gangrene/Blackening of the foot/Acute Ischemia had happened in Aditya Hospital itself or thereafter, but because of some deficiency in her treatment at the Aditya Hospital. In either case, the appellants would be said to be negligent in her treatment at Aditya Hospital. It would further be desirable to consider the record relating to treatment of the child at Child Health Hospital, Chennai in order to find out what exactly was the physical condition of the child at the time she was admitted and what treatment was given to her in the said hospital. This of course would be subject to the said record being still available with Child Health Hospital.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the State Commission to decide the complaint afresh after (i) examining Dr. Kalaivani and (ii) summoning and if available, considering the record relating to treatment of the child at Child Health Hospital, Chennai.

The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 23.4.2019. The State Commission shall summon Dr. Kalaivani as a witness and shall also summon the entire record relating to treatment of the child at Child Health Hospital, Chennai. Both the parties shall be given opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Kalaivani as well as official/doctor who brings the record from Child Health Hospital, Chennai. The State Commission shall decide the complaint afresh after considering the entire evidence including the deposition of Dr. Kalaivani and the record, if any, from Child Health Hospital, Chennai.

Considering the age of the consumer complaint, the State Commission shall decide the complaint afresh within three months of the parties appearing before it.

The amount which the complainant had already withdrawn need not be refunded at this stage and final order with respect to that amount, shall be passed by the State Commission depending upon the outcome of the consumer complaint.

Both the appeals stand disposed of.