AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. S. M. Kantikar, Presiding Member
The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party against the impugned Order dated 10.06.2019, passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 80/2006 whereby the Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed.
Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties. Perused the material on record.
The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- for mental grief and agony.
The OP filed the First Appeal before the State Commission, same was dismissed and affirmed the Order of the District Forum. Thus, the instant Revision Petition.
The learned Counsel for the Complainant reiterated the facts. He submitted that on 07.07.2003 at 9.30 am, the Complainant’s wife Ms. Alagammal about 55 yrs. of age was admitted to Rajeshwari Nursing Home for burning sensation over chest. It was alleged that the patient was treated casually till 11pm. In the mid-night, the patient became critical but till 02.30 a.m., the OP didn’t pay attention. Subsequently, she died at 3.05 a.m. on 08.07.2003. Thus, it was gross negligence of OP during treatment.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner/OP argued that the patient was admitted with abdominal pain, vomiting, backache and giddiness. She was a known case of hypertension, taking irregular treatment. The ECG showed that old ischemic heart disease (IHD) and other investigations showed severe urinary infection with signs of early renal failure. The ultrasound showed bilateral MRD-FR-I. The patient was treated as per standard protocol.
It is evident from the medical record that the patient suffered cardiac ailments and was treated with due care. The OP, in his submission, stated that because of lack of sufficient time, he had not performed ECG and he could not diagnose acute MI. In my view, the OP, being an Orthopedic Surgeon ought to have obtained an opinion from the Cardiologist for emergency treatment of MI. It is also evident that the hospital staff did not attend the patient at 2.30am with necessary life-saving arrangement. The OP admitted that he had not consulted Cardiologist and he kept the patient waiting till the arrival of an expert.
In the present case, there are concurrent findings of the facts. We do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Impugned Order dated 10.06.2019 passed by the State Commission warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited
I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition, the same is dismissed. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs.