KALYANI GENERAL HOSPITAL vs E. BHUVANESWARI

THE complainant''s case is that she was admitted as an in-patient in the opposite party hospital on 21.1.1996. She underwent several tests and was discharged. THE opposite party confirmed that the complainant had developed T.B. and treated her with strong dosage of medicines and injections. THE complainant continued to take those medicines and she developed many health complications. THE complainant was taken to Government T.B. hospital after taking necessary tests. THE complainant was informed that she had no T.B. Thus, on account of the opposite party''s wrong diagnosis, the complainant had suffered mentally and physically. Her matrimonial life was ruined. Hence she filed the complaint.

THE opposite party conceded that the complainant was admitted in their hospital and was treated for intermittent fever. Blood test revealed possibility of typhoid for which she was treated. She was also having Malaria and treatment was given. On examination she was found pregnant by 24 weeks. THE X-ray test indicated bilateral apical infiltration and she was treated for T.B. from 26th January but no injection was given and only oral medicines were given. She was not given any strong dosage of medicine or injection for T.B. THEre is no justification for the complainant to contend that on account of the wrong diagnosis misunderstanding arose in her family. THEre is no cause of action. The lower Forum allowed the complaint and awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. Aggrieved by the same the opposite party has preferred this appeal.

The opposite party admits in emphatic terms in their version that while the complainant was under their treatment she was pregnant by 24 weeks and that an X-ray of the chest (guarded) and AFB (Acid Fast Bacillus) test indicated bilateral apical infiltration and so she was treated for tuberculosis from 26th January. Therefore on their own showing it is clear that the opposite party diagnosed that she was suffering from tuberculosis and also prescribed medicines for the same. It is alleged that they have seen the X-ray of a male wrong person and took it to be that of the complainant and this they have diagnosed as a case of tuberculosis. Dr. (Mrs.) Sarala Vijayasankar, Medical Officer, Chepauk Government Dispensary has given a certificate which has been marked as Ex. A-14 that the complainant is not affected by pulmonary tuberculosis. That she underwent test at the Government Hospital is proved by the fact that she has produced the O.P. Chit which has been marked as Ex. A-10. The complainant has given a notice before filing the complaint. But it was returned by the opposite party. From the records it is clear that there has been a wrong diagnosis. The process of diagnosing to find out whether the patient was suffering from tuberculosis or not is not a complicated one. Generally, sputum test and X-ray of the chest are taken. There may not be any difficulty for a doctor to read the X-ray and find out whether a patient is suffering from T.B. or not. The contention of the Counsel for the appellant is not acceptable that the same X-ray can be interpreted by two doctors differently. It is not possible at all. May be in cases of other ailments from the result of tests it may not be possible to determine the cause of ailment, for the symptoms may be the same for different diseases. The case of the complainant is that because of the diagnosis that she was suffering from T.B. she was deserted by her husband and his family and she has been practically kicked out of the family. This is a case which is set out by her in her notice as well. This case is not far-fetched. Because, the husband coming to know that his wife is suffering from T.B., may not be tolerant enough and may start treating her differently and even shun her company. It is one of the contentions of the opposite party stating that because of the treatment they have given to the complainant she became cured and, therefore, it was that when tests were taken at the Government Hospital it was found that she was not suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis. It is surprising when they say that because of the treatment T.B. was controlled or cured within such a short period. It is to be pointed out that it is not their stand taken in the version. When they diagnosed it was in the earlier stage of the disease. Thus, the opposite party are blowing hot and cold. They are only trying to hide the fact that they have made a wrong diagnosis. They have just chosen to treat the patient who was pregnant, with medicines for T.B. whereas the patient was not at all suffering from such a disease. Definitely, this would have caused physical complications to the complainant and on her pregnancy. Being called as a T.B. patient itself is a stigma which would definitely cause mental agony to the complainant and in fact has disrupted her family life. Added to that when she was pregnant, she was administered drugs saying that she was suffering from T.B. Definitely this would have complicated the matter further. Thus, the circumstances of the case clearly show that there has been clear and obvious deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. It has also affected her family life. One will not be in a position to produce documents to prove the discontent that has arisen in the family. It can be taken judicial notice of that in the state of society to which the complainant belongs, such complications would arise. The complainant does not say that she is hailing from aristocratic family with sophisticated background. Therefore, we cannot attribute the same sense of tolerance to the members of her family in such matters. Definitely, to say that a person is suffering from T.B. whereas she is actually not, would greatly affect her mentally and also physically. Besides, it would also strike a discordant note in the family. Therefore, we are of the view that the order passed by the lower Forum has to be maintained and that there are no grounds to interfere with the same. There is proper appreciation of facts and there is no error of law. There is application of mind.

HENCE, we confirm the order of the lower Forum and dismiss the appeal with cost of Rs. 250/-. Appeal dismissed.