K.JAYARAMAN vs POONA HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE

ACCORDING to the complainant, he developed symptoms of heart attack on 21st of September, 1990. His personal physician, Dr. P. V. Joshi after consultation, on that day, advised him at 12.30 p.m. admission in the Intensive Care Unit of the respondent Poona Hospital & Research Centre. According to the complainant, Dr. Joshi informed on phone the hospital authorities, where he is also a Consultant Physician, that this was an emergency case for admission to the ICCU and that the hospital authorities confirmed the availability of the room over the phone. The complainant accompanied by his wife reached the hospital at 14.00 hrs for admission to the ICCU and treatment started only after 15.15 hrs.

ACCORDING to the complainant the delay in treating him exposed him to heavy risks and could have caused other serious complications and or even death, especially keeping in view that he is a diabetic. He also complained about absence of proper facilities in the ICCU of the hospital. According to him the semiprivate room allotted to him was small and cramped and there were no facilities attached to it; the air-conditioning unit was not effective; proper facilities were not provided to his wife who was attending on him in the ICCU ward. There were a few more alleged deficiencies in the ICCU unit of which he has complained. In brief, according to him, the room given to him was not worthy of being called ICCU.

AFTER recovery, he was shifted to the private ward and he has also a catalogue of 13 heads of complaint about the facilities and services rendered to the patient in the private ward. To exemplify; the emergency call bell was not working; the ceiling fan was not functioning properly, its regulator was defective, geyser was not working, the bed linen was torn, the bed linen was not changed without his asking to do so, the hospital did not provide the necessary wherewithal for the sponge both advised for him by the doctor, the food which served was not properly protected against contamination; the B.P. appratus and the E.G.C. machine were not working on 27th September, 1990 etc.

CONSEQUENTLY the complainant claimed recovery of Rs. 10,01,860/- as compensation and also Rs. 10 lacs as damages for playing with his life when his condition was critical and for the risk and tension and the trouble caused to him and the balance as partial refund of room charges and service charges. The complaint was contested by the respondent hospital. According to the hospital authorities there was no delay in starting the treatment of the complainant. He reached the hospital not at 14.00 hrs. as claimed by him but only at 15.00 hrs. He was immediately admitted in the only available semiprivate room in the ICCU, all private rooms and other semiprivate rooms of ICCU being already occupied.

ACCORDING to the respondent hospital, though the patient had suffered acute myocardial infraction (AMI), as a result of immediate and sustained treatment in the hospital his condition improved considerably within three days and thereupon he was shifted to a private room in the ICCU and from there eventually discharged from the hospital on 28th September, 1990, i.e. on the 8th day after admission. According to the respondent hospital this itself would show that the complainant was properly treated, his condition and progress were continuously monitored and he had responded to the treatment and was discharged within the short period of 8 days only. No damage was caused to the complainant''s health by the treatment in the hospital. The respondent hospital also disputed the complainant''s allegations regarding the facilities and services in the semiprivate ward in the ICCU and in the private wards subsequently. Anyhow, there are not of much significance inasmuch as the primary complaint relates to lack of proper care and treatment at the time of admission for which he has claimed damages of Rs. 10 lacs.

THE respondent hospital has also brought to our notice that the complainant had initially served the respondent with notices dated 11th March, 1990 claiming in all a sum of Rs. 1 lac as compensation. However, this has been raised to Rs. 10 lacs in the complaint lodged before this Commission under the Consumer Protection Act. Both sides expressed their desire before this Commission to adduce oral evidence in support of their respective contentions. They therefore, filed their respective list of witnesses. As all the witnesses sought to be examined were residing in Pune, we considered that it would be expedient if the oral evidence in this case is recorded at Pune by the President of the District Forum there. Accordingly, the President of the District Forum, Pune after issuing notices to the complainant and the opponents and after submission of their list of witnesses recorded the evidence of the witnesses and forwarded the record to this Commission on 22.7.1993.

AT the hearing when the complainant was asked to clarify or explain how the claim for damages have gone up from Rs. 1 lac to Rs. 10 lacs, he was unable to give any credible explanation.

IN his deposition recorded by the President of the District Forum, Pune at the request of this Commission the complainant has stated that on reaching the hospital he was directed to see one Dr. Paul and that lie was with Dr. Paul for one Lour and was admitted in the ICCU at 15.15 hrs. The evidence of Mrs. Jayaraman, wife of the complainant also does not establish that there was any avoidable delay in admitting the patient to the ICCU and starting the treatment. It is significant that his personal physician, on whose advise he was admitted to the ICCU in the hospital has stated in his affidavit that the petitioner never complained to him about lack of facilities or about the hospital management. During the hearing, we specifically inquired from the complainant as to what precise damage he had suffered due to the alleged negligence in the treatment in the hospital. He could not specify except for stating that he had suffered a scar in his heart. He could not produce any expert opinion that the scar was the result of the alleged delay in starting the treatment and not the result of the heart attack or myocardial infraction as such. It is not necessary to go further into the allegations made in the complaint by the complainant. The facts mentioned above are sufficient to establish conclusively that there is no evidence of any damage having been suffered by the petitioner due to any delay in treatment. As a matter of fact it has not been established that there was any such delay in starting the treatment. He has also deliberately inflated his claim to over Rs. 10 lacs obviously with a view to bypass the lower Consumer Forums and to have the adjudication conducted by the National Commission. The complaint, in our opinion, is frivolous and is a misuse of the Consumer Protection Act causing harassment and expense to the respondent hospital in defending itself against the complaint. There is, therefore, substance in the submission of the respondent hospital that the complaint is malafide, vexatious and frivolous and that the hospital, which is run by a public trust has had to incur heavy expenditure for contesting the complaint. In the circumstances, the complaint is dismissed with the direction that the complainant shall pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as costs to the respondent hospital.