AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. S. M. Kantikar, J
The complainant, P.A. Appasamy, Inspector of Police posted at Chennai has filed the instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Vijaya Health Centre and their doctors for alleged medical negligence during treatment causing death of his son Ravindra Nath Rabiroa.
Brief facts are that the complainant took his son, Ravindra Nath Rabiroa, since deceased, (herein after referred as 'the patient') to Vijaya Health Centre for the complaint of persistent headache. Patient was examined by the doctors, advised various tests and treated by administration of different combination of medicines. Patient was diagnosed as suffering from colloid cyst in the third ventricle of the brain. Accordingly, the patient was advised for surgery for removal of the cyst. The complainant agreed for the surgery of his son and surgery was performed on 18.05.2017. After surgery, the patient was unconscious and kept in ICU till 21.05.2017 under ventilatory support. He was unconscious till then. On 22.05.2017, the patient was shifted to Neuro Surgical Ward wherein the patient's mother Shanthi noticed a swelling in the left leg of the patient and the same was informed to the doctors therein but the doctors did not pay any attention. It was alleged that the doctors at the OP-hospital were careless. The swelling was persisted till 23.05.2017 and after her repeated requests, the scan of patient's left leg was performed, which revealed a blood clot in the left leg on account of alleged negligence in brain surgery and it was diagnosed as a Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT) in the left leg. The doctors suggested need for minor surgery to avoid blood clot to move from his leg to lungs, which can be fatal. The complainant agreed for the surgery. Accordingly, on 24.05.2017, surgery was performed. On 26.05.2017, the doctors suggested mobilization of the patient and after walking few steps, the patient had slight dizziness and become unconscious. The complainant alleged that doctors failed to give proper instructions to the patient and also to the other consultants about the management. There was lack of communication between the doctors, nurses and physiotherapist. The doctors compelled the patient to walk when he was drowsy and lethargic. After episode of dizziness, the patient was taken to ICU and the doctors thereafter performed Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) but the patient died at 4.40 p.m. The complainant further alleged that the opposite party doctors refused to perform autopsy, but the complainant was threatened to take out the body form the hospital. Furthermore, the opposite party - hospital with the help of local rowdy elements and with the support of local police, threatened the complainant. It was further alleged that the hospital did not provide any medical documents in spite of repeated requests to the hospital authority, therefore, the complainant had lodged a complaint with the Sub-Inspector of Police at K. K. Nagar, Chennai who denied to register FIR against the opposite parties. The complainant also filed a complaint against that Sub-Inspector and the opposite parties before the Police authority.
In the entirely, the complainant's allegations against the opposite party no. 1 - Hospital and the doctors therein are that the death of his son was due to careless and negligent attitude of the hospital and the doctors, who collected huge amount from the complainant. The complainant lost his young son and put into hardship and mental agony, therefore, the complainant filed a complaint before this Commission and prayed for compensation of Rs.10 crores and other reliefs, jointly and severally from the opposite parties.
We have heard learned counsels for both the parties at the admission stage. We have also perused the record and given our thoughtful consideration.
Learned counsel for the complainant made his submission as mentioned in the complaint. Learned counsel for the opposite parties denied any negligence on their part.
On bare perusal of the paper book and the proceedings before us, it is transpired that the complaint was filed before this Commission on 03.04.2018. It was listed for admission hearing (twice) and opportunities were given (i.e. on 18.04.2018 and 08.08.2018) to the counsel for the complainant to argue on admission. Again, on 27.09.2018, learned counsel for the complainant was granted opportunity to argue in the forenoon session, but he was not ready to argue. He was again called in the afternoon session but nothing was argued. The order dated 27.09.2018 is reproduced as below:
"In pursuance to the last order, copy of the entire medical record has been handed over by the learned counsel for the opposite parties to the learned counsel for the complainant.
Learned counsel for the complainant was given opportunity to argue this complaint on admission in the morning session. He was again requested in the afternoon session. He is not ready to argue the matter.
We have perused the record in depth and after thoughtful consideration we are of the view that the complaint does not deserve to be admitted.
The complaint is dismissed at the admission stage.
Reasoned judgment will follow."
We have perused the record. On bare reading of the complaint, we feel that just vague allegations have been made by the complainant. We note that the complainant, P.A. Appasamy is an Inspector of Police working at Chennai at that time. We have perused the legal notice dated 28.07.2017 served by the complainant upon the opposite parties in which number of allegations were levelled against the opposite parties. According to the complainant, the hospital security staff and other staff have assaulted the complainant and his brother's friend. They have snatched his gold chain and injured his brother's friend. The body was disposed very late from the hospital i.e. at 8.00 p.m.
It is surprising for us and beyond our imagination that when the complainant himself was an Inspector of Police serving in Chennai, how he kept quite at the time of assault on him and his brother? Was he a silent spectator at that time? He would have initiated immediately criminal proceedings against the hospital staff, who were involved in the alleged assault. It is more relevant to look into the reply to the notice given by advocate, R. Senthil Kumar on behalf of Vijay Health Centre - opposite party, the relevant paragraphs 2 to 6 are reproduced as below:
"2. My clients state that Mr. Ravindranath Rebairoa aged 28 years son of Mr. P.A. Appasamy [your client] was admitted in Vijaya Health Centre on 15-05-2017 for severe headache on and off since six months in the bi-frontal region. Scan report revealed Colloid cyst of III Ventricle. Neurosurgical opinion was obtained and surgery was advised. Cardiac fitness was obtained and cleared. Nephro opinion was taken to work up Hypertension in Young and Patient was cleared for surgery.
On 18-05-2017 surgery was conducted. Colloid cyst identified at foramen monorow level. Cyst decompressed and total capsule removed and wound closed in layers. Patient was transferred to ICU and put on mechanical ventilator under sedation and paralysis for 2 days and weaned from sedation. Patient remained stable, extubated and transferred to ward.
A week thereafter patient developed left lower limb swelling. Venus Doppler was done on 23-05-2017 revealed sub-acute left ileo femoral thrombosis causing near total occlusion. ABG obtained showed Severe Metabloic Acidosis and correction given. Inspite of effective resuscitation, Patient could not be revived. ECG taken showed Asystole. Patient declared Dead at 4.50 pm on 26-05-2017. Postmortem (Autopsy) was adviced by my client but Patient's father and brother refused for Autopsy.
However the Patient's father being an Inspector of Police in Tamil Nadu Police, Patient's brother along with his friends started creating problems by shouting at the Doctors and Nurses in ICU with abusing bad words and panic to other patients inside the ICU. Further the Patient's father and brother refused to pay the final bill and wanted to take away the Patient body. They were rude at other hospital staffs and pulled the Patient body from ICU and taken to main road beating the security persons who stopped them. They were not ready to listen any rules and regulations of the Hospital.
In the above circumstances the Hospital authorities filed a written complaint with jurisdiction KK Nagar Police Station at on 26-05-2017 at 20.00 hrs. for the problems created by your client and his son in the Hospital premises and obtained CSR No. 503/2017 from KK Nagar Police Station, Chennai 78. After deliberation your client's brother [Atheeshari] given a letter in writing that they are unable to pay the final bill amount of Rs.1,33,388/- at that moment and shall make the final settlement in two weeks and signed the letter with his cell number 95660 17622. It is thereafter they taken away the Patient's body without doing Autopsy."
The above reply and the medical record on the file clearly show the condition of the patient and the act of doctors working at the Vijaya Health Centre. At the time of filing the complaint, complainant has not filed any medical record. He has just filed receipts of expenditure incurred at the hospital. Therefore, we have to rely upon the reply given by the opposite party, which satisfy us the mode of management/treatment given at OP - hospital. The patient was diagnosed to have Colloid cyst of III Ventricle of the brain. After neurosurgical opinion and investigations, the patient was operated on 18.05.2017 and he was kept in the ICU and put under sedation and ventilator for two days. The patient became stable and he was transferred to the ward. After a week, the patient developed swelling of left leg. Venus Doppler study was performed on 23.05.2017 which revealed sub-acute left ileo femoral thrombosis causing total occlusion of the vein. Thereafter, on 26.05.2017, the patient suffered cardio respiratory arrest and despite CPR the patient could not survive and declared dead at 4.50 p.m. To ascertain the cause of death, the parents of the patient refused for the post mortem. Moreover, the hospital bill was not settled in totality for which the hospital authorities filed a complaint at KK Nagar Police Station at 08.00 p.m. on 26.05.2017 for the problems created by the complainant, his son and brother's friend. We also note that the opposite party - hospital, team of doctors, which comprised of Neurologist, Neurosurgeon DVT Surgeon and other specialists collectively treated the patient. Also, we feel the claim filed by the complainant is without justification and it is inflated one to the tune of Rs. 10 crores.
On taking reference from medical textbooks about deep vein thrombosis or DVT, which is a disorder caused due to the formation of blood clots in the veins, leads to serious complications. The occurrence of deep vein thrombosis or DVT varies across the individuals, which further depends on the gender and age. The reasons for the appearance of the blood clots shall be many such as the previous occurrence of the episode, aging factor, a family member with a history of deep vein thrombosis or DVT, and any injuries that damaged the blood vessels. Pulmonary embolism is the first serious complication and the most serious factor of deep vein thrombosis or DVT. In such cases, the clots are capable of blocking the blood vessels in the lungs leading to death.
In our view, the possible cause of the death of the patient was due to pulmonary embolism. We sympathize for the death of young person, but prima facie despite treating doctors' best efforts, the allegation of medical negligence and filing a complaint is not viewed favourably.
Based on the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint is just vague and misconceived. Hence it is dismissed.
Per Hon'ble Mr. Dinesh Singh, Member
(i) This is a case of alleged medical negligence / deficiency in service, resulting in the death of the patient.
(ii) The allegations made by the complainant (P.A. Appasamy) in his complaint read as below:
That at the time studying the complainant son namely Ravindranath Rabiroa's has suffering with the head ach and who intimated to the complainant regarding the same. After received the intimation the complainant rushed the centre of Saidai Dhuraisamy I.A.S. Academy situated at T. Nagar, Chennai.
That after rushed in the Saidai Dhuraisamy I.A.S. Academy Situated at T. Nagar, Chennai. The complainant tooked his son namely Ravindhranath Rabiroa's to the 1ST AND 6th respondent's Hospital. On 15.05.2017 with a minor head ach problem and consulted with the respondents hospital doctors.
That the complainant has approached the respondent for his son head ach on 15.05.2017 after consulting with the respondents the complainant was admitted his son in the respondent hospital as an inpatient. Bearing such as an I.P. No. 3699/05/2017 and Bed No. 43. after the admission, the respondents conducted various tests, administered diffrerent combination of medicines as a result of the head ach and found that the complainant son is suffering with colloid cyst in the third ventricle of the Brain and suggested to surgery for remove the colloid cyst.
That after the respondents suggestion the complainant agreed to surgery and his son "Ravindhranath Rabairoa' was under gone the treatment for colloid cyst and the cyst was removed by the respondents doctors through a surgery on 18.05.2017 and the petitioner son was under the ventilation support in ICU ward No. 5 and who was under on anesthesia till 21.05.2017.
That on 22.05.2017 the complainant son was Shifted to the Neuro Surgical Ward No. 45. When the complainant wife namely Shanthi found a swelling in the left leg of Ravindranath Rebairoa' and informed to the respondents doctors regarding the swollen of "Ravindranath Rebairoa' left leg. But the respondents Doctors did not take care about the words of complainant wife Mrs. Shanthi who is the mother of deceased Ravindranath Rebairoa's also.
That the carless of respondents the complainant was aggrieved with pain and swollen until 23.05.2017. Hence the complainant wife again intimated to respondents regarding the swollen of Ravindranath Rebairoa' left leg. So the respondents doctors took a scan over his left leg and told that the complainant son Ravindranath Rebairoa's left leg has a blood clot was an account of the surgery and the respondents doctors said that blood clot in the left leg ie, Deep Vein Thrombosis and the doctors also said that they have to do a minor surgery again to avoid the blood clot to move from his leg to his lungs which may be cause to sudden death.
That the complainant agreed to do further surgery as per the respondent doctors suggestion and avoid the risk and on 24.05.2017 the surgery to avoid DVT was done. And on 26.05.2017 morning the doctors of respondent suggested mobilizing and the Ravindranath Rebairoa's was mobilized after walking few steps he had a slight dizziness and he went unconscious for few seconds.
That on 26.05.2017 around 03.00 pm the respondent's hospital consultant came for the inpatient rounds and he woke up the complainant's son while he was on the deep sleep and the consultant forced him to walk and performed other treatments while the complainant's son was in deep sleep with sedition after the surgery. The complainant wife Mrs. Shanthi insist the consultant about the swollen leg when the patient sifted from the O.T, to I. C. U. the primary consultant neglate the treatment for swollen leg and he fails to perform further investigation and the complainant wife further insist again and again about the swollen leg. Finally they underwent Doppler study of both legs and they find out the D.V.T. and they failed to give proper instructions to the other consultants for the further treatment with the lack of communication between the consultant, nurses and physiotherapist, the consultant performed treatment and made him to walk when he was in drowsy, lethargic and made the complainant's son suddenly unconscious and the doctors took him to the ICU and performed life saving CPR over the complainant's son named Ravindranath Rebairoa around about 04.40 PM. After that the respondent's confirmed that complainant son said Ravindranath Rebairoa was died due to the sudden cardiac arrest after surgery.
That after the death of complainant's son Ravindranath Rebairoa. The complainant forced the respondents doctors to perform the autopsy. But the respondent's doctors refused to perform the autopsy and threatened the complainant to carry out the body from the hospital. Even though the complainant refused to carry out the body without autopsy to know the reason of the death and the complainant request the autopsy many times to know the reason for the death where the patient was medically fit in all manners for the surgery. But the respondent's refused to perform autopsy and they forced the complainant to carry out the body from the hospital and threatened him with the help of local rowdy elements and the support of local police with highly political influence. Thereof the 1st respondents and its doctors did not provide any documents to the complainant regarding the treatment history of complainant son Ravindranath Rebairoa. Inspiteof the complainant requesting the respondent's refuse to provide the records regarding the treatment and history of complainant's son Ravindranath Rebairoa was died. Hence the complainant gave a complaint against the respondent before the Sub Inspector of Police, K.K. Nager Chennai. But the sub inspector of police K.K. Nagar refused to acknowledged the same and denied to file the F.I.R. against the respondent. Therefore the cousin of deceased namely Ramprasath again lodged a complaint against the respondent's and The Sub inspector of police K.K. Nagar acknowledged the same and issued a C.S.R. Copy bearing receipt No. 537/2017 dated 02.06.2017 in favour of Ramprasath and the complainant issued a legal notice to the respondent through his advocate on 30.7.2017 and The notice also acknowledged by the 1st respondent and reply.
That the death of complainant's son Ravindranath Rebairoa was done by the careless and negligence of the respondent's doctors and collected huge amount from the complainant. But they respondent hospital doctors failed to provide proper treatment and care to his son. Due to this attitude of 1st and 6th respondent's and doctor's. The complainant and his family pushed to lot of hardship and mental agony and who loosed his only one son about 28 years old I.A.S. student the deceased is further care taken for the Complainant and his family. Hence the complaint.
(paras 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 and 13 of the complaint)
(iii) In a nutshell the allegations made by the complainant are that the opposite parties - hospital & doctors were negligent and deficient.
(iv) The proceedings before the bench read as below:
Dated: 18.04.2018
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the complainant.
Issue notice for admission hearing only to the opposite parties, asking them to put in appearance alongwith relevant medical record.
The Registry may ensure that the notice is issued and dispatched within a period of ten days.
List the matter for further hearing on 08.08.2018.
Dated: 08-08-2018
ORDER
Learned counsel for the opposite parties who appeared today submits that she has not received paper book of the complaint. She may get the same from the registry today only.
List the matter for admission hearing on 27-09-2018.
Dated: 27-09-2018
ORDER
In pursuance to the last order, copy of the entire medical record has been handed over by the learned counsel for the opposite parties to the learned counsel for the complainant.
Learned counsel for the complainant was given opportunity to argue this complaint on admission in the morning session. He was again requested in the afternoon session. He is not ready to argue the matter.
We have perused the record in depth and after thoughtful consideration we are of the view that the complaint does not deserve to be admitted.
The complaint is dismissed at the admission stage.
Reasoned judgment will follow.
(v) The complainant filed only medical bills raised by the hospital with his complaint. He did not file any medical record or literature etc.
(vi) In compliance of the Order dated 18.04.2018 of this Commission, a copy of the entire medical record was handed over by the learned counsel for the opposite parties - hospital & doctors to the learned counsel for the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant was given opportunity to argue on admission in the morning session. He was again called to argue on admission in the afternoon session. He was not ready to argue the matter.
(vii) The onus to argue on admission, and to show that the complaint, as framed and presented, fell within the meaning of section 2(1)(c) ["complaint"] read with section 2(1)(g) ["deficiency"] & (o) ["service"] of the Act 1986, was on the complainant / learned counsel for the complainant. This bench however notes, one, the somewhat nebulous articulation of the complaint (quoted, verbatim, in sub-para (ii) above); two, that only medical bills were annexed with the complaint; three, no medical record or literature etc. was annexed with the complaint; and, four, on the medical record being made available to the learned counsel for the complainant, he did not agree to argue on admission. As such, the complainant / learned counsel for the complainant could not / did not show that the complaint, as framed and presented, fell within the meaning of section 2(1)(c) read with section 2(1)(g) & (o). In the afore facts and situation, the complaint was dismissed at admission stage vide the Order dated 27.09.2018 (quoted in sub-para (iv) above).
(viii) This bench, however, also notes that the Act 1986 is for better protection of the interests of consumers, in recognizedly a fight amongst unequals. The bench would want to be fair to the complainant, and give him adequate opportunity to show that his complaint requires to be treated as a 'complaint' within the meaning of section 2(1)(c) read with section 2(1)(g) & (o). The bench also specifically notes that this is a case of alleged medical negligence / deficiency in service, resulting in the death of the patient. The below par articulation and semantics in drafting the complaint, and the relevant medical record or literature etc. not being annexed therewith, and the refusal of the learned counsel for the complainant to argue on admission, should not put the complainant to unfair disadvantage. In this context the bench would want to refer to the limitation prescribed under Regulation 14(1)(iii) and (iv) of the Regulations 2005:
Limitation.- (1) Subject to the provisions of sections 15, 19 and 24A, the period of limitation in the following matters shall be as follows:-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(iii) An application for review under sub-section (2) of section 22 shall be filed to the National Commission within 30 days from the date of the order or receipt of the order, as the case may be;
(iv) The period of limitation for filing any application for which no period of limitation has been specified in the Act, the rules of these regulations shall be thirty days from the date of the cause of action or the date of knowledge.
The complainant is at liberty to present and to argue his complaint professionally before this Commission by filing appropriate application as per the law, and to discharge his onus of showing that his complaint requires to be treated as a 'complaint' within the meaning of section 2(1)(c) read with section 2(1)(g) & (o) of the Act 1986.
(ix) The bench also makes it unequivocal and explicit that no element of 'judging on merit' may be read in the critique made herein, and that it has not gone into the merit per se of the case. In this context the bench would want to refer to section 3, which specifically provides that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force, that is, the remedy provided under the Act is in addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force, the provisions of the Act give the consumers an additional remedy besides those that may be available under other existing laws. The bench may also state that in case the complainant wants to approach a competent civil court against the opposite parties - hospital & doctors, to seek any remedy, is free to do so, as per the law. And here the bench may also quote section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963:
Extension of prescribed period in certain cases. - Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.
Explanation.- The fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section.
The complainant, if he chooses to bring action in a civil court, is free to file an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and, in such contingency, the chronological facts and proceedings in the National Commission would be material and relevant towards making such application.
(x) Let a copy of this Order be sent to the complainant by the Registry within seven days of pronouncement.