SUDHEENDRA MEDICAL MISSION HOSPITAL vs KENNAN V.R.

THIS revision petition has been filed against the order of the State Commission, Kerala, whereby the State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum and allowed the appeal. The facts in brief which led the complainant to approach the District Forum are as under :

THE complainant who was suffering from fever admitted in the hospital of the opposite party on 15.7.1997. On the next day, i.e. 16.7.1997, the complainant was shifted to CCU at the advice of the doctor treating him. On that day, at about 4.00 p.m. the complainant became suddenly violent and pushed everyone, reached the third floor and jumped down from there, as a consequence he got multiple injuries. Keeping in view the condition of the patient, the patient was referred to Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam. He had undergone prolonged treatment. As a result of the accident he had lost his vision of his left eye. Alleging negligence on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant approached the District Forum claiming a sum of Rs. 4,24,573.54. It may be mentioned here that the mother of the patient is an employee of the hospital. In response to the notice issued, the opposite parties filed their written version denying all the allegations made in the complaint against them.

The District Forum upon considering the matter formulated the following points for consideration : "(i) Whether there was any defect in the service rendered by the opposite parties ? (ii) Whether the complainant fell down from the third floor to the ground floor at the time when he was being taken by the staff of the hospital from the room to the CCU, as alleged in the complaint ? (iii) Whether the complainant came out of the CCU pushing aside the nursing staff, ran through ramp to the third floor, jumped over a gate, broke open the glass shutter of the window and jumped from the third floor to the ground as contended by the opposite parties ? (iv) Reliefs and costs."

THE District Forum upon considering the evidence, examining the witnesses held that the burden of proving the allegation of the complainant that when the complainant was taken from the General Ward to the CCU by the staff of the hospital, he happened to fell down from the third floor to the ground floor and sustained serious injuries, is on the complainant himself. In this connection the District Forum observed that, the only evidence adduced by the complainant in discharge of that burden is the oral testimony of complainant himself as P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, and P.W. 1 stated that he was admitted in the hospital and was given an injection and he was not remembering what happened thereafter. THE District Forum also held that it was the mother who told him that he had sustained injuries, and hence the evidence of P.W. 1 is not of any help to prove the alleged negligence of the staff of the hospital. P.W. 2, the mother of the patient in her evidence stated that she had not accompanied the patient to the CCU. In the light of this statement, the District Forum held that there was no substance in the allegation of the mother that the patient fell down from the third floor when he was being taken to the CCU, as she was not the witness to the incident. The District Forum also examined D.W. 3, the staff nurse on duty in the CCU, who stated that at the time when the complainant was brought to the CCU she was in the CCU on duty. The patient was given sponge bath, injection was given and I.V. fluids were started. After the sponge bath the patient was calm. Suddenly he jumped up and the drip needle was pulled out, side railing was broken, get out of the CCU to the back door, ran through the ramp, jumped over the gate and ran to the third floor. Herself and other nurses tried to catch the patient, but they were pushed away by the complainant and he was running roaring. Some of the staff of the CCU went to the ground floor and some others telephoned to the third floor but before the staff of the third floor and the by-standers could come, the patient had broken the glass shutter of the window by his hand and jumped to the ground. The Counsel before the District Forum argued that it was the responsibility of the hospital authorities to have taken sufficient care in looking after the patient admitted in the CCU and if the staff of the hospital was diligent in the discharge of their duties this incident could have been avoided. In response to this contention the hospital authorities contended that there was no occasion for the hospital authorities to provide any extraordinary protection to the complainant because at the time when he was remaining in the CCU, he was calm and quiet and no abnormality was noticed in his behaviour. The District Forum also held that the patient himself had admitted before them that when he was admitted in the hospital he was mentally and physically healthy. Since the complainant could not prove that he had fallen to the ground floor while he was being taken to the CCU, the District Forum rightly held that the complainant was unable to prove the allegations of the negligence on the part of the hospital authorities and that the complainant could not state as to who were all the nursing staff responsible for the alleged incident. With the above observations the District Forum dismissed the complaint.

FEELING aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant went in appeal to the State Commission. The State Commission in its order allowed the appeal and set aside the complaint. The opposite parties were directed to pay Rs. 2 lakhs to the complainant as compensation, Rs. 3,000/- as costs was also allowed. Now it is the opposite parties who are petitioners before us. Heard the learned Counsels for both the parties. From the record it appears that he has the history of alcoholism. Despite the repeated questions the Counsel for the respondent could not state as to what the hospital should have done which it did not do. The State Commission has clearly fallen into error in reversing the District Forum''s order. There is nothing on record which establishes negligence. In that view of the matter, we consider that the impugned order cannot be sustained and has to be set aside, which we hereby do and uphold the order of the District Forum. Consequently this revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the order of the District Forum is upheld. However keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their respective costs. Revision Petition allowed.