 The facts of the case are that the complaint in question has been filed by complainant No.1/Respondent No.1-Badam Agaiah, who is husband of the deceased patient-Badam Jyothi. The complainants No.2-4/Respondent No.2-4 are the sons of the said Badam Jyothi. It has been stated that Smt. B. Jyothi, aged 46 years was suffering from fever and she was brought to the hospital of the opposite party-Dr. L. Vidya Sagar Reddy with the name Pavan Nursing Home, situated at Narsampet Village District Warangal for treatment on 26.12.2007. It is alleged that the petitioner/opposite party-Doctor told the complainants that the patient was suffering from DENGUE FEVER and he advised them to get admitted into his hospital where she remained under treatment for six days from 26.12.2007 to 31.12.2007.
During this period, some tests were conducted and medicines were administered, but due to wrong conclusion and improper treatment and giving wrong medicines in a negligent manner, the condition of the patient deteriorated. The deceased went into unconscious state due to wrong treatment and improper diagnosis. The complainants requested the doctor to send her to a better hospital but the doctor refused to do so. Ultimately, when they put great pressure on the opposite party, she was referred to Rohini Hospital, Warangal on 31.12.2007. The doctors at Rohini hospital came to the conclusion that the patient was suffering from cerebral malaria. She remained under treatment in Rohini hospital from 31.12.2007 to 09.01.2008 and an expenditure of more than Rs.1.00 lac was made on her treatment.
On 09.01.2008, on the advice of the doctors at Rohini hospital, the patient was to be shifted to another hospital at Hyderabad, but she died on way to the hospital. The complainants demanded through the consumer complaint that a sum of Rs.10.00 lacs should be awarded to them as damages along with interest of 18% per annum from the date of the complaint, till realization. 3. In the written version filed by the Dr. L. Vidya Sagar Reddy-opposite party, it was stated that the patient was first brought to his hospital on 26.12.2007, where some medicines were prescribed to her. The complainants took her back to their house on 26.12.2007, but came again on 28.12.2007 for treatment of severe fever. She was treated in the hospital of the opposite party from 28.12.2007 to 31.12.2007. The opposite party conducted the necessary tests and administered medicines as per the required condition of the patient. The opposite party denied that there was any improper treatment or wrong medicines given to the patient. The opposite party also denied that the complainants made any demand that she should be taken to a better hospital, or that the said demand was not accepted by the opposite party. In fact, the opposite party had advised the patient on 28.12.2007 itself to go to a higher centre, but the patient and her son Praveen-complainant No.2, insisted that treatment should be given to them in the hospital of the opposite party only. The opposite party on clinical examination and based on the reports, suspected viral infections and mentioned it as suspected case of DENGUE FEVER as during the period September, 2006 to January, 2007, there were many cases of DENGUE FEVER in Andhra Pradesh. The opposite party has stated that he only mentioned it to be a suspected case of DENGUE as a precautionary step but it does not establish that he had given treatment for suspected DENGUE FEVER.
In fact, the patient had a long history of hypertension and diabetes mellitus and heart disease. The opposite party tried his best to give her proper treatment and hence there was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 4. The District Forum, vide their order dated 13.4.2011, allowed the complaint and directed opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5.00 lacs to the complainants along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till realization. However, in the appeal filed before the State Commission, the said Commission vide impugned order dated 28.11.2012, allowed the appeal partly and modified the order of the District Forum, stating that a sum of Rs.1.00 lac should be paid to the complainants along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. It is against this order that the present petition has been made. 5. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner in RP/15/2013, narrated the facts of the case as given in the complaint and stated that from the written reply filed by the opposite party before the District Forum, it was clear that proper tests were not performed upon the patient but still, the treatment for DENGUE FEVER was administered. Further, it has been stated in the statement of the opposite party-Dr. L. Vidya Sagar Reddy that to know about the DENGUE FEVER, platelet count test was performed on the patient. Her platelet count was 1,45,000; whereas the normal range for this count is 1,50,000 to 3,00,000. The opposite party-doctor has stated that except this test, no other test was conducted on the patient. The doctor has also admitted that the blood smear test, which is done to know about Malaria, was not performed on the patient. The statement of doctors from the other hospital also makes it clear that the opposite party-doctor was negligent in the performance of his duties. When the patient was referred to Rohini Hospital, she was diagnosed as suffering from cerebral malaria and the treatment was started for this disease, but by that time, her vital parts had already become dysfunctional. She died of multiple organ failure. The learned counsel stated that the State Commission had erred in reducing the compensation from Rs.5.00 lacs to Rs.1.00 lacs. The record of the case also shows that the post-mortem was not done on the body of the deceased so that the exact cause of death could be known. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite party-doctor stated that there had been no negligence on the part of the opposite party-doctor; rather he had given the best possible treatment to the patient. The learned counsel quoted from the Medical Literature, saying that in the paper on alient Clinical Characteristics of Severe Falciparum Malaria in Adults in the Tropics written by Alladi Mohan and Surendra K. Sharma, the neurological manifestations described in such patients were as follows: Coma Convulsions Neck rigidity Psychosis, altered behaviour Cerebellar ataxia Aphasia Hemiplegia Conjuate deviation of eyes Diverent eyes Sixth cranial nerve palsy Trismus Extrapyramidal rigidity Hypotonia Peripheral neuropathy Decrebrate rigidity Decorticate rigidity 7.
From the facts of the case on record, it is made out that the patient did not exhibit any of the characteristics described above. It is therefore not correct to say that the opposite party-doctor had been negligent in any manner in treating the patient. The learned counsel also stated that the patient was taken away from Rohini Hospital on 09.01.2008 against the advice of the doctors. Learned counsel has also drawn our attention to a report of the Andhra Pradesh Medical Council dated 13.02.2009, in which it has been clearly stated that there was no negligence on the part of doctor in treating the patient-Mrs. Badam Jyothi. In view of these facts, the consumer complaint should be dismissed. 8. The court has examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us. From the facts on record, it is clear that the patient was a known case of hypertension and diabetes mellitus. She was already running a high fever when she was brought to the hospital of the opposite party-doctor. The complainants have stated that she remained admitted in the hospital from 26.12.2007 to 31.12.2007; whereas the doctor says that she returned home on 26.12.2007, and then was brought again on 28.12.2007 with severe fever and then, she was admitted there till 31.12.2007.
Regardless of the fact whether she was admitted on 26.12.2007 or 28.12.2007, it is clear that the patient was in a bad state of affairs when she came to the opposite party-hospital. The treatment administered by the opposite party-doctor and the exact prescription have been described in the order of the State Commission. The doctor has also stated that he got the necessary tests conducted and administered proper medicines. 9. From the entire factual matrix of the case, however, it is observed that the charge of negligence against the doctor has not been substantiated by any evidence. There may be an error of judgment in reaching correct conclusion about the proper diagnosis but for the failure to detect that it was a case of cerebral malaria, it does not sound worthwhile to charge the doctor with the negligence or deficiency in service. There is a plethora of judgments on the cases concerning medical negligence, which say that the charge of medical negligence is not proved if the doctor has performed what is expected from a person with ordinary skill and competence.
In this regard the court may like to refer to an order passed by the Honle Apex Court in Jacob Mathew versus State of Punjab & Anr. (2005) 6 SCC 1, in which their Lordships stated as follows: 1. The degree of skill and care required by a medical practitioner is so stated in Halsbury Laws of England (4th Edn., Vol. 30, para 35): 5. The practitioner must bring to his task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge, and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence, judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case, is what the law requires, and a person is not liable in negligence because someone else of greater skill and knowledge would have prescribed different treatment or operated in a different way; nor is he guilty of negligence if he has acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art, even though a body of adverse opinion also existed among medical men.
Deviation from normal practice is not necessarily evidence of negligence. To establish liability on that basis it must be shown (1) that there is a usual and normal practice; (2) that the defendant has not adopted it; and (3) that the course in fact adopted is one no professional man of ordinary skill would have taken had he been acting with ordinary case The above said three tests have also been stated as determinative of negligence in professional practice by Charlesworth & Percy in their celebrated work on Negligence.
Held:
In the present case, applying the tests stated above, it is not established that the doctor or the hospital was found negligent in attending the patient properly or administering treatment at proper time. The report made by the Andhra Pradesh Medical Council describes in detail that the complaint and other material in this case, was considered by the Ethical and Malpractice Committee of the said Medical Council in their meeting held on 23.12.2008. The observations / recommendations made by this Committee were then placed before the Executive Committee of the Council in their meeting held on 20.01.2009. The Executive Committee decided that there was no negligence on the part of the doctor. The decision of the Executive Committee together with other material was then placed before the General Body, in their meeting held on 20.01.2009 and was duly ratified by them. The decision of the General Body was then conveyed to the Dr. L. Vidya Sagar Reddy, saying that there was no negligence on his part in treating the patient Mrs. Badam Jyothi. In view of the entire position described above, it is held that the charge of medical negligence against the opposite party-doctor does not stand proved. The orders passed by the State Commission as well as by the District Forum are therefore, set aside. The revision petition No.2784/2013 is therefore accepted and the consumer complaint in question stands dismissed. The Revision Petition No.15/2013 filed by the complainants is also dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
(National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, Revision Petition No. 15 of 2013, Badam Agaiah & 3 ors. Vs. Dr. L. Vidya Sagar Reddy, decided on 23rd May 2014)
|
Comments
Post a Comment