Satpal Pebma vs. Union of India and others 1999 CCJ 1380

Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressel Commission, Chandigarh

Satpal Pebma, the complainant, is an employee of P.G.I., his father, Banarsi Das, aged 65 years, was admitted in the P.G.I. in the last week of August, 1996. He had several problems such as pain in the right leg, ailment in spine, etc. He was examined by an orthopaedist as well as neurosurgeon in the OPD. Thereafter he was referred to cardiology department where he was also examined by medical officers, such as, Dr. R. P. Supru, Dr. A. K. Gupta, Dr. Rajvanshi, etc. The complainant could not arrange purchase of the required kit, etc., for further treatment because its price was likely to be more than Rs.80,000. The grievance of the complaint is that he himself being an employee of the P.G.I. was entitled to free treatment of his father and the patient died on account of deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. He has claimed a compensation of Rs.7,00,000.

A reply has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties wherein it has been averred that Banarsi Das. The patient himself had been an employee in Christian Medical College, Ludhiana. He retired on 9-5-1994 and was drawing a pension of Rs.890 p.m. According to the rules, a person having income of Rs. 500 p.m. could not be considered to be a dependent and since pension drawn by the patient was more the Rs. 500 p.m. he was not entitled to free treatment merely because the complainant-son too was an employee of the P.G.I.

Here the grievance of the complainant is mainly based on the plea that being father of an employee the patient was entitled to free treatment and the opposite parties were deficient in providing the aforesaid facility and wrongfully insisted on complainant to meet the expenses.

In the case now in hand there is a certificate issued by Christian Medical College dated 22-8-1997 which shows that Banarsi Das, its ex-employee was drawing a monthly pension of Rs. 890. Since the pension exceeded Rs.500 p.m. he was not entitled to free treatment. Thus, it was incumbent upon the complainant-son to meet the expenses which the guardian or attendant of a patient is usually required. Moreover, in this case the complaint concealed the income of the patient at the time of admission.

The Commission held that in this case the patient had peripheral vasolar disease together with coronary artery ailment as per autopsy conducted in the P.G.I. itself. Since the complainant could not establish that his father was entitled to free treatment, it shall not be fair to fasten the opposite parties with the alleged damages. It is a different issue that the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Science and Research located at Chandigarh may with the help of Union of India possess means to assist such needy patients in the public interest. So far as the present complainant for damages is concerned, it fails and is hereby dismissed.

RECENT COPRA JUDGEMENTS

C. Sankara Narayanan and anther vs. Meenakshi Mission Hospital and Research Centre and another 1999 CCJ 1401

Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressel Commission, Chennai

The complaint's daughter aged 13 years was admitted for fever at SPIC Nagar Medical Centre on 8-7-1992. As the condition required dialysis, she was referred to the opposite party No. 1 hospital. After that he wanted to take her for kidney transplant at Child's Trust Hospital.

The complainant's daughter was admitted in the opposite party No. 1 hospital on 11-7-1992 at 1.30 hrs. Dr. Gnaneswaran, the opposite party No.2 admitted the patient to provide the standard of reasonable medical care to bring down the blood urea and creatinine levels to normal.

The complainants lost their only one precious daughter as a result of imperfection, shortcoming and inadequacy in quality, nature and manner of performance of medical service rendered by the opposite parties.

The complainants claimed Rs. 4,00,000 as damages for loss of their precious daughter, medical expenses and other expenditure Rs. 27,912 and for mental agony Rs.1,00,000, totalling Rs. 5,27, 912 only with 15 per cent interest and costs of the complaint.

The opposite parties in their version contended that the patient was admitted in a terminally ill condition. The opposite parties did not give any false hopes or promises to reduce the blood urea and creatinine levels. The first course of dialysis should never be aggressive or prolonged as it would result in unconsciousness and convulsion. Though all the best efforts were taken to reduce the blood urea and creatinine levels, they all failed due to the critical condition of the patient. The diet prescribed by the dietician was meant after recovery of the patient and the same was not given to the patient.

The points that arise for consideration are:
1. Whether the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 were guilty of negligence in service s alleged by the complainant ?
2. What amount of compensation, if any, the complainant can be granted?

According to the assessment of the case by the opposite parties, the serious condition of the patient did not allow more than one haemodialysis. For haemodialysis the blood vessels must remain open for A-V shunt. Under such conditions, the opposite parties gave all the other necessary treatments possible to bring down blood urea and creatinine.

In the above circumstances, the Commission held that, we find that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2.

RECENT COPRA JUDGEMENTS

A. J. Devarajan vs. Management of the Guest Hospital and another 1999 CCJ 1414

Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressel Commission, Chennai

The case of the complainant is that his son Karthikeyan, aged 20 years, was admitted in the opposite party No.1 hospital on 14-8-1995 as an emergency case for the treatment of renal failure under care of the opposite party No.2 who is the opposite No.2 who is the consultant there. The complainant's son was given dialysis emergently. As his son was given more dialysis than actually needed, his condition deteriorated. He developed fits on 19-8-1995, on the date of discharge, at 10.30 a.m.

Because of the excessive dialysis, the complainant's son developed fits and the doctors of the opposite party No.1 failed to attend on the patient and oxygen was not given as the cylinder was not working in the hospital. The complainant was told by the hospital authorities that the oxygen cylinder did not work. The doctor attended on the patient only at the last moment to pronounce his death. The said Karthikeyan died at 8.05 p.m. on 19-8-1995.

The complainant claimed a compensation of Rs. 11,50,000 totally (Rs. 10,00,000 as compensation for the loss of his son, besides a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 towards treatment and other expenditure).

The opposite parties in their version denied all the allegations in the complaint. Karthikeyan was admitted in the opposite party No.1 hospital on 14-8-1995 as an emergency case for the treatment of renal failure.

The opposite party No.1 provided the room and facilities for dialysis and the opposite party No.2 treated the patient with utmost care. The opposite party No.2 examined the patient at the time of admission on 14-8-1995 and found the patient was drowsy, sick and was having fever, fungal infection of the oral cavity and pericardial rub. The complainant also informed the opposite party No.2 that his son was previously treated and had dialysis in a private hospital No.2 that his son was previously treated and had dialysis in a private hospital at Royapettah and he discontinued dialysis for sometime and took the patient from there and treated refused admission and treatment to him.

In the backdrop of these facts, the Commission held that, a perusal of the record shows that the patient was treated for convulsions with epsobin and eptoin 100 m.g. through rhyles tube (R.T.) Exh. B-6 is the record of K.S. Hospital where the patient was previously treated. As per this record the patient was treated with tablet eptoin (100 mg) daily throughout his stay there. Tablet eptoin is the drug given specifically for treatment of epilepsy. So, the patient had epilepsy previously which fact was not disclosed to the opposite parties when admitted on 14-8-1995.

From the above facts, we conclude that the complainant's case that the convulsions were caused by excessive dialysis by the opposite parties is false. We are, therefore, satisfied that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. This point we find against the complainant.

RECENT COPRA JUDGEMENTS