State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Suma Sarasan vs Kims Hospital on 30 October, 2015
Daily Order KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CC.NO.10/09 JUDGMENT DATED :30.10.2015 PRESENT SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT.A.RADHA : MEMBER SMT.SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER COMPLAINANTS Suma Sarasan, W/o.Sarasan, Residing at "Saras Ben", Near Railway Station, Chirayinkil.P.O Thiruvananthapuram Sarasan, S/o.Vaman, Residing at "Saras Ben", Near Railway Station, Chirayinkil.P.O Thiruvananthapuram (By Adv.Chirayinkil Sri.A.Babu & Adv.Sri.Narayan.R) VS OPPOSITE PARTIES 1.Kerala Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS) Anamukham, P.B.No.1 Anayara.P.O Thiruvananthapuram - 695 029 2.Dr.Anand M Kuriyan, Anesthetist, Kerala Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS) Anamukham, P.B.No.1 Anayara.P.O Thiruvananthapuram - 695 029 3. Dr.Ramakrishnan Nair.K Plastic Surgeon, Kerala Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS) Anamukham, P.B.No.1 Anayara.P.O Thiruvananthapuram - 695 029 4. Dr.Suresh Kumar.V.K Intensivist, Kerala Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS) Anamukham, P.B.No.1 Anayara.P.O Thiruvananthapuram - 695 029 (OP1 by Adv.Sri.K.G.Mohandas Pai) (OP3 by Adv.Sri.C.S.Sukumaran Nair) (OP4 by Adv.Sri.K.K.Rajeev Punnapuram) JUDGMENT
SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER This is a complaint filed under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainants are the mother and father of Deepak.S who died on 13.12.2008 at the first opposite party hospital. He was aged 28 years and was admitted in the hospital for surgery .The allegations in the complaint are the following. Sri.Deepak was an engineer by profession and was working as Safety Engineer in Al Falahi Maintenance and Service, Abudabi. He was drawing monthly salary of DHS 11,000/- equivalent to Indian Rupees 1,50,000/-. He had bright and prosperous future. He was the only son of the complainants with sound health. While so he came to India on leave in connection with his marriage engagement which was on 07.12.2008. Deepak had gynaecomastia and he decided to treat the same before marriage. He also wanted to undergo circumcision. For the said purposes he consulted third opposite party, the plastic surgeon working in the first opposite party hospital on 08.12.2008. The third opposite party recommended excision of bilateral gynaecomastia and circumcision. The third opposite party informed Deepak that minor surgery was necessary and accordingly he was admitted for surgery in the morning on 09.12.2008 at the first opposite party hospital. The operation was scheduled at noon on the said day under general anaesthesia. The second opposite party was the anaesthetist. Induction of anaesthesia began at 12.15 p.m. Soon after the induction of anaesthesia brain death of the patient happened and he developed cardiac arrest at 12.30 p.m and pupils became dilated and non reacting. The limbs ceased to move by 12.38 p.m. pulse was not felt, BP was not recordable and heart sounds were not heard. The patient became comatose. He was diagnosed to have developed encephalopathy. The complications in the patient arose due to negligence and lack of expertise on the part of the anaesthetist. There was delay in supplying oxygen for more than five minutes which resulted in damage to the brain. There was delay in starting cardio pulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Defibrillator and diathermy were not put in use to revive the patient. These apparatuses were not available in the operation theatre. CPR was started only at 12.38 p.m. that is, 8 minutes after the cardiac arrest. Had CPR been started within five minutes of cardiac arrest. the patient would have survived. There was profuse internal bleeding from the stomach even though no surgery was done. The crisis management during anaesthesia was a failure. The respiratory centre in the medulla oblongata of the brain, that controls breathing and other vital functions ceased to function due to the careless uncontrolled administration of anaesthetic drugs and non supply of oxygen leading to brain death. The equipment for detecting fall in oxygen saturation of the blood was not put in use EEG for verifying the depth of anaesthesia was not available in the theatre at the crucial time. All these resulted in worsening the complications of the patient. The third opposite party is liable for conducting surgery in an operation room having no adequate facilities. The complainants and other relatives were vaguely informed that the condition of the patient was critical but no specific detail was furnished. The second complainant developed uneasiness on knowing the serious condition of his son and he was admitted in the first opposite party hospital itself. After brain death the body of Deepak was taken to ICU and kept there for four days without revealing the exact position to the parents.
2. By 3.p.m the patient was admitted in the MDICU in deep comatose condition. The condition of the patient remained unchanged for the next three days. At 12.30 p.m on 12.12.2009 the complainants and their relatives were informed that since 72 hrs have passed after the "unfortunate event " the condition of the patient was worsening and diabetes insipidus was also setting in, brain death had to be inferred. They were told that there was no use in continuing treatment. Papers were got signed to permit recall of all life supporting measures. On 13.12.2008 at 8.45 a.m, the complainant's son was declared dead. The opposite parties issued certificate of death to the effect that the death was due to hypoxic cardiac arrest caused by post anaesthetic induction bronchospasm. The death of Deepak came as a rude shock to the complainants and their relatives. They were forced to sign a letter opting to waive post mortem examination for releasing the body of Deepak.
3. The death of Deepak happened due to the sheer negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 2 to 4 working in the first opposite party hospital. As a result of his death the complainants lost the love and affection of their only son and the support expected from him in their old age. They sustained loss of income. Opposite parties are bound to compensate the loss of the complainants due to the death of their son. Notice was issued through the lawyer of the complainant narrating the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and seeking compensation. The opposite parties maintained that his death was caused due to his destiny and failed to compensate the complainants. Hence the complaint seeking compensation of Rs.99,75,000/-.
4. Opposite parties 1 to 4 filed separate versions. The first opposite party has contended that the complaint is devoid of merit. The first opposite party hospital is a super specialty hospital having all infrastructure and facilities with leading consultants in the state. There is no valid consumer dispute for the complainants and the service rendered was perfect in all respects. The consultants are not mere employees of the first opposite party hospital. The doctors had taken all possible measures on the pre operative assessment of the patient. They have used standard techniques for anaesthesia with all monitors. Complications were detected then and there. The doctors were very senior experienced veterans in their respective fields. The patient was given utmost care and close monitoring throughout treatment with the help of advanced equipments having international standard. Only standard quality and apt medicines were used. The patient consulted the opposite parties for surgical correction of gynaecomastia and for circumcision. The doctors have explained all possible details pros and cons consequences risks etc before deciding further course of action. It was with full understanding the patient and family came forward for the surgery. The patient developed cardiac arrest due to severe intractable bronchospasm. Though oxygen was administered through out cerebral hypoxia developed. There was no delay in commencing cardio pulmonary resuscitation as alleged in the complaint. Cardiac arrest occurred at 12.38 p.m. The allegation that devices like defibrillator and dyathermy were not available in the operation theatre is denied by the first opposite party. The allegation that there was profuse internal bleeding from the stomach is also denied. The patient did not suffer from lack of facility or inadequacy in treatment. The patient developed an unexpected and unfortunate known complication of broncho spasm which is the root cause of the events. The relatives of the patient were apprised of everything in detail then and there and there was regular feedback. Requisite consent papers for treatment options alone were sought and were voluntarily given by the complainants. The patient was given protective measures to recover the brain. Usually at least three days are required for brain recovery which was given in this case also. Only on failure of such corrective steps brain death can be confirmed. Autopsy was also suggested. The allegations to the contrary are false. There was no delay negligence or deficiency in providing treatment to the patient. Proper reply was given to the notice issued by the complainants through their lawyer. The complainants are not entitled to any relief.
5. The sequence of events narrated in the version of opposite party no.2 are the following. The patient was admitted in the first opposite party hospital on 09.12.2008 for excision of bilateral gynaecomastia and circumcision. He had no history of any comorbidites. Detailed pre-anaesthetic evaluation was done on 08,12.2008 by Dr.Shibu Thomas duty anaesthetist and review check up was done by the second opposite party on 09.12.2008. Informed written consent was obtained from the patient and from his relatives to conduct the proposed surgery under general anaesthesia. On 09..12.2008 at 10.30 a.m. the patient was adequately pre medicated with T Diazepam ( 10 mgs) T Ranitidine ( 15 mgs ) and T Metachlopramide (10 mgs). At 12.15 pm pre induction monitors ECG NIBP HR , Pulse oxigmetre , ET C02 were checked and were found well maintained . The patient was given necessary pre induction drugs slowly and intravenously under strict aseptic care and precaution. Anasthesia was induced as per protocol after pre oxygenation with 100% oxygen at 6 L per minute for five minutes with propofol 100+20 mgs and succinylcholine 125 (mg) following which endotracheal intubation was done after direct laryngoscopy with 8 mm ID cuffed oral tube. Ventilation was attempted with 100% oxygen. The patient's chest was too tight and ventilation became impossible. ET C02, no trace was noted. Stiff resistance was felt in the reservoir bag even after successful endotracheal intubation.
6. Since this was a very unusual occurrence the second opposite party called for assistance of senior anaesthesiologist and doctors of other specialties including pulmonologist, ENT surgeon, Thoracic Surgeon, Cardio Thoracic surgeon, cardiac anaesthetist and cardiologist to help to manage the situation. The position of the entrotracheal tube was again confirmed by the senior anaesthesioligist. Equipment failure was ruled out immediately. Endotracheal suctioning was done. But nothing was aspirated. Reservoir bag was still tight. The specialist doctors immediately attended the patient to rule out all possible causes of a tight reservoir bag. Dr.Jayakumar laryngologist did a fiber optic bronchoscopy through the endotracheal tube, confirmed its position and ruled out large airway obstruction. The patient developed desaturation bradycardia but responded to IV atropine. Patient's ventilatory circuit was disconnected and manual ventilation with ambu bag and 100% oxygen was given. But the patient did not show any improvement. The patient was reintubated with 8.5 mm ID cuffed oral tube and ventilation was tried with 100% oxygen but reservoir bag was still very tight. Needle aspiration on the left side and ICD insertion on the right side were done by Dr.Sasikumar (thoracic surgeon) who was available in the operation theatre, as tension pneumothorax was suspected. Diagnosis of anaphylaxis with severe bronchospasm was considered and appropriate medicines were administered intravenously. Cardiac surgeon present in the operation theatre considered emergency cardio pulmonary bypass. In the meantime, the patient developed desaturation bradycardia and cardiac arrest at 12.38 p.m.
7. Cardio pulmonary resuscitation was started immediately by the multi disciplinary team and continued as per ACLS Protocol. After 24 minutes of CPR at 1.02 p.m. ventilation became possible and circulation returned back with sinus rhythm. Subsequently the patient was shifted to MDICU for better post arrest management. All cerebral protective measures including therapeutic hypothermia were under taken to protect the brain. Even after 72 hours of the event the patients GCS was 2 T/ 15 and brain stem reflexes were absent. Two ECGs at 48 hrs and 72 hrs after cardiac arrest confirmed brain death of the patient and the same was conveyed to the relatives. Considering the sequence of events the cause of death appears to be due to anaphylaxis with severe bronchospasm leading to cerebral hypoxia and cardio respiratory arrest which was resistant to treatment which condition carries high mortality rate and is a medically known complication. The second opposite party has experience of 12 years as an anesthesiologist and has acted in accordance with accepted protocols and standards of modern medicine. There was no negligence or deficiency on his part. In other respects, the contentions are similar to the contentions of the first opposite party.
8. The third opposite party has contended that he is not a necessary party to the proceedings. He did not conduct any surgical intervention or perform surgical procedures on the patient Deepak. Hence the complainants are not entitled to seek any relief against the third opposite party. Deepak attended the plastic surgery department of the first opposite party hospital on 08.12.2008 with prominence of both breasts and wanted circumcision. On examination he was found to have enlargement of both breasts. The problem was discussed with him and it was explained to him that open excision has to be done as both breast tissues contained lot of tough fibrous enlargement. He was further informed that the procedure is to be done under general anaesthesia. After all clearances were obtained after investigations he was advised to come on 09.01.2008 for admission for surgery. He was admitted on 09.12.2008 after getting necessary consent and was taken to the operation theatre for surgery. Induction of anaesthesia started at 12.15 p.m. After induction the patient went into cardiac arrest and resuscitation measures were taken. The contentions of the third opposite party in other respects are similar to the contentions of opposite parties 1 & 2.
9. The fourth opposite party has contended that he being the intensivist of MD, ICU of the first opposite party hospital was on full time duty in the MD ICU on 09.12.2008. Mr.Deepak was brought to the MD ICU by 3.p.m on 09.12.2008 after sustaining cardio respiratory arrest and regaining of spontaneous circulation. He had no previous acquaintance with Deepak. He attended Mr. Deepak only after he was brought to the MD ICU.The fourth opposite party has no knowledge about the happenings previous to the admission in the MD ICU. At the MD ICU all expert management utilizing the best modem facilities available were done to save the life of Mr. Deepak. There was no negligence or deficiency on his part. The fourth opposite party is unnecessarily dragged into this litigation.
10. On the above pleadings the following points arise for decision.
1. Whether the death of Deepak was due to the negligent induction of anaesthesia and failure to properly manage the subsequent complications?
2. Whether the complainants are entitled to claim compensation if so what is the quantum?
11. The evidence consists of the deposition of the first complainant as PW1. Exts.A1 to A6 and Ext.X1 marked on the side of the complainants, five witnesses examined on the side of the opposite parties as DWs1 to 5 and Ext.B1 marked on their side. After the evidence was recorded arguments were heard.
Point No.1
12. Deepak, the son of the complainants aged 28 years was admitted for surgery in the first opposite party hospital on 09.12.2008. The procedure intended was excision of bilateral gynaecomastia and circumcision. As per the version of the second opposite party, the anaesthesiologist at 10.30 am on 09.12.2008, Deepak was adequately premedicated and preinduction monitors were checked and found well maintained. Then the patient was given the necessary pre induction drugs slowly and intravenously followed by endotracheal intubation. Ventilation was attempted with 100% oxygen but the patient's chest was too tight and ventilation became impossible. Stiff resistance was felt in the reservoir bag even after successful endotracheal intubation. The second opposite party called for the assistance of other specialists but the patient developed desaturation and bradycardia and finally cardiac arrest. Cardio pulmonary resuscitation was started and after 24 minutes ventilation became possible and circulation returned back with sinus rythm. In the meanwhile brain death happened. The patient was shifted to MDICU but even after 72 hrs, there was no improvement and ultimately Deepak was pronounced dead at 8.45 a.m. on 13.12.2008. The allegation in the complaint is that the complications in the patient arose due to negligence and lack of expertise on the part of the anaesthesiologist. Damage to the brain happened as there was delay of more than five minutes in restoring supply of oxygen to the brain. There was delay in starting cardio pulmonary resuscitation. Apparatuses like defibrillator and diathermy were not put in use to revive the patient. In fact the apparatuses were not available in the operation theratre. CPR started only at 12.38 p.m. eight minutes after the cardiac arrest. Even after brain death happened, the body of Deepak was kept in the ICU for four days without revealing the exact position to the father. The further allegation is that death of the patient was due to improper and excessive administration of anaesthesia. As per the contentions of the opposite parties cardiac arrest happened at 12.30 p.m. Cardio pulmonary resuscitation started immediately but circulation returned back with sinus rythm only after 24 minutes. The immediate question is whether the Ext.B1 records kept in the first opp.party hospital as well as the other evidence available support the case of the opp.parties that immediately on sustaining cardiac arrest cardio pulmonary resuscitation of Deepak was started.
13. Exts.A3 & A4 are respectively the certificate of death issued from the hospital and the letter issued by the intensivist. Ext.A3 shows the cause of death of Deepak as hypoxic cardiac arrest and antecedent cause as post anaesthetic induction bronchospasm. In Ext.A4 the factual narration is on similar lines as mentioned in the version of opposite party no.2. DW2 is the anaesthesiologist who attended the patient. He admitted that he did the pre anaesthetic evaluation of the patient. The report finds place at page 45 of Ext.B1. According to DW2 bronchospasm occurred immediately after administration of anaesthesia. Endotracheal intubation was done approximately between 12.20 - 12.25 p.m. Ventilation was not possible. The cause of death was anaphylaxis but DW2 cannot say which particular drug used in anesthesia caused anaphylaxis. He added that most probably it was propofol or succinylcholine. In the case notes they had not specified anaphylaxis. He admitted that symptoms of cerebral hypoxia had set in while the patient was in the operation theatre itself. PW2 admitted that earlier and sooner resuscitation steps are taken the higher would be the chances of survival of a patient. The said view is endorsed by DWs 3 & 5 as well.
14. DW4 is the third opposite party and the surgeon who was expected to perform gynaecomastia and circumcision in the patient. There is no dispute that even before a single incision was made by the surgeon, complications arose. DW3 is opposite party no.4 and an expert in critical care medicine. He attended the patient only after the patient was resuscitated and brought to the MD ICU for further care. DW5 was the professor and head of department of anaesthesiology, Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. She was a member of the board constituted by the superintendent of the hospital to enquire into the circumstances relating to the death of Deepak at the first opposite party hospital. Ext.X1 is the report prepared by the board. Before considering the evidence of DW5 and Ext.X1 it is appropriate to refer Ext.B1 to see whether there is any support to the allegations in the complaint in Ext.B1. In Ext.B1 at page 25 under the title incident management dated 09.12.2008 it is mentioned that at 12.15 p.m. the procedure started by induction of anaesthesia. When ventilation was attempted stiff resistance was felt in the reservoir bag. No chest movements were visualized. No breath sounds were heard. No trace of ET O2 was observed. It is further mentioned that immediately help of Dr.Ajaypillai (anaesthesiologist) was sought followed by Dr.Chacko , Dr.Vijayadevi, Dr.Poornima, Dr.Thomas and Dr.Sivakumar. Position of the endotracheal tube was rechecked. Nothing was aspirated through the endotracheal tube Dr.Ajaypillai attempted ventilation. Still the resistance in the reservoir bag was high. Needle aspiration on the left side of chest was done. Tension pneumothorax was suspected and remedial measures were attempted. It is pertinent to mention that all these procedures are mentioned to have performed at 12.15 p.m. At 12.38 p.m. among other things it is mentioned that CPCR started and cardiologist arrived. All the subsequent entries are made at five minutes interval. So there is actually no indication from Exgt.B1 record, the exact time when cardiac arrest happened.
15. Progress note of cardiology department is found at page 26 of Ext.B1. It is mentioned that consultant cardiologist Dr.Sheeba George and senior registrar cardiology were called in to see the patient at 12.38 p.m following cardio respiratory arrest of the patient. BP was not recorded and heart sounds were not audible. So it is obvious that the cardiologist arrived only after 12.38 p.m. So the contention in paragraph 7 (d) of the version of the second opposite party that assistance of senior anesthesiologist and doctors of other specialties including cardiologist were summoned, immediately after the unusual occurrence of failure of endotracheal intubation is incorrect. It is also pertinent to mention that page 49 of Ext.B1contains the neurology consultation of the patient. There cardiac arrest is mentioned to have happened at 12.25 p.m. It is an admitted case that after starting cardio pulmonary resuscitation circulation returned with sinus rhythm only after 24 minutes. As per Ext.A4 it was after around 30 minutes of CPR spontaneous circulation returned and ventilation became possible. As against this the evidence as already referred to of DWs 2 , 4 & 5 is to the effect that earlier resuscitation procedure is started the better would be the chances of survival of the patient. So the circumstances as a whole leave reasonable doubt as to whether the opposite parties had started CPR as a matter of fact within five minutes after the patient sustained cardiac arrest. The possibility from the circumstances available is otherwise. There is reason to think that expecting no complication opposite party no.2 the anaesthesiologist was left alone to prepare the patient for surgery by inducing anesthesia. So when cardiac arrest happened there was no one to assist him and cardio pulmonary resuscitation in order to be carried out effectively required the assistance of more doctors than one in turns which was not available. This explains the confusion on the part of opposite party no.2 to decide which course of treatment is to be preferred to remedy the complications.
16. Ext.X1 report though concludes that there is nothing to suggest prima facie case of medical negligence on the part of the team of doctors in the management of this case , it does indicate that here were certain deficiency in the service rendered . The report points out that after fibre optic confirmation of the position of the endotracheal tube which was in the correct position, the tube was changed to 8.5 mm size and the reason for opting such a change is not clear from the case sheet. In the report it is also mentioned that it is not understood why a bed side chest x-ray was not taken before putting in an intercostal drain. But the main attempt in Ext.X1 is to justify the action of the team of doctors even at the risk of contradicting the facts available in Ext.B1 records. So is the deposition of Dw5 one of the experts who prepared Ext.X1 is clearly biased.
17. In short, the opposite parties are not sure when the cardiac arrest of the patient happened. In this regard ambiguity is there between the pleadings of the different opposite parties At the same time the evidence of PW2 indicates that cardiac arrest might have happened immediately after the process of induction of anaesthesia started. This is likely to be so as according to DW2 (OP No.2) anaphylaxis is the probable reason for the complications. We are not forgetting the case of the complainant that cardiac arrest happened at 12.30 p.m. But the Neurology department of the first opposite party themselves have put the time of cardiac arrest at 12.25 p.m. At any rate a definite time is not in evidence as to when exactly the cardiac arrest happened. The evidence available indicates that CPR started after 12.38 p.m. At the same time it remains as a fact that the brain death of the Deepak happened which happens only if oxygen is denied to the brain for more than five minutes. The only possibility that remains to be examined is whether this happened because even after CPR started the heart of Deepak failed to respond and establish circulation and sinus rhythm. In this regard, the evidence of DWs 2, 4 & 5 is to the effect that earlier CPR is started the better would be the chance of survival of the patient. So in all probability the heart of the patient failed to respond for 24 minutes or 30 minutes as the case may be because of the failure to start CPR soon after the patient sustained cardiac arrest. So the reasonable possibility is that the first opposite party hospital failed to provide requisite assistance to opposite party no.2 at the earliest opportunity to correct the complications and the second opposite party attempted induction of anaesthesia initially on his own but in the absence of timely assistance from experts he floundered in the management of the patient resulting in the hypoxic cardiac arrest as a consequence of post anaesthetic induction bronchospasm. So primarily opposite parties 1 & 2 are guilty of medical negligence.
18. Regarding opposite party no.3 as rightly pointed out he did not make a single incision before or after the complications arose. The duty of a surgeon begins only after the anaesthesiologist prepares the patient for surgery and leaves the patient with all parameters steady for surgery. SO it is impossible to find any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of op.no.3. So also op.no.4 the critical care medicine expert came into the picture only at a late stage and there is absolutely nothing to show any mismanagement or deficiency in service on his part.
19. The first opposite party hospital has taken a contention that opposite parties 2 to 4 are not merely their employees, but consultants. But it cannot be denied that the hospital admits the patients. The consideration for the service is received by the hospital. May be the consideration is distributed among the hospital and the doctors attending the patients. The staff infrastructure everything is that of the hospital. The hospital is the custodian of the records. Under these circumstances it is idle to contend that opposite parties 2 to 4 are not employed by the first opposite party hospital. So this contention is devoid of merit.
20. In short, on appreciating the evidence available we find that the first opposite party hospital and the second opposite party, anesthesiologist failed to provide the standard of care expected from them while attending Deepak, the son of the complainants. Hence they are liable to compensate the complainants.
Point No.2
21. Coming to the quantum of compensation the allegation in the complaint is that Deepak was aged 28 years and was an engineer by profession working as safety engineer, in Al Falahi Maintenance and service , Abudabi He was drawing salary of DHS 11,000./- per month equivalent to Indian Rs.1,50,000/- per month. He was B.Sc electronics degree holder. Ext.A1 is produced in support of the allegations that deceased was an engineer drawing salary as alleged. Accepting that these allegations are correct several circumstances are to be considered in fixing compensation. One third of the earnings will have to be set apart towards his personal expenses. In fact while living abroad the personal expenses may be his income is chargeable to income tax which would be around 30% of the earnings. There are several contingencies to be taken into account. It is not sure how long he would have continued in service for no security can be attached to his foreign job. No doubt there is possibility that his income might have increased in due course of time. Considering his age, multiplier of 18 can be adopted. But here parents are the only claimants. He had no wife and children. In fact, he contemplated surgery just prior to his marriage. The complainants being parents aged 53 years and 61 years the compensation awarded should be such that the corpus should be expended in their life time. No doubt the parents expected monetary as well as physical support from their only son at the fag ecd of their life. They lost the love and affection of their only son. Taking into account the various circumstances a consolidated compensation of Rs.35 lakhs would be reasonable. Hence opposite parties 1 & 2 are bound to pay this much compensation to the complainants. The point is found accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. Opposite parties 1 & 2 are directed to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.35,00,000- to the complainants as compensation for the negligence and deficiency in service on their part within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which, the amount would carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint. Opposite parties1 & 2 are also directed to pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainants.
K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
A.RADHA : MEMBER
SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER
APPENDIX
List of witness for the complainant
PW1 - Suma sarasan
List of witnesses for the opposite parties
DW1 - Dr.Lissy Thomas
DW2 - Dr.Anand M Kurian
DW3 - Dr.Suresh kumar.V.K
DW4 - Dr.K.Ramakrishnan Nair
DW5 - Dr.Usha Devi
List of Exhibits for the complainant
Ext.A1 - Copy of the statement issued by the employer of
the complainant's son dated 07.01.2009
Ext.A2 - Token issued by the first opposite party for
Consultation with 3rd opposite party dated
08.12.2008
Ext.A3 - Certificate of death issued by the first opposite
party
Ext.A4 - Note issued by fourth opposite party
Ext.A5 - Copy of the lawyer's notice dated 09.02.2009
Ext.A6 - Reply notice issued by the first opposite party
dated 24.02.2009
Ext.X1 - Report prepared by the Board
Exhibit for the opposite parties
Ext.B1 - Medical Records
K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
A.RADHA : MEMBER
SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER
Be/
KERALA STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SISUVIHARLANE
VAZHUTHACADU
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
CC.NO.10/09
JUDGMENT
DATED :30.10.2015
Be/