State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Rajashekar Hospital vs Smitha R. Maiya, on 13 September, 2024
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. First Appeal No. A/3665/2011 ( Date of Filing : 28 Oct 2011 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 30/08/2011 in Case No. CC/178/2008 of District Bangalore 2nd Additional) 1. M/s. Rajashekar Hospital No. 21/9, 9th Cross, 1st Phase, Sarakki Layout, J.P. Nagar, Bangalore 560078 Rep. Dr. Ramesh Somayaji - Managing Director . 2. Dr. B.S. Ramesh, Consultant, Rajashekar Hospital, No. 21/9, 9th Cross, 1st Phase, Sarakki Layout, J.P. Nagar, Bangalore 560078 . 3. Dr. K. Lakshman, Consultant, Rajashekar Hospital, No. 21/9, 9th Cross, 1st Phase, Sarakki Layout, J.P. Nagar, Bangalore 560078 . ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Smitha R. Maiya, Since Minor represented by her Faather and Guardian, B.C.Ramakrishna Maiya, No. 10, 6th B Main, 3rd A Cross, Gowrav Nagar, J.P. Nagar 7th Phase, Bangalore 560078 . 2. Dr. Ambarish Bhat, Consultant, Rajashekar Hospital, No. 21/9, 9th Cross, 1st Phase, Sarakki Layout, J.P. Nagar, Bangalore 560078 . 3. Deshpande Labs, No. 51, Chintal Plaza, 10th Main, 3rd Cross, IV Block Jayanagar, Bangalore 560011 Rep. by its Administrator . 4. M/s. Bangalore Hospital, No. 202, R.V. Road, Near South End Circle, Bangalore 560004 . 5. M/s. Ramakrishna Hospital, No. 808, 15th Cross, III Block, Jayangar, Bangalore 560001 Rep. by its Administrator . 6. M/s. Raghav's Diagnostic & Research , Centre Private Limited, Sadguru Complex, No. 14, 27th Cross, 4th Block West, Jayanagar, Bangalore 560011 Rep. by its Administrator . 7. M/s. Samarth Clinical Laboratories, No. 1/5, Santosh Complex, Armugam Circle (Adjacent to Ganesh Nursing HOme), Basavangudi, Bangalore 560004 Rep. by is administrator . 8. M/s. AeroProbe Laboratories o. C229, Defence Colony, New Delhi 110024 . 9. M/s. New India Assurance Company Ltd. II Floor, Gopal Complex, No. 47, Bazaar Street, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore 560022 By its Divisional Manager . ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/4161/2011 ( Date of Filing : 20 Dec 2011 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 30/08/2011 in Case No. CC/178/2008 of District Bangalore 2nd Additional) 1. Smitha R Maiya, Aged about 18 years, D/o. B.C.Ramakrishna Maiya, No. 10, 6th B Main, 3rd A Cross, Gowrav Nagar, J.P. Nagar 7th Phase, Bangalore 560078 . ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. M/s. Rajashekar Hospital, No. 21/9, 9th Cross, 1st Phase, Sarakki Layout, J.P. Nagar, Bangalore 560078 . 2. Dr. B.S. Ramesh, Consultant, Rajashekar Hospital, No. 21/9, 9th Cross, 1st Phase, Sarakki Layout, J.P. Nagar, Bangalore 560078 . 3. Dr. Lakshman, Consultant, Rajashekar Hospital, No. 21/9, 9th Cross, 1st Phase, Sarakki Layout, J.P. Nagar, Bangalore 560078 . 4. Dr. Ambarish Bhat, Consultant, Rajashekar Hospital, No. 21/9, 9th Cross, 1st Phase, Sarakki Layout, J.P. Nagar, Bangalore 560078 . 5. Deshpande Labs No. 51, Chintal Plaza, 10th Main, 3rd Cross, IV Block Jayanagar, Bangalore 560011 . 6. M/s. Bangalore Hospital No. 202, R.V. Road, Near South End Circle, Bangalore 560004 . 7. M/s. Ramakrishna Hospital, No. 808, 15th Cross, III Block, Jayangar, Bangalore 560001 . 8. M/s. Raghav's Diagnostic & Research Centre Private Limited, Sadguru Complex, No. 14, 27th Cross, 4th Block West, Jayanagar, Bangalore 560011 . 9. M/s. Samarth Clinical Laboratories No. 1/5, Santosh Complex, Armugam Circle (Adjacent to Ganesh Nursing HOme), Basavangudi, Bangalore 560004 . ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 13 Sep 2024 Final Order / Judgement THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH) DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 PRESENT SRI RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, MEMBER APPEAL NOs. 3665/2011 & 4161/2011 APPEAL NO.3665/2011 1. M/s Rajashekar Hospital, No.21/9, 9th Cross, 1st Phase, Sarakki Layout, J.P. Nagar, Bangalore 560 078, Represented by Dr. Ramesh Somayaji, Managing Director. ... Appellant/s 2. Dr. B.S. Ramesh, Consultant, Rajashekar Hospital, No.21/9, 9th Cross, 1st Phase, Sarakki Layout, J.P. Nagar, Bangalore 560 078. 3. Dr. K. Lakshman, Consultant, Rajashekar Hospital, No.21/9, 9th Cross, 1st Phase, Sarakki Layout, J.P. Nagar, Bangalore 560 078. (By Sri G.L. Vishwanath, Advocate) V/s 1. Smitha.R.Maiya, Since minor rep. by her Father & Guardian B.C. Ramakrishna Maiya, No.10, 6th 'B' Main, 3rd 'A' Cross, Gowrav Nagar, J.P. Nagar 7th Phase, Bangalore 560078. (By Dr. Priyadharshini Iyer, Advocate) ... Respondent/s 2. Dr. Ambarish Bhat, Consultant, Rajashekar Hospital, No.21/9, 9th Cross, 1st Phase, Sarakki Layout, J.P. Nagar, Bangalore 560 078. (Absent) 3. Deshpande Labs, No.51, Chintal Plaza, 10th Main, 3rd Cross, 4th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore 560 011, Rep. by its Administrator. (By Miss. Bhavana, Advocate) 4. M/s Bangalore Hospital, No.202, R.V. Road, Near South End Circle, Bangalore 560 004. (By Sri Ismail, Advocate) 5. M/s Ramakrishna Hospital, No.808, 15th Cross, 3rd Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-01, Rep. by its Administrator. 6. M/s Raghav's Diagnostic & Research Centre Private Limited, Sadguru Complex, No.14, 27th Cross, 4th Block West, Jayanagar, Bangalore 560 011, Rep. by its Administrator. (By Sri S. Venkatesh Shastry, Advocate for R-5 & 6) 7. M/s Samarth Clinical Laboratories, No.1/5, Santosh Complex, Armugam Circle, [Adjacent to Ganesh Nursing Home], Basavanagudi, Bangalore 560 004, Rep. by its Administrator. (Served absent) 8. M/s AeroProbe Laboratories, No.C229, Defence Colony, New Delhi 110 024. (Served absent) 9. M/s New India Assurance Company Ltd., 2nd Floor, Gopal Complex, No.47, Bazaar Street, Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore 560 022, By its Divisional Manager. (By Sri Vijayendra .D. Joshi, Advocate) APPEAL NO.4161/2011 Smitha.R.Maiya, Aged about 18 years, D/o B.C. Ramakrishna Maiya, No.10, 6th 'B' Main, 3rd 'A' Cross, Gowravnagar, Bangalore 560 078. (By Dr. Priyadarshini Iyer, Advocate) ... Appellant/s V/s 1. M/s Rajashekar Hospital, No.21, 9th Cross, 1st Phase, Sarakki Layout, J.P. Nagar, Bangalore 78. Respondent/s 2. Dr. B.S. Ramesh, Consultant, Rajashekar Hospital, No.21/9, 9th Cross, 1st Phase, Sarakki Layout, J.P. Nagar, Bangalore 78. 3. Dr. K. Lakshman, Consultant, Rajashekar Hospital, No.21/9, 9th Cross, 1st Phase, Sarakki Layout, J.P. Nagar, Bangalore 78. (By Sri G.L. Vishwanath, advocate for R-1 to 3) 4. Dr. Ambarish Bhat, Consultant, Rajashekar Hospital, No.21/9, 9th Cross, 1st Phase, Sarakki Layout, J.P. Nagar, Bangalore 560 078. (Dismissed) 5. Deshpande Labs, No.51, Chintal Plaza, 10th Main, 3rd Cross, 4th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore 560 011. (By Sri Rajeswara P.N., Advocate) 6. M/s Bangalore Hospital, No.202, R.V. Road, Near South End Circle, Bangalore 560 004. (By Sri Ismail, Advocate) 7. M/s Ramakrishna Hospital, No.808, 15th Cross, 3rd Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore 560 001, (By Sri Venkatesh Shastry, Advocate) 8. M/s Raghav's Diagnostic & Research Centre Private Limited, Sadguru Complex, No.14, 27th Cross, 4th Block West, Jayanagar, Bangalore 560 011. (Served absent) 9. M/s Samarth Clinical Laboratories, No.1/5, Santosh Complex, Armugam Circle, Basavanagudi, Bangalore 560 004. (Dismissed) COMMON ORDER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI, MEMBER Both the complainant and Opposite Parties have filed these two appeals being aggrieved by the Order dt.30.08.2011 passed in CC.No.178/2008 on the file of 2nd Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore. To avoid duplication of work, both these appeals are taken up together and are being disposed of by a common order.
2. The brief facts of the case are hereunder;
It is the case of the complainant that she was admitted to Opposite Party No.1 Hospital on 19.01.2006 as she had high fever. On 20.01.2006 biopsy was done and the same was sent to M/s. Despande Laboratories for pathological investigations and on 22.01.2006 the Lab has given report that it is TB Koch's. The case was handled by Dr. B.S. Ramesh who is a medicine specialist in the Hospital. The doctor started anti Tuberculosis treatment from 23.01.2006. The skin test was also done and it was negative. It showed that there is no TB. The doctor told that the skin test is not 100% correct. Since the temperature did not stop, he asked Doctor whether they have to rule out possibility of Lymphoma / metastasis noted in the USG scan report. For this he told that the chances of 2 diseases co-exist is rare. The doctor went on changing the medicine upto 08.03.2006. Once again complainant had high fever and breathlessness and she was admitted to the OP Hospital. Once again USG Scan was done. Complainant's father told that his daughter is undergoing treatment for TB and Dr. Deshpande Labs has given pathological report to that effect. The CT scan was done by M/s. Raghav's Diagnostic Centre. In the CT Scan, the doctor doubted (i) Lymphomatous (ii) Granulotomous. The Surgeon in the Hospital after discussion decided that TB virus is inside spleen and the same has to be removed. The next day operation for removal of spleen was done and the same day spleen was sent to pathological test to Deshpande Labs with a notice that Hospital doubts abdominal Lymphoma only and not Koch's. The Lab sent report stating that it is Koch's. The second opinion was sought from the Bangalore Hospital along with slide on 19.01.2006 with a letter of Rajashekar Hospital that they doubt Lymphoma clinically and hence they want second opinion. The Bangalore Hospital sent report that it is Koch's. After this, the Complainant was discharged on 18.03.2006. It is the further case of the complainant that her father took her to Ramaiah Hospital along with four pathological reports and CT scan report & X-Rays. The Doctor incharge of the DOTS saw all the reports and told that the medicine given is correct. Once again temperature did not reduce and the complainant was admitted to Opposite Party No.1 Hospital on 27.03.2006 and Dr. Shashidhar Buggi was called who is a specialist in TB. He doubted Lymphoma and sent fluid to Raghav's Diagnostic Labs and Ramakrishna Hospital with a letter to rule out possibility of Lymphoma. The pathologist in Ramakrishna Hospital told that there is no evidence of Lymphoma and Raghav Lab stated that there is no evidence of Malignancies. This has become irreparable damage to the complainant. Hospital called Dr. Loknatha who is Lymphoma specialist in Kidwai Institute of Oncology. He told that it is Hodgkin's Lymphoma and will solve the problem within a week. On the same evening anti tuberculosis treatment was stopped by Dr. Ramesh Somayaji. Even after discharge, the complainant was not correctly diagnosed. The Complainant was forced to take highly gastric TB tablets. The Doctors have not taken any effort to confirm that there is TB also, because Kidwai Hospital report shows that there is possibility of associated TB. The fluid was sent to Aero Lab, New Delhi, for confirmation of TB. The said Lab also sent negative report about TB. On 14.06.2006 the complainant developed heavy stomach pain and she was admitted to Opposite Party No.1 Hospital and told to stop TB tablets for some days. Complainant noticed remarkable improvement in the health after stopping TB tablets. The Complainant was taken to Hospital after chemotherapy in the first week of July 2006. It is the case of the Complainant that Opposite Parties have not correctly diagnosed the disease when it should have been done on 19.01.2006 itself which has caused immense harm to the complainant. The pain & agony went through by the complainant is incalculable. The Complainant submitted that the expenditure for treatment of the disease would have been around Rs.2,00,000/- if the Opposite Parties have diagnosed the same on 19.01.2006. But, the total expenditure incurred by the complainant is nearly Rs.6,00,000/- because of the negligence & carelessness of Opposite Party No1. The Rajashekar Hospital and Pathologists are responsible for the grave injustice done to the Complainant. There is lapse on the part of Opposite Parties in making delay in diagnosing the disease. When the complainant was taken to Hospital first time on 19.01.2006 disease was not spread to all parts of the body. But on 11.04.2006 it has spread to almost all the parts like lungs, ovary, heart, liver etc. If the disease was diagnosed on 19.01.2006, immediately she would have been started on Chemotherapy and further spread of disease could have been stopped and all disfigurement would have also been stopped. Hence, the complaint.
3. Opposite Party No.1 has filed the version stating that on 19.01.2006, Smitha R. Maiya, aged around 15 years was brought to Opposite Party No.1 Hospital. After examining, the patient was referred to laboratory examination and abdominal Ultra Scan, the report of which showed the possibilities of Lymphoma, Koch's & Metastasis. Immediately the patient was advised admission and treatment was started. Biopsy was conducted on 20.01.2006 and specimen was sent for histopathology examination (HPE). The report revealed Tuberculosis Granulation Tissue consistent with Koch's and patient was advised to anti-tubercular medication and patient was discharged on 24.01.2006 with an advice to come to follow-up visit after one week. On 08.03.2006 again patient was brought to the Hospital for treatment and discharged on 18.03.2006. The patient was again brought to the Hospital on 27.03.2006 with persistent complainant of intermittent fever, chills & rigors. The patient underwent series of tests & scans. Despite treatment with anti-tubercular drugs for almost 6 weeks, HPE slides were sent for third opinion which revealed Hodgkin's Lymphoma. The treatment for TB was discontinued and the patient was started on Chemotherapy. In spite of above treatment, patient's condition was not improving. Hence, Histopathology slides were re-examined at Kidwai Memorial Hospital which showed co-existent of Hodgkin's Lymphoma with tuberculosis. The treatment for TB was restarted along with chemotherapy and the patient was discharged on 30.04.2006. There is no negligence on the part of Opposite Party No.1 Hospital as far as treatment is concerned. It is submitted that patient was treated with all care & compassion. Patient cannot be treated for cancer without histological evidence.
4. The Opposite Party No.2 Dr. B.S. Ramesh filed his version and submitted that standard of care has been adhered to and there is no question of negligence or deficiency of services whatsoever on his part. Practically every disease will have a cancer as a part of the differential diagnosis. There is no legal or medical requirement for cancers to be treated by only Oncologists. Hence, Opposite Party No.2 is not liable for payment of any amount or compensation for deficiency of service.
5. The Opposite Party No.3 Dr. Lakshmana has filed defence version stating that every single process and procedure conform to the established standard of care, evidence based medical practice and ethical conduct. It is further submitted that to clarify that X-Ray & C.T. Scan can only suspect but cannot prove any disease whether malignant or otherwise. Every single procedure conducted is in the interest of patient's health. Hence, Opposite Party No.3 prayed to dismiss the complainant.
6. The Opposite Party No.4 Dr. Ambarish Bhat filed defence version stating that he is neither a proper or necessary party. Ultrasound Scan of abdomen was carried on as per the standard medical practices. Accordingly, findings were recorded bonafide and a legitimate opinion expressing the possibility of (1) Lymphoma (Cancer) (2) Koch's (TB) (3) Metastasis (Cancer) was given.
7. The Opposite Party No.5 filed version stating that there is no element of any negligence in the services rendered by Opposite Party No.5 to the complainant. The Deshpande Clinical Lab was established 26 years back by Dr. D.H. Deshpande. The laboratory has excellent technical staff and facilities for advanced Histopathology techniques managed by Dr. Asha Prabhakar, Dr. R.S.Kamat & Dr. D.H. Deshpande. Lab has the most modern state of art infrastructure. Lab receives cases for primary and second opinions from all over Bangalore. Lab is managed by 3 Pathologists. Specimen of cervical gland and the spleen was sent for histopathology study to Opposite Party No.5 by Opposite Party No.1 Hospital. In the instant case, Histopathological study of the patient's spleen showed many of features of TB. Two diseases can co-exist also in the same patient because of immune compromised state in Hodgkin's Lymphoma. On 20.01.2006, Lymph node biopsy was received from Opposite Party No.1 i.e., Rajashekar Hospital. Report was confirmed by 3 Histopathologists at Opposite Party No.5. Opinion was also taken from Bangalore Hospital, Pathology Department. Slides were also sent to Dr. Clementine Rama Rao of Kidwai Institute of Oncology and the said Doctor given the diagnosis of Hodgkin's Lymphoma with possibility of associated Tuberculosis. Therefore, an error of diagnosis after due application of mind can never be labeled as deficiency in service.
8. The Opposite Party No.6 Bangalore Hospital in its version has contended that Complainant is devoid of any material particulars against Opposite Party No.6. The Opposite Party No.6 has been unnecessarily dragged to this Forum, without there being any allegation of deficiency and Complainant has been filed with ulterior motive.
9. The Opposite Party Nos.7 & 8 have filed version and contended that complainant against them is totally misconceived. On 31.03.2006 sample of the pleural fluid which was take from the chest cavity was sent for examination to Opposite Party No.7 and on examination, the said fluid did not indicate the existence of any malignant cells. The sample of the same fluid which was sent to Opposite Party No.8 and also to Opposite Party No.9 and the reports given by the said Opposite Parties also do not indicate the existence of any malignant cells. The Opposite Party No.7 could not have given any finding regarding existence of any malignancy in view of the fact that neither the biopsy of the lymph nodes nor the spleen tissue was sent for examination.
10. Opposite Party No.9 also submitted defence version stating that there are no specific allegations made against Opposite Party No.9 in the complainant. The samples of pleural fluid and ascetic fluid pertaining to the patient were sent to the Lab and accordingly same were tested and detailed report has been submitted to the concerned Doctor / Hospital which is self explanatory and there is no hide & seek whatsoever.
11. The Opposite Party No.10 Aeroprobe Laboratories in its version contended that this Opposite Party neither necessary nor proper party to the proceedings. Opposite Party No.10 has discharged its functions satisfactorily.
12. The Opposite Party No.11 Insurance Company submitted defence version that Opposite Party No.6 Bangalore Hospital has obtained error & omission Insurance policy for the period from 30.10.2005 to 29.10.2006. All the allegations in the complainant are directed against Opposite Parties 1 to 4 and there is absolutely no allegation whatsoever as against Opposite Party No.6. Therefore, Opposite Party No.11 prayed to dismiss the complaint.
13. Heard the arguments.
14. Perused the appeal memorandum and Order passed by the District Commission. We noticed that it is not in dispute that the complainant was admitted in Opposite Party No.1 hospital on 19.01.2006 with a complaint of high fever. Ultrasound scan of abdomen was done on the same day. It is also not in dispute that it shows possibility of Lymphoma / metastasis. It is also not in dispute that on 20.01.2006 biopsy was done and the same was sent to Opposite Party No.5 M/s Deshpande Hospital. The lab report showed TB Koch's. It is also not in dispute that Opposite Party No.2 medicine specialist working in Opposite Party No.1 hospital started anti tuberculosis treatment from 23.01.2006 with skin test was done it showed "NO TB". It is also not in dispute that when the complainant had high fever and breathless she was admitted again into Opposite Party No.1 hospital, USG scan was done again and report dt.12.05.2006 if of Aero Labs, New Delhi showed there was no TB. Again CT Scan was done by Raghav Diagnostics and doctors of Opposite Party No.1 decided with TB virus will be inside the spleen and same has to be removed. Subsequently spleen was removed and sent to his pathological test of Opposite Party No.5 lab along with note that hospital doubts abdominal lymphoma not TB. It is also not in dispute that the said lab report was disclosed TB, hence, for second opinion was sought from Bangalore Hospital along with slide with some note. After diagnosis, Bangalore Hospital sent a report stating that it is TB and the complainant discharged from hospital on 18.03.2006 with follow-up suggestions. The allegations of the complainant are that the doctors in Opposite Party No.1 hospital failed to diagnose the correct disease which caused harm to the complainant's health. Though the complainant was suffering from cancer, the doctors did not start treatment to the cancer at the earliest point, but, treated with TB medicines. Per contra, the Opposite Parties in lower court and in appeal memorandum contended that the treatment rendered by the Opposite Parties is according to established medical standard. The patient created with all care and compassion. The patient cannot be treated for cancer without histopathalogical evidence. Moreover, disease will have a cancer as a part of diagnosis. There is no legal or medical requirement for cancer to be treated by oncologists only. Moreover, x-ray and CT scan can only establish cancer, but, cannot prove any disease, hence, there is no negligence on their part.
15. Perused the order passed by the District Commission. We noticed that during the course of hearing of the matter, the District Commission granted 3-4 adjournments for settlement amicably between the parties. However, the matter was not settled. Subsequently the District Commission after trial, allowed the complaint. Perused the order sheet, it is noticed that the complainant was admitted in Opposite Party No.1 hospital for high fever and ultra sound report disclosed possibility of Lymphoma (Cancer TB Koch's and metastasis). However, biopsy report reveals that it was TB. Hence, Opposite Party No.1 started anti tuberculosis treatment on the complainant. The skin test shown that there is no TB which is necessary for the TB treatment. Inspite of treatment for TB, almost six weeks there was no improvement in the health of the patient, hence, after removing of spleen sent to histopathological on 11.04.2006 and report was came as coexistence Hodgkin's Lymphoma and tuberculosis. Hence, again on 19.09.2006 histopathological slides were re-examined at Kidwai Hospital which showed the same. Subsequently the Opposite Party started treatment for lymphoma after a lapse of so many days which is not according to the medical standards because at the first instance in USG report doctors doubted possibility of cancer and TB. They should have to refer further tests for the cancer also along with treatment for TB. They could not have relied only on pathological report if it doubted as cancer also. The cancer is dangerous disease it can vanish organ functions. They destroy healthy cells and block their oxygen supply. As such if the doctors have started the treatment at the earliest point patient's health would have been improved. Moreover before removal of spleen of the patient, the doctors have to take opinion from any oncologist. However, doctors have taken decision for removal of spleen on USG report which is not proper treatment. Moreover, the laboratory reports are not conclusive to find out the disease and took final decision for treatment. They should have taken opinion from Oncologists since there was a possibility of cancer and TB coexists. Hence, in our opinion it is negligence on the part of the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4.
16. Perused the KMC report, it reads as "ORDER : Karnataka Medical Council is of the unanimous opinion that there might have been an "Error of Judgement" on the part of the Respondents. With the result all Respondents are "EXONERATED"."
However, an expert opinion is only required to assist the court. When the case is before it involves the matter on which court does not have requisite technical or specialists knowledge. It is a corroborative and advisory only not binding on the courts. We agree in the early stages it is very difficult to differentiate TB from Lymphoma and vice-versa. If there is a possibility of TB & Lymphoma coexists, then it is the duty of treating doctors to come fair conclusion by referring the patient for advance tests or diagnosis for cancer treatment. Hence, it is a clear-cut negligence on the part of the Opposite Party Nos. 2 to 4 doctors of Opposite Party No.1. Moreover, there is no any document produced by the complainant to show that he has spent Rs.6,00,000/- for the treatment of his daughter. Hence, considering the facts and discussion made here we are of the opinion that the Order passed by the District Commission is just and proper. No interference is required. Hence, the following;
O R D E R The Appeal Nos. 3665/2011 & 4161/2011 are dismissed.
The amount in deposit in Appeal No.3665/2011 shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission for disbursement of the same to the complainant.
Keep the original Order in Appeal No.3665/2011 and a copy of the same in Appeal No.4161/2011.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.
Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER KCS* [HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi] MEMBER