State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
C.P.Mohanan, S/O Kunhikrishna Kurup, vs Dr.P.V.George, on 9 January, 2012
Daily Order
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Vazhuthacaud,Thiruvananthapuram Complaint Case No. CC/99/87 1. C P Mohanan Pattannur K P C High School,Kolappa,Kannur BEFORE: HONARABLE MR. SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN PRESIDING MEMBER PRESENT: ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
OP.87/99
JUDGMENT DATED: 09.01.2012
PRESENT
SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. C.P.Mohanan, S/o Kunhikrishna Kurup, Teacher, Pattannur K.P.C. High School, Residence at 'Leena Villa', Kolappa, Post Pattannur, Kannur District.
2. O.K.Nikhil Mohan, S/o C.P. Mohanan, Minor, 'Leena Villa' Post Pattannur, Repd. by his guardian and next friend, Father C.P.Mohanan, 1st complainant.
: COMPLAINANTS
3. O.K.Aswathi, D/o C.P.Mohanan, Minor, 'Leena Villa' Post Pattannur, Repd. by his guardian and next friend, Father C.P.Mohanan, 1st complainant.
4. O.K.Parvathy Amma, W/o late P.K.Gopalan Nambiar, Othiayoth Koojumbidukka, Kuyiloor, Padiyoor.P.O, Taliparamba, Kannur District.
(By Adv:M/s P.V.Surendranath, A Subramanian & E.G.Gorden) Vs.
1. Dr.P.V.George, Obstetrician & Gynecologist, Dr.Devaki Memorial Hospital, Kannur-1, Residing at Behind LIC Office, Kannur-2.
(By Adv:Sri.M.K.George)
2. Dr. Devaki Memorial Hospital, Kannur-1,
3. Dr.Suma Dhanraj, MBBS, : OPPOSITE PARTIES Devaki Memorial Hospital, Kannur-1, Resident Medical Officer & Proprietor, Dr. Devaki Memorial Hospital.
(By Adv for 2nd and 3rd OP:Sri. George Cheriyan Karippaprambil) JUDGMENT SHRI.M.V VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Complaint filed under section 17(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The case of the complainants is as follows:-
Complainants are the legal heirs and legal representatives of deceased O.K.Vasanthakumari who was a patient of the opposite parties. 1st complainant is the husband, complainants 2 and 3 are the minor children and 4th complainant is the mother of the deceased Vasanthakumari. The patient, Vasanthakumai was aged 29 years and was a teacher in Kuttiyattoor UP School. She died on 25.7.1997 at 1.45.am due to the negligent and carelessness of the opposite parties in treating her in connection with her 2nd delivery. The opposite parties failed to provide reasonable care in treating the patient, Vasanthakumari. There was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and only due to the negligence and carelessness and deficiency in service of the opposite parties, the patient Vasanthakumari died on 25.7.1997 at 1.45.am while undergoing treatment in 2nd opposite party Dr.Devaki Memorial Hospital, Kannur. The patient, Vasanthakumari was admitted in the 2nd opposite party hospital on 21.7.1997 as advised by the 1st opposite party. The patient had high blood pressure and as advised by the 1st opposite party, the patient was given Oxytocine to induce labour. The patient Vasanthakumari delivered a female baby on 24.7.1997 at 7.08.pm. After delivery also the patient was having high BP and she complained of chest pain. But the 1st opposite party was negligent in treating the patient for the emergent situation of chest pain. He came to the hospital and examined the patient only at 9.30.pm. He prescribed ranitidine for gas trouble and suggested that the chest pain is only due to gas trouble. The 1st opposite party immediately left the hospital. He failed to investigate the cause for chest pain. No ECG was taken; no expert management was given to the patient. After leaving of the 1st opposite party, the condition of the patient, Vasanthakumari deteriorated. The 1st opposite party was informed by the attending nurses and also 1st complainant and her friend Radhakrishnan. But the 1st opposite party failed to attend the patient. At last the patient, Vasanthakumari died on 25.7.97 at 1.45.am. The 1st opposite party came to the hospital only after the death of the patient, on getting information of death over telephone. The 1st opposite party reached the hospital after death of the patient and he corrected his own entry with respect to the time in the case sheet. He corrected the time as 1.40 am at the place of 1.45.am. He also managed to get the police help. The opposite parties failed to obtain the service of a Physician or any other expert for crisis management. The nurses tried to give oxygen inhalation to the patient; but it was also failed because of the failure of the equipment. The patient, Vasanthakumari struggled and died on account of the criminal negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The opposite parties 1 to 3 also failed to attend the delivery of the patient, Vasanthakumari, though labour was induced by administering Oxytocine. The complainants claimed a total compensation of Rs.20.lakhs for the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
3. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version contending mainly as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The 1st complainant's wife, Vasanthakumari was having her antenatal check up with the 1st opposite party in 2nd opposite party hospital. All the necessary investigations and examinations were done during the said period. The expected date of delivery was on 13.8.97. The patient was admitted in 2nd opposite party hospital on 21.7.97 with severe pre-eclamptic toxaemia (pet) and head ache. The patient was treated conservatively for 3 days by 1st opposite party. But, there was no improvement. So, Oxytocine was administered with the consent of 1st complainant. The 1st opposite party explained the complications of severe BP. The patient, Vasanthakumari delivered a female child at 7.08.pm on 24.7.97. The baby was asphyxiated and was resuscitated with oxygen and other measures. The delivery was attended by 3rd opposite party. The 1st opposite party came to the hospital at 9.15.pm on 24.7.97 to see 2 other patients and the patient, Vasanthakumari was also seen at that time. The patient, Vasanthakumari was having discomfort of abdomen with slight pain chest. The 1st opposite party examined the patient in detail and no abnormalities could be detected. Hence medicines were prescribed for her symptoms. 1st opposite party again came to the hospital at around midnight and enquired about the patient, Vasanthakumari. The patient was not having any complaint and she was resting. At about 1.20 am on 25.7.97 the patient complained of general weakness and thereby 1st and 3rd opposite parties reached the hospital immediately. The patient was collapsed and gasping. There was evidence of pulmonary oedima. Oxygen was already started and drip was given. When the heart beat stopped, external cardiac massage was tried. But the patient could not be revived and expired at 1.45.am. 1st opposite party advised autopsy of the patient and the same was resisted by the relatives. There was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The relatives of the patient gathered together and created a lot of trouble in the hospital and forcefully took away the case sheet of the patient, Vasanthakumari and destroyed the case sheets of some other patients. Police was informed and in the presence of the police the 1st opposite party explained the cause of death of the patient to the relatives. The delivery was attended by 3rd opposite party who is qualified and experienced to do so. Reasonable care and attention required for the patient was given. The allegation that 1st opposite party was called to attend the patient and that 1st opposite party came to the hospital after the death of the patient are not true. The 1st time the 1st opposite party was called to see the patient was at 1.30.am on 25.7.97 and he immediately reached to see the patient. The symptoms and signs were consistent with the dreaded complication of pregnancy known as Amniotic Fluid Embolism (AFE) which can lead into pulmonary hyper tension, pulmonary oedema and heart failure. There is no specific treatment for this condition and is very difficult to detect in the initial stages. The said condition is 86% fatal. No doctor can successfully treat and cure such a case. Only in very few cases there is spontaneous absorption leading to cure. AFE is uncommon; but often a fatal complication during labour. This is believed to be an anaphylactic (allergic) response. It is due to Amniotic Fluid and foetal cellular elements like lanugo hat and vernix and mucin etc reaching the maternal circulation. Oxygen was provided to the patient successfully and all necessary resuscitatory measures were given to the patient by the 1st and 3rd opposite party. There was no sort of negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The points that arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether there was medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in treating the patient, Vasanthakumari in connection with her 2nd delivery at 2nd opposite party hospital?
2. Whether the complainants have succeeded in establishing their case that the 1st opposite party was medically negligent in rendering service to the patient, Vasanthakumari while undergoing treatment at 2nd opposite party hospital?
3. What order as to reliefs and costs?
5. Evidence in this case consists of the oral testimonies of PWs 1 and 2 and DWs 1 to 4 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A10 and B1 and X1. The 1st complainant and the 1st opposite party have filed proof affidavits in lieu of examination in chief. After closure of the evidence, the counsel for the complainants and opposite parties were heard in detail. The counsel for the complainants has also filed argument notes in support of his oral submissions.
6. The counsel for the complainants submitted questions to be asked to Dr.T.Sheela Shenoy, Professor and Head of Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Government Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram (PW2) and the questions were forwarded to the witness and she answered the questions and submitted the answers before this Commission. This witness, Dr.T.Sheela Shenoy had also submitted a letter dated 3.10.2005 requesting this commission to excuse her from appearing before this commission. She has also given the reasons or circumstances for submitting such a request to abstain her from giving evidence as an expert. The aforesaid letter dated:3.10.2005 addressed to this State Commission was received on 7th October 2005 along with copies of the letter dated:5.12.2003 issued by 1st opposite party, Dr.P.V.George to the Registrar, T.C.Medical Council, Red Cross Road, Thiruvananthapuram and copy of the letter dated 3.8.2004 issued by the Registrar, T.C.Medical Council, Thiruvananthapuram to Dr.T.Sheela Shenoy, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, SAT Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram and also copy of letter dated:9.8.2005 issued by Ethics Committee, Indian Medical Association, Kerala State Branch to Dr.Sheela Shenoy, Professor, MCH, Thiruvananthapuram.
7. Points 1 and 2:- There is no dispute that deceased O.K.Vsanthakumari was a patient of the opposite parties and that the complainants 1 to 4 are the legal representatives of deceased Vasanthakumari. The patient Vasanthakumari was undergoing treatment in connection with her 2nd pregnancy and the antenatal treatment was under the 1st opposite party Dr.P.V.George. The 1st opposite party was working as an Obstetrician and Gynecologist of the 2nd opposite party Dr. Devaki Memorial Hospital. The 3rd opposite party, Dr.Suma Dhanraj, MBBS has been working as the resident Medical Officer of 2nd opposite party hospital. 3rd opposite party is also the Proprietrix of 2nd opposite party hospital. Ext.A2 series documents are photocopies of the prescriptions issued by 1st opposite party Dr.P.V.George with respect to the out patient treatment of deceased Vasanthakumari. This would show that the Patient, Vasanthakumari was undergoing antenatal treatment from 9.1.97 under 1st opposite party Dr.P.V.George. Ext.A1 is photocopy of ultra sound of Gravid Uterus issued by Dr.B.Prathapa Kumar, MD, Consultant Radiologist Medi Scan and Diagnostic Centre. It is dated:9.1.97. Ext.A3 series are photocopies of the prescriptions issued by Dr.P.V.George with respect to the treatment of the patient, Vasanthakumari. There is no dispute regarding the genuineness and correctness of A1 to A3 documents. Thus, it could be concluded that the patient, Vasanthakumari was undergoing antenatal treatment under 1st opposite party Dr.P.V.George.
8. Ext.A4 is copy of the Doctor's notes maintained by 2nd opposite party Dr.Devaki Memorial Hospital. Ext.A4 document would show that the patient, Vasanthakumari delivered a female baby having the weight of 1.80 Kg on 24.7.1997 at 7.08 pm. It would show that the delivery was normal and the baby was asphyxiated. It would also show that the bleeding was within the normal limits with BP 180/120.MM Hg. It would further show at 9.30 pm the patient complained of chest pain and the patient was seen by Dr.George; that on examination general conditions good, pulse 64 per minute, injection ranitidine 1 ampule was given by IV and also injection largetel. It is further recorded in A4 doctor's notes that at 1.40 am on 25.7.1997 the patient collapsed and gasping. Expired at 1.45.am. The cause for the death is shown as acute left ventricular failure. The entries at 9.30.pm and 1.40 am are signed by 1st opposite party Dr.P.V.George and the entry at 7.08 pm on 24.7.97 is recorded by 3rd opposite party Dr.Suma Dhanraj. The genuineness and correctness of A4 doctor's notes is also not disputed by the parties to the complaint in OP.87/99. A4 document would show that the delivery of the patient, Vasanthakumari was attended by 3rd opposite party Dr.Suma Dhanraj and the patient delivered a female baby on 24.7.97 at 7.08 pm. It would also show that after the delivery, the patient had a BP of 180/120 MM of hg. It would also show that the patient, Vasanthakumari complained of chest pain at 9.30 pm on 24.7.97. She was examined by the 1st opposite party Dr.P.V.George.
9. It would further show that doctor prescribed injections for gas trouble and also for high blood pressure. A4 document would further show that 1st opposite party thereafter came to the 2nd opposite party hospital for examining the patient, Vasanthakumari only at 1.40 am on 25.7.97. By the time the patient was collapsed and gasping and she expired at 1.45.am. The cause of death is recorded by 1st opposite party as acute left ventricular failure.
10. Another important aspect to be noted at this juncture is the correction of the time as 1.40.am. A perusal of the said entry would show that at the 1st instance the time of examination is shown as 1.45.am and the same has been corrected as 1.40 am subsequently. The opposite parties in their written version (at page 12) have also admitted the correction effected in doctor's note by changing the time as 1.40 am from 1.45 am. The 1st opposite party in his proof affidavit filed in this case has also admitted the correction with respect to time of his entry. It is categorically admitted at para 14 of the affidavit that the time was initially recorded as 1.45 am and the same was corrected as 1.40 am. The aforesaid correction regarding the time of entry of the 1st opposite party would strengthen the case of the complainants that 1st opposite party came to the hospital only after the death of the patient at 1.45 am on 25.7.97. The explanation offered by 1st opposite party for making such a correction cannot be believed or accepted.
11. Another important aspect to be noted at this juncture is the summary of treatment dated:26.7.97 issued by 1st opposite party with respect to the treatment history of the patient Mrs.Vasanthakumari, 29 years. Copy of the aforesaid summary is attached to B1 case sheet. In the aforesaid summary dated:26.7.97, the time of death of the patient is shown as 1.40 am. It is admitted by DW1, the 1st opposite party that patient expired at 1.45 am. This would give a clear indication that the 1st opposite party was not in the 2nd opposite party hospital at the time of death of the patient, Vasanthakumari. It would further show that 1st opposite party reached the hospital only after the death of the patient, Vasanthakumari. This circumstance would reflect medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of 1st opposite party doctor, P.V.George in attending the patient, Vasanthakumari on getting information that the patient is having chest pain.
12. Ext.B1 copy of the case sheet would also support the genuineness and correctness of A2 to A4 documents. Ext.B1 case sheet also contains nurse's notes and doctor's notes. A perusal of B1 case sheet produced from the side of the opposite parties would make it clear that the patient, Vasanthakumari was having antenatal treatment under 1st opposite party doctor P.V.George from 9.1.97 onwards and the patient was admitted in 2nd opposite party hospital as advised by 1st opposite party; that Vasanthakumari was admitted on 21.7.97; that she was prescribed medicines for high blood pressure and the blood pressure could not be brought under control and that to save the patient. Oxytocine was administered on 24.7.97 for inducing labour and that the patient Vasanthakumari had a normal delivery by delivering a female baby having Asphyxia; that the delivery was on 24.7.97 at 7.08 pm. It would also show that the patient had severe blood pressure even after delivery; that the delivery was attended by the 3rd opposite party Dr.Suma Dhanraj.
13. The case of the complainants that no doctor was present to attend the delivery of Vasanthakumari cannot be believed or accepted. There is nothing on record to doubt the entries in B1 case sheet including doctor's notes. It would show that the delivery of Vasanthakumari was attended by the 3rd opposite party Dr.Suma Dhanraj. So, there cannot be any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties till the delivery of Vasanthakumari on 24.7.97 at 7.08 pm. The other documentary evidence on record would also establish the fact that the patient Vasanthakumari was given proper and adequate treatment during her antenatal period and also during her 2nd delivery at 2nd opposite party hospital.
14. The case of the complainants that the patient Vasanthakumari complained of chest pain immediately after her delivery at 7.08 pm cannot be believed or accepted. On the other hand, Ext.A4 and B1 documents would show that the patient complained of chest pain at 9.30 pm and the patient was seen by 1st opposite party Dr.P.V.George. It would further show that on examination, the general condition of the patient was good and the doctor gave symptomatic treatment for gas trouble. On examination of the patient, the doctor came to the conclusion that it is only due to gas trouble. So, up to 9.30 pm, there was nothing wrong with the treatment of the patient.
15. Ext.B1 case sheet and A4 doctor's note would show thereafter nothing is recorded in the case sheet or in the doctor's note. This would suggest that the blood pressure was not taken after 9.30 pm. It would further show that there occurred failure to monitor the condition of the patient by the doctors attached to the 2nd opposite party hospital. It is come out in evidence that the patient was having severe blood pressure even after delivery and that the patient complained of chest pain at 9.30 pm. In such a situation, it was incumbent upon the doctors of 2nd opposite party hospital, especially the 1st opposite party treating doctor to have a close observation of the patient. But in fact, the opposite parties 1 to 3 were totally negligent in observing the patient.
16. It is admitted by DW1 that the relatives of the patient made a lot of trouble on getting information about the death of the patient, Vasanthakumari. In the ordinary course, the relatives of a patient would not make any hue and cry unless there is suspicion or lack of care in administering treatment to the patient. This circumstance would also strengthen the case of the complainants that after 9.30 pm, the condition of Vasanthakumari deteriorated and there was no doctor available in the 2nd opposite party hospital to attend the patient. It would also strengthen the case of the complainants that 1st opposite party was informed about the deterioration of the condition of the patient and the continuous chest pain.
17. It is evident that 1st opposite party did not turn up to attend the patient. The case of the complainants have even strengthened by the entry in A5 nurse's note. The nurses notes attached to B1 case sheet and also in A5 series (nurses notes) would show that 4 local calls were made by the duty nurse. This entry would suggest that the treating doctor Viz, the 1st opposite party Dr. P.V.George was informed by duty nurse by making 4 local calls. But the 1st opposite party doctor did not care to attend the patient. Ext.A5 nurses notes would also suggest that Oxygen inhalation was given to the patient at 1.30 am of 25.7.97. But, there is nothing on record to suggest that any doctor attended the patient, Vasanthakumari after 9.30 pm. It is also to be noted that the opposite parties failed to examine 3rd opposite party Dr.Suma Dhanraj, who was the duty doctor on that day. They also failed to examine the duty nurse who was on duty during the night hours of 24.7.97 and early hours of 25.7.97. Thus, it can very safely be concluded that the opposite parties failed to provide necessary treatment to the patient, Vasanthakumari she was struggling with severe chest pain. So, the complainants have succeeded in establishing their case that there was medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in treating the patient, Vasanthakumari after 9.30 pm, while she was having chest pain and high blood pressure.
18. The evidence of DW1 would also suggest that there were no trained nurse to attend the patient during emergency situations. His evidence would also suggest that the hospital has been running without getting the service of trained and qualified nurses. It is deposed by DW1 that there was only one trained staff nurse by name Janaki who is a retired nurse from District Government Hospital. He also admitted the fact that there were nursing assistants who were not having any specific qualification. This circumstance would make it clear that there occurred deficiency in service on the part of 2nd opposite party in providing adequate and necessary nursing services to the patients who were admitted in the said hospital. It is a usual practice in some of the Private Hospitals having no trained nursing staff and running such hospitals with untrained persons.
19. On the side of the opposite parties, DW4, Dr.Bhadran Nair was examined. No doubt DW4 is a well qualified and well experienced Gynecologist who was in the Government Medical services as Professor of Medical College, Kozhikkode. The testimony of DW4 would suggest that women after delivery may develop gastric problems and on getting the complaint of chest pain administration of Ranitidine can be considered as a proper treatment. But, DW4 has also deposed that further investigation or management is required only if it is found that there is no improvement. The aforesaid evidence of DW4 would suggest that when chest pain still continued, further investigations like taking of ECG etc are required. This would suggest that consultation of a Physician or Cardiologist was required as the chest pain was persisting. In the present case on hand, it can be seen that the patient was having persistent chest pain even after administering Ranitidine injection. There is no entry in the case sheet or in the doctors note that after administering Ranitidine injection, the patient was relieved from chest pain. No such entry is recorded in the case sheet. On the other hand, after 9.30 am, the next entry is at 1.40 or 1.45 pm. It is also recorded at that time; the patient was collapsed and gasping. The patient was given oxygen inhalation and she expired at 1.45.am. The cause of death is recorded as acute left ventricular failure. This would suggest that the patient was not relieved of chest pain, even after administration of Ranitidine injection. This circumstance would also suggest lack of care and attention for the patient, Vasanthakumari.
20. DW4 has stated 3 reasons for the cause of death of the patient, Vasanthakumari; (1) Cerebral Hemorrhage (2) Amniotic Fluid Embolism (3) Acute Left Ventricular Failure. In the present case on hand, there is no case for the opposite parties that the patient, Vasanthakumari had cerebral hemorrhage. There is also no mention in the B1 case sheet or in the doctor's or nurses' notes about Amniotic Fluid Embolism. The only cause of death recorded in B1 case sheet is acute left ventricular failure. It is only in the written version, the opposite parties have come up with the case of Amniotic Fluid Embolism. If there was in such suspicion about amniotic fluid embolism that fact should have been found a place in B1 case sheet or in the doctors or nurses notes. The specific entry regarding the cause of death is shown in B1 case sheet and A4 doctors notes as 'acute left ventricular failure'. As far as the present case is concerned, it can be concluded that the patient, Vasanthakumari died due to acute left ventricular failure. This would in turn negative the case of the opposite parties that the patient died due to amniotic fluid embolism.
21. DW4, the expert Gynecologist has also deposed that in the case of a patient suffering from high blood pressure and the labour was induced by administering Oxytocine, the following precautionary measures are to be taken (1) Monitoring of BP (2) Pulse rate (3) Foetal heart (4) Assessment of progress of labour. The aforesaid opinion given by DW4 would also suggest that the monitoring of BP has to be done, even after delivery, when the patient was having high blood pressure after delivery. DW4 categorically deposed "Diastolic pressure 120 #*W\yTP !8a damgerous !BUeWm pressure #7a&" $h[< !=*3*CATB pressure stage `=HEfU<a AWN=W^ \FGEWAWtTBTO !8a !=*3*CATB !EHa9BT7a !8W[*Tta regular monitoring pressure #EF_AT7a ![8TCW basic necessity #7a". This witness was cross-examined with respect to A4 doctor's notes. He admitted that as per A4 at 7.08 pm, the BP was 180/120 and thereafter no BP is recorded in A4.
22. It may be true that DW4 was interested in the 1st opposite party and he tried to avoid giving direct answers in order to help the 1st opposite party. The evidence of DW4 would suggest that it was a failure on the part of the opposite parties in not taking ECG for Vasanthakumari till 1.45.am. Even a layman would find fault with the opposite parties in not taking ECG for a patient, on complaint of chest pain at 9.30 pm and avoiding further investigation up to 1.45 am, the time at which the patient died. The aforesaid failure on the part of the opposite parties happened only due to their negligence in attending the patient at the relevant and appropriate time. They left the patient at the hands of some nursing assistants who were not having the required training in the field of nursing. Thus, at any rate it can very safely be concluded that there was medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 3 in providing adequate and necessary medical treatment to the patient, Vasanthakumari.
23. The evidence of DW4 is supported by the evidence of PW2, Dr.Sheela Shenoy. PW2 is also a Professor and Head of Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, SAT Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. Her evidence would also make it abundantly clear that it was the duty of the opposite parties to get the further investigation, better treatment and management by a Physician or a cardiologist, on seeing the blood pressure condition and the symptoms of chest pain and headache on the patient, Vasanthakumari. It is also to be noted that PW2 was also examined before the Judicial Magistrate of Kannur in CC.120/98. She was examined in the said case as PW4. Ext.A10 is certified copy of the judgment in the aforesaid CC.120/98. It is come out in evidence that conviction and sentence in CC.120/98 was set aside by the Sessions Court, Thalassery and that from the aforesaid judgment of the Sessions Court, 2nd appeal is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala as Criminal Appeal No.2185/08. Any way, we are not concerned with the decision in criminal case with respect to criminal negligence. We are only concerned with the tortious liability on account of medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3. Anyhow, the testimony of PW2 would also strengthen the case of the complainants to a larger extent.
24. It is admitted by the opposite parties till her death at 1.45 am. It is also admitted by the opposite parties that no advice or consultation of a Physician or a Cardiologist was obtained in treating the patient, Vasanthakumari. The opposite parties did not advise the 1st complainant, the husband of the patient to take the patient to any higher centre for expert management. DW1 admitted the fact that no ECG facility was available in 2nd opposite party hospital. It was not fair on the part of the opposite parties in keeping the patient with complaint of chest pain for a period of 4 hours without providing expert treatment and management. Thus, it can very safely be concluded that there was failure on the part of the opposite parties in providing adequate and necessary treatment to the patient to meet the emergency situation which was faced by the patient, Vasanthakumari. So, the complainants are justified in attributing medical negligence and deficiency in service against the opposite parties. We have no hesitation to hold that the opposite parties were medically negligent in providing adequate and necessary treatment for the patient, Vasanthakumari. These points are found against the opposite parties.
25. Point No.3:-
This State Commission have found medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. So, the opposite parties are to be made liable to pay compensation to the complainants 1 to 4 who are the legal representatives of deceased Vasanthakumari, the patient who died while undergoing treatment at 2nd opposite party hospital on 25.7.97 at 1.45 am. The complainants have claimed a total of Rs.20,lakhs by way of compensation. The 1st complainant is a teacher by profession he was aged 39 years on the date of death of his wife Vasanthakumari. The deceased, Vasanthakumari was aged 29 years and was a teacher by profession. She was employed as a teacher in the nearby UP school. According to the complainants, Vasanthakumari was drawing pay of Rs.4850/- at the relevant time. There can be no doubt that she was having future prospects of getting more salary in the coming years. The 1st complainant lost the company of his wife.
26. It is true that 1st complainant has remarried after the death of his wife, Vasanthakumari. DW1 has deposed on 17.11.08 that the 1st complainant remarried 5 years back. At any rate, 1st complainant suffered loss of consortium of his 1st wife Vasanthakumari. The 2nd complainant was only aged 8 years and the 3rd complainant was only aged 2 years on the date of institution of this complaint in OP.87/99. The 3rd complainant, Aswathy was delivered by Vasanthakumari at the 2nd opposite party hospital on 24.7.97. It can be seen that the 3rd complainant lost the care, attention, love and affection of her mother, Vasanthakumari. The 3rd complainant was deprived of all the above facilities from the very beginning of her life. The 2nd complainant had also suffered loss of love and affection of her mother at the age of 6 years. So, the complainants 2 and 3 are the real sufferers, on account of the untimely and unexpected death of their mother, Vasanthakumari. It is the case of the complainants that the 4th complainant was depending on her daughter Vasanthakumari. There can be no doubt that 4th complainant also suffered loss of love and affection of her beloved daughter. The complainants 1 to 4 have also suffered mental agony, inconvenience and financial loss on account of the unexpected death of Vasanthakumari. They suffered loss of estate. The 1st complainant had also spent money for the treatment of her wife, Vasanthakumari in connection with her 2nd delivery. Considering all these aspects, the total compensation due to the complainants 1 to 4 can be fixed at Rs.15.lakhs. Out of Rs.15.lakhs, the complainants 2 and 3 will get Rs.5.lakhs each and the complainants 1 and 4 will get Rs.2.5.lakhs each. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid compensation of Rs.15.lakhs with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till the date of payment/realization and cost of Rs.10,000/-. This point is answered accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is allowed partly. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are made jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainants a sum of Rs.15.lakhs by way of compensation with future interest at the rate of 9% per annum from this date till the date of payment/realization and cost of Rs.10,000/-. Out of the aforesaid compensation amount of Rs.15.lakhs, the complainants 2 and 3 will get Rs.5.lakhs each and the complainants 1 and 4 will get Rs.2.5.lakhs each with the proportionate interest and cost.
M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER APPENDIX COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS PW1 : C.P.Mohanan PW2 : Dr.Sheela Shenoy COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBITS Ext.A1 : True copy of the scan report dtd:09.01.97.
Ext.A2 : True copy of the doctors note dtd:09.1.97 to 21.7.97.
Ext.A3 : True copy of the prescription.
Ext.A4 : True copy of the doctors note.
Ext.A5 : True copy of the nurses notes.
Ext.A6 : True copy of the receipt dated:29.7.97.
Ext.A7 : True copy of the death certificate.
Ext.A8 : True copy of the relevant portion of SSLC Book.
Ext.A9 : True copy of the affidavit in CMP.No.1477/99 in CC.120/98.
Ext.A10 :Judgment in CC.120/98 before the Judicial Magistrate Court - I, Kannur.
OPPOSITE PARTIES WITNESS
DW1 : Dr.P.V.George
DW2 :Dr.P.P.Raghavan
DW3 : Dr.P.P. Ravindran
DW4 : Dr.V.R.Samanthabhadran Nair
OPPOSITE PARTIES EXHIBITS
Ext.B1 : Complaint letter sent by Dr.P.V.George to S.I of Police.
COURT EXHIBIT
Ext.X1 : Hospital records.
M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
VL.
[HONARABLE MR. SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN] PRESIDING MEMBER