State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr.K.V.Venugopal vs Mrs.Jane Treesa Thomas, on 21 April, 2014
Daily Order
Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Vazhuthacaud,Thiruvananthapuram First Appeal No. 57/2006 (Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. of District None) 1. K V Venugopal Peadiatrician,Praveen,Thilleri,Kannur BEFORE: HON'ABLE MR. SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR PRESIDING MEMBER PRESENT: ORDER
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NUMBERS. 55/06, 56/06, 57/06 & 247/06
JUDGMENT DATED : 21.04.2014
( Appeal filed against the order in OP.No.306/2004 & OP.No.307/2004 on the file of CDRF, Kozhikode order dated : 25.08.2005)
PRESENT
SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI.V.V.JOSE : MEMBER
APPEAL NUMBER 55/06
Dr.K.P.Musthafa,
Proprietor,
Fathima Hospital, APPELLANT
Kannur - 2
(By Adv.Preetha John.K, Kochi)
Vs.
1. Mrs.Jane Treesa Thomas,
W/o.Tomichan Joseph,
Vempala house,
Kudiyanamala, RESPONDENTS
Kannur District
2.Mrs.C.Beena Rani,
D/o.Sreedharan,
"Govinda", Trichambaram.
Taliparamba
3.Dr.K.V.Venugopal,
Paediatrician,
Fathima Hospital,
"Praveen", Near Moonampeedika,
Kannur - 1
4. Dr.(Mrs) Mary Mathew,
Gynaecologist,
Fathima Hospital, RESPONDENTS
Kannur - 2
(R1 by Adv.Thomas Mannanal, Kottayam)
(R2 by Adv.Jainamma Thomas, Kottayam)
(R3 by Adv.M.C.Suresh, Kottayam)
(R4 by Adv.Mathew Alexander, Cherthala)
APPEAL NUMBER 56/06
Dr.K.V.Venugopal,
Paediatrician,
Fathima Hospital,
"Praveen", Near Moonampeedika, APPELLANT
Kannur - 1
(By Adv.M.C.Suresh)
Vs.
1.Mrs.C.Beena Rani,
D/o.Sreedharan,
"Govinda", Trichambaram.
Taliparamba RESPONDENTS
2. Dr.K.P.Musthafa,
Proprietor,
Fathima Hospital,
Kannur - 2
3. Dr.(Mrs) Mary Mathew,
Gynaecologist,
Fathima Hospital,
Kannur - 2 RESPONDENTS
(R1 by Adv.Jainamma Thomas, Kottayam)
(R2 by Adv.Preetha John .K, Kochi)
(R3 by Adv.Mathew Alexander, Cherthalai)
APPEAL NUMBER 57/06
Dr.K.V.Venugopal,
Paediatrician,
Fathima Hospital,
"Praveen", Near Moonampeedika, APPELLANT
Kannur - 1
(By Adv.M.C.Suresh)
Vs.
1. Mrs.Jane Treesa Thomas,
W/o.Tomichan Joseph,
Vempala house,
Kudiyanamala, RESPONDENTS
Kannur District
2. Dr.K.P.Musthafa,
Proprietor,
Fathima Hospital,
Kannur - 2
3.Dr.(Mrs) Mary Mathew,
Gynaecologist,
Fathima Hospital,
Kannur - 2
( R2 by Adv.Preetha John.K, Kochi
APPEAL NUMBER 247/06
Dr.K.P.Musthafa,
Proprietor,
Fathima Hospital, APPELLANT
Kannur - 2
(By Adv.Preetha John.K, Kochi)
Vs.
1.Mrs.Jane Treesa Thomas,
W/o.Tomichan Joseph,
Vempala house,
Kudiyanamala, RESPONDENTS
Kannur District
2. Mrs.C.Beena Rani,
D/o.Sreedharan,
"Govinda", Trichambaram.
Taliparamba
3. Dr.K.V.Venugopal,
Paediatrician,
Fathima Hospital,
"Praveen", Near Moonampeedika,
Kannur - 1
4. Dr.(Mrs) Mary Mathew,
Gynaecologist,
Fathima Hospital, RESPONDENTS
Kannur - 2
(R1 by Adv.Thomas Mannanal, Kottayam)
(R2 by Adv.Jainamma Thomas, Kottayam)
(R3 by Adv.M.C.Suresh, Kottayam)
(R4 by Adv.Mathew Alexander, Cherthala)
JUDGMENT
SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER In these appeals the common order in OP.Numbers.306/2004 and 307/2004 pronounced by the CDRF, Kozhikode is challenged by the opposite parties. The said original petitions were filed on identical allegations. The first opposite party is the proprietor of Fathima Hospital, Kannur. OP No.2 was the pediatrician attached to the said hospital. The 3rd opposite party was a gynaecologist working in the same hospital. The petitioner in OP No.306/04 was admitted in the hospital for her first delivery on 09.10.98. It is alleged in the complaint that instead of waiting for natural delivery, opposite party No.3 the gynaecologist insisted for caesarean operation on that day itself and a male child was born to the complainant on 09.10.98. After delivery the opposite parties especially op.no.2 and the so called nursing staffs of the hospital were totally negligent in taking care of the new born baby. As a result the new born baby had an attack of jaundice and subsequently meningitis. While in the hospital the baby had attack of fits two times. There was no facility in the hospital for treatment of new born babies. Without diagnosing the disease and attempting to treat the child, the opposite parties referred the baby to the SM Hospital, Kannur on 15.10.98 in undue haste. That was done to prevent spreading of the unpleasant news which was likely to affect the income of the hospital. It is reliably learnt that there were several cases of meningitis infection in the first opposite party hospital. Not a single nurse working in the hospital is qualified. Though antibiotics was administered while the baby was in the hospital, the child did not show any improvement. As a last resort to save the child the paediatrician gave ciprofloxacin on the advice of a doctor at Manglore. Then the child started showing some improvement. CT scan of the brain was taken from Koyili Nursing Home, Kannur two times and it showed communicating hydrocephalus fluid collections in the ventricles of the brain of the child. On 09.11.98 the child was taken to Mangalore and was admitted in the Vijaya Hospital for treatment. Analysis of cerebro spinal fluid as well as CT scan of the child confirmed that the child was suffering from post meningitis hydrocephalus. The resistance of the organisms to antibiotics administered to the child was a clear indication that the infection was hospital acquired. The infection was either from the hospital staff or from the operation theatre of the first opposite party hospital. After returning to Changanassery the head of the child began to increase in size abnormally. Hence the child was admitted in the Indo American Hospital (Brain & Spine Centre) Vaikkom. The child was discharged from there on 09.12.98. As there was no improvement the child was taken to Heart Hospital, Thrissur on 13.03.99. Surgery was conducted on 18.03.99 and ventriculo peritoneal shunt was applied. The child was discharged on 26.03.99. Whether the shunt tube could be removed or should remain in the body of the child through out life, only time can tell. If tube is to be removed another operation will be required. In other contingencies also further operation may be required. If the opposite parties were careful, all these hardships could have been avoided. The first opposite party hospital appears to be a breeding ground to meningitis germs. The child got infection only because of the negligence of the opposite parties. As a result of the infection to the child the petitioner and her family members were put to severe mental agony and suffering. Hence the petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.5 lakhs from the opposite parties.
2. The petitioner in OP.307/2004 was admitted in the first opposite party hospital for delivery on 31.10.98. A female child was born to her on 04.11.98 in a caesarean operation done by opposite party no.3. It is alleged that due to the negligence of the opposite parties and hospital nurse the child got an attack of jaundice and subsequently meningitis. The child was referred to the SM Hospital, Kannur. Since Ashirwad Hospital, Kannur was more convenient to the complainant, the child was admitted in that hospital on 11.11.98. On 13.11.98 the complainant and the child were admitted in the Mangalore Nursing Home. Culture of cerebro spinal fluid of the child confirmed that the baby was suffering from basal meningitis and the organism was found to be resistant to drugs administered to her. Later the child was admitted in the KG Hospital, Coimbatore on 05.01.99. Surgery was done on 07.01.99 and ventriculo peritoneal shunt was inserted. The other allegations relating to deficiency in service are quite identical to the allegations in OP.306/2004.
3. In both the petitions opposite parties 1 to 3 filed separate version. The contentions are identical in both petitions. The first opposite party contended that when the complainant in OP 306/2004 was admitted for her first delivery, she was 36 years old. As she conceived towards the end of her reproductive age she is branded as elderly primi and was in the high risk group. The baby is also considered to be precious. Though her expected date of confinement was on 15.10.98 the head of the baby was still at the brim of the pelvis and cervix of the uterus and was quite unfavorable for a vaginal delivery. Hence lower segment caesarean section was done to her on 09.10.98. If the caesarean section was postponed it would have been an undesirable case of still birth. Soon after birth the baby cried and was shown to the consultant paediatrician the second opposite party. The allegation that the pediatrician and nursing staff were negligent in taking care of the new born baby is absolutely baseless. The paediatrician and the staff were ready and vigilant to give all resuscitative measures in case the baby developed any neonatal asphyxia that could have been expected as the baby had signs of impending foetal distress. The bay was under the care of the second opposite party and was seen by him daily. While so on 14.10.98 the baby was found febrile with temperature of 101º F. The second opposite party thoroughly examined the baby and diagnosed that the baby was suffering from respiratory infection. The child was put in the usual line of treatment for respiratory infection. As the second opposite party would not be available on 15.10.98 instruction was given to call Dr.Sushama another paediatrician if the temperature did not subside or the baby developed other symptoms. On 15.10.98 since the bay was crying frequently. Dr.Sushama was consulted and on her instruction the baby and the mother were transferred to the SM hospital, Kannur for further management. On admission at SM hospital the baby did not have either jaundice, nor did she show any sign of meningitis. The allegation that the baby developed jaundice and meningitis due to the negligence in taking care of the baby is incorrect. Though intensive care unit was not available in the first opposite party hospital all other facilities for treating new born babies were available. It is baseless to say that opposite parties referred the baby to the SM hospital in undue haste. The staff of the hospital is much experienced and dedicated. It is false to say that first opposite party hospital is a breeding ground to meningitis. The child showed signs of infection from the fifth day of birth. It is also baseless to say that the child got meningitis infection either from the staff or from the operation theatre. The complainant is not entitled to any relief.
4. The second opposite party contended that he is a paediatrician having post graduate degree and diploma both in pa ediatrics and has experience of more than 30 years. He has served in the Indian Army for three years. On 09.10.98 he attended the new born baby of the complainant as per telephone call received from the opposite party hospital. The contentions of the second opposite party are identical to the contentions of the first opposite party.
5. The third opposite party also denied negligence or deficiency in service on her part. Her contentions are similar to the contentions of the other opposite parties.
6. As regards OP 307/2006 it is admitted by the opposite parties that the complainant was admitted for delivery. The female child was born to her on 04.11.98 in a caesarean section conducted by the third opposite party. The allegation that the baby was referred to SM Hospital, Kannur in undue haste when the baby developed temperature is denied.
7. The District Consumer Forum recorded common evidence in OP.NO.306/2004. Five witnesses including the complainant in both OPs were examined as PWs 1 to 5. Exts.P1 to P17 were marked on their side. The opposite parties adduced oral evidence as RWs 1 to 3, Exts.B1 to B9 were marked on their side. Ext.C1 report was also marked.
8. As per the impugned order, the District Forum found that the opposite parties failed to conduct tests to ascertain the cause of jaundice before referring the child to another hospital. The District Forum further found that if it is the case of the opposite parties that the mother of PW2 or visitors to the hospital in general is the source of infection, no measure is taken by the hospital and its staff to control the visitors. Further the absence of opposite party no.2 on the date of reference of the child to another hospital is not satisfactorily explained. Non availability of incubator and trained nurse in the hospital are also serious deficiency in service. Accordingly, the District Forum allowed the complaint against opposite parties 1 & 2 and a compensation of Rs.3,5000/- each was awarded to the complainant in OP.No.306/2004 & OP.NO.307/2004.
9. Challenging the conclusions of the District Forum Op No.1 has preferred appeal nos.55/2006 & 247/2006 and the second opposite party has preferred appeal nos.56/2006 and 57/2006. The correctness of the conclusions of the District Forum is thus under scrutiny in the appeals.
10. The complainants have a case that the third opposite party, the gynaecologist did not wait for natural delivery. On the contrary, the third opposite party immediately opted for cesarean section. The third opposite party has explained that the complainant in OP 306/2004 was a 36 year old woman and she conceived towards the end of her reproductive age. Hence she was in the high risk group and the baby was considered to be precious. Her expected date of confinement was on 15.10.98. The Head of the baby was still at the brim of the pelvis and the cervix of the uterus was quite unfavorable for a vaginal delivery. Hence cesarean section was done immediately. If the caesarean section was postponed for few hours more the child would not have survived. It was also seen that the baby was in distress and cord was around the neck of the child. These circumstances sufficiently justify immediate caesarean section. In the case of the complainant in 307/2000 also there is absolutely no evidence to show that the third opposite party opted for caesarean section in undue haste. So District Forum rightly exonerated the third opposite party from liability and the complainants have not challenged the order of the District Forum on this aspect.
11. The proprietor Fathima Hospital, Kannur and the paediatrician attached to the said hospital were held liable for deficiency in service for several reasons. Before considering the correctness of these circumstances it may be mentioned that a male child was born to the complainant in OP 306 on 09.10.98 in caesarean section. The child was healthy but on 14.10.98 the child was found febrile. The initial diagnosis was that the baby was suffering from respiratory infection and the child was given medicine accordingly. On 15.10.98 the child was referred to the SM Hospital, Kannur. In that hospital, PW4 a paediatrician treated the child. The child was incessantly crying and PW4 the pediatrician diagnosed that the child was having sepsis. Later the child was referred to a hospital at Mangalapuram. Culture of cerebro spinal fluid revealed that the child was having meningitis infection due to proteus bacteria. Still later the child was admitted in the Indo American Hospital ( brain and spine centre.) Vaikkom. The child was discharged from there on 09.12.98. Later the child was admitted in the Heart Hospital, Thrissur on 17.03.99 and on the next day ventriculo peritoneal shunt was applied and the child was discharged on 26.03.99.
12. A female child was born to the complainant in OP.307/2004 also in a cesarean section on 04.11.98. After the child developed fever she was referred to the SM Hospital, Kannur but the complainant and her relatives admitted the child in the Ashirvad Hospital, kannur. While in that hospital PW3 a paediatrician treated the child. The diagnosis made was that the child was suffering from septicaemia. Later the child was referred to the Mangalore Nursing Home. Culture of cerebro spinal fluid revealed meningitis infection by haemophilus influenzae. Subsequently ventriculo peritoneal shunt was inserted at the KG Hospital, Coimbatore. The common allegation in these complaints is that both the meningitis infection were hospital acquired. The children caught infection from either the visitors or the staff of the first opposite party hospital and it was their deficiency in service and negligence that caused so much hardships and financial loss to the complainants. The complainants have further alleged that there were several other cases in which children born in this hospital got meningitis infection. PW5 was examined to prove this aspect. He is a journalist whose wife delivered her second child in Fathima Hospital on 13.10.98 in caesarean section. According to him one and half hours after discharge on 21.10.98, the child developed temperature. The child was treated in the Potheri hospital, Kannur and later in the PVS hospital, Kozhikode. The meningitis infection was diagnosed as due to pseudomonas bacteria. Ext.P17 is the related case sheet .But PW5 is of the opinion that the third opposite party is a good gynaecologist and the first opposite party hospital maintains good cleanliness. The learned counsel for the appellants urged that the very fact that three different organisms are shown to have caused meningitis infection shows that the children acquiring infection from the first opposite party hospital was remote. He pointed out that proteus bacteria spreads by contact and infection by haemophilus influenzae is air borne. He further pointed out relying on the evidence of PW2 that her mother was the by stander and she was a diabetic patient. She was having ulcer on her leg. So in the case of the child of complainant in OP.NO.306 infection by proteus bacteria was most likely from the mother of PW2 herself. Regarding the child of the complainant in OP.307/2004 the infection can be from any visitor. It is in this context the argument is taken that it is for the hospital authorities to regulate the visitors.
13. Before pronouncing a final opinion on this aspect it is necessary to refer the oral evidence of the experts examined in this case and the evidence of RWs 1 to 3 themselves. The third opp.party is examined as RW2. According to her the incubation period of haemophilus influenzae is 24- 48 hrs and proteus bacteria is 48 - 72 hrs. She denied the suggestion that the two children developed yellow colour on the second day after delivery itself. According to her yellow colour is not an indication of meningitis infection. The symptoms of meningitis infection are fever irritability drowsiness and fits. RW3 the second opposite party explained that meningitis infection happen when germs infect the sheath covering the spinal cord and brain. Germs may pass into the meningitis either from the blood or through the plate near the nose crossing the blood brain barrier. According to him the symptoms of meningitis are fever, vomiting, neck rigidity and anterior frontal tension increase. Jaundice is not a symptom of meningitis.
14. The evidence of PWs 3 & 4 the two paediatricians who treated at new born babies of the complainants subsequently is also relevant. PW3 is a paediatrician attached to Ashiravad Hospital, Kannur where the child of the complainant in OP.307/2004 was admitted after the child was referred from the first opposite party hospital. PW3 agreed that haemophilus influenzae is a droplet infection. Infection can also happen through catheter. It also appears that PW3 was a relative of the complainant in OP 307 and as such he was requested to go to the first opposite party hospital on 11.11.98. At that time the temperature of the child was 100º F. The second opposite party had diagnosed the illness of the child as respiratory infection and started amikacin. PW3 admitted that he stopped amikacin and started ampicillin injection. At that time he did not suspect meningitis. Before culture report is received correct medicine can not be started. At the same time treatment can not wait till culture report is received. It is in the above background initial prescription of broad spectrum antibiotics would be made without waiting for culture report. The records available show that when subsequently the child was referred to the hospital at Mangalore, they restarted amikacin initially prescribed by OP.NO.2. The learned counsel for the appellants urged that due to the change in medicine by PW3 valuable time was lost to control the infection. Further that gave the possibility of the germ developing resistance to amikacin. So the argument was that in fact it was PW3 who was negligent. But that would not absolve the liability of the opposite parties if as a matter of fact the children initially contacted the infection due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. So this question still has to be answered. A respiratory infection according to PW3 may aggravate septicaemia and in 20% cases may lead to meningitis.
15. PW4 was working as a paediatrician in the SM hospital, kannur where the child of the complainant in OP.306/07 was admitted on reference from the first opposite party hospital. The child was incessantly crying. PW4 initially suspected calcium deficiency. Since the treatment on that basis did not stop the child from incessantly crying. PW4 suspected sepsis and started antibiotics. On receipt of report of analysis of cerebro spinal fluid antibiotics was changed. On 19th they received the culture report and based on the sensitivity of the organism, another antibiotic was prescribed. PW4 admitted that haemophilus influeznae is air borne infection. But proteus bacteria are not so and infection can be due to direct contact. It can also infect the child through cloths and other objects by contact. He also admitted that the mother of PW2 had ulcer and was a diabetic patient. There is a chance of proteus infection happening from the ulcer. He could not find any infirmity in the treatment given to the child by the second opposite party.
16. The medical records relating to the treatment of the children subsequently in various hospitals are also produced in evidence. It is sufficient to say that finally ventriculo peritoneal shunt had to be applied as part of treatment of meningitis to both children. The main allegation as seen already is that the meningitis infection happened while the children were in the hospital of the first opposite party. The pertinent aspects are that before discharge from the hospital of the first opposite party both the children developed temperature. Considering the incubation period of proteus bacteria as well as haemophilus influenzae, it is definite that the children acquired their infection during their stay in the hospital of the first opposite party. But the question is whether the infection was due to deficiency in service or negligence of any of the opposite parties. Both the children were born in caesarean sections. Normally meningitis infection during caesarean operation is not likely. The chance of meningitis infection is more in cases where instruments like forceps is used. For this reason also the third opposite party gynaecoloigst can not be blamed and the District Consumer Forum rightly exonerated her from liability. No doubt the second opposite party paediatrician initially treated both the children. It can not be said that his diagnosis of the ailment was erroneous for even PWs 3 & 4 did not initially suspect meningitis infection for the children. It is true that there was no facility to culture the cerebro spinal fluid in the first opposite party hospital. That was why the children were referred to other another hospital. It is settled law that even erroneous diagnosis need not necessarily be negligent diagnosis. There is nothing to indicate that due to the careless handling of the second opposite party paediatrician, the children acquired meningitis infection. The main reason why the District Forum found opposite party no.2 negligent is that on the date of reference of the child of the complainant in OP.306/2004, PW2 was not available in the first opposite party hospital and the first opposite party failed to explain why a paediatrician was not permanently attached to the hospital. But it appears that alternative arrangements were made by the second opposite party to examine the child and refer the child if necessary. So the available evidence is not sufficient to hold that the second opposite party is in any way responsible for the meningitis infection of the children.
17. Coming to the appeals filed by the first opp.party proprietor of Fathima Hospital, Kannur, the evidence of RW1 and Ext.C1 report become relevant. RW1 the proprietor of Fathima Hospital admitted that he started the hospital without a qualified nurse in 1989. He claimed that the nurses were trained subsequently in private licensed hospital. He explained that though the relevant Act insists for nursing degree, the government is not insisting for the same. The govt is insisting only on trained nurses and staff .He admitted that there was no nurse in his hospital approved by the Nurses Counsel. He admitted that Ext.C1 report that there were only 7 nurses in his hospital is correct. He also admitted that what is stated in Ext.C1 in Para.3 about the nurses in his hospital is correct. He deposed that the second opposite party would come to his hospital whenever called but he is not a permanent paediatrician there. All his nurses had pre-degree certificate as qualification. He denied the suggestion that only qualified nurses were entitled to sterilize the hospital equipments.
18. As per the direction of the District Consumer Forum the District Medical Officer, Kannur inspected the Fathima hospital after notice to the parties and filed Ext.C1 report. The DMO was fully convinced that no nursing staff among the seven nurses who were working in the Fathima Hospital Kannur during Nov.1998 was qualified and they had not undergone nursing and midwifery course in any of the recognized teaching institutions and they had not registered in the Kerala State Nursing Registration Counsel or in any other Registration Council. He also reported the names of the three nursing staff who attended the complainant during stay in the hospital. It is surprising that the first opposite party could procure Ext.B3 certificate stating that Fathima Hospital is a baby friendly hospital even when none of the nursing staff was qualified.
19. The learned counsel for the complainants / respondents immediately pointed out relying on the decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Jassi Hospital & Heart Care Centre Vs. Bhupinder Singh Brar & Anr, 1 2012) CPJ 315, that employing untrained staff and entrusting them with the care of patients is an unfair trade practice on the part of the hospital. So also relying on the decision of the Delhi State Consumer Redressal Commission in Jagadish kumar Arora & Anther Vs. Khosla Medical Institute & Research Society & others, III (2009) CPJ 199, he argued that a hospital is expected to equip itself with all treatment facilities and medicines for complications. Non availability of doctor or medicine amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the hospital.
20. It was held by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Mangal Jana ( DR) & Mangal Chand Jana (DR) Vs. Gourhari Das & oths , IV (2009) CPJ 367, that when a child who was suspected to be suffering from septicaemia was discharged from the Nursing Home without properly making the diagnosis, deficiency in service was proved. In Phool Chand Soni & Oths Vs. Maya Pathak & Othrs in IV (2011) CPJ 361 (NC), bacterial infection was not controlled in a timely manner which ultimately lead to septicaemia and the patient died. It was held that the opposite party was liable for medical negligence.
21. As already mentioned none of the nursing staff employed in the hospital of the first opposite party was qualified or trained. It is true that according to the appellants the infection could have been from the mother of the complainant in op 306/2004 or from the visitors but even then trained hospital staffs could have controlled or regulated the visitors and excluded the mother of PW2 from attending the child. There was certainly deficiency in service in this regard also. It appears that facility to conduct test to ascertain the cause of jaundice was not available in the hospital. Though opposite party no.2 was not available to attend the child of the complainant in OP.306/04, on the day of discharge alternative arrangements were made by him. So deficiency in service can not be attributed on his part because of this fact alone. No advance facilities such as incubator were available in the hospital. But incumbator is normally required when there is premature delivery of the child. But the other grounds mentioned are sufficient to fasten liability on the Fathima Hospital and its proprietor the first opposite party. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Forum is also reasonable. On the above conclusion Appeal Numbers 56/2006 & 57/2006 are liable to be allowed and other two appeals filed by opposite party No.1 are liable to be dismissed.
In the result appeal numbers 56/2006 & 57/2006 are allowed and the appellant / second opposite party in OP.Nos.306/2004 and 307/2004 is exonerated from liability. The order of CDRF, Kozhikode in the said ops dated 25.08.2002 against the first opposite party in the said original petitions is confirmed and Appeal Numbers 55/2006 & 247/2006 are dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their respective costs in these appeals.
K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
V.V.JOSE : MEMBER
Be/
KERALA STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SISUVIHARLANE
VAZHUTHACAUD
THIRUVANANTHPURAM
APPEAL NOS
55/06, 56/06, 57/06 & 247/06
JUDGMENT DTD : 21.04.2014
Be/
[HON'ABLE MR. SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR] PRESIDING MEMBER