State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
S.Jyothi @ M.Jyothirmayi,Tirupathi, ... vs 1.1.C.S.I.Compbell Hospital, Rep. By ... on 7 April, 2014
BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD F.A.No.931/2012 against C.C.No.16/2011, Dist. Forum, Kadapa Y.S.R.Dist. Between: 1.S.Jyothi @ M.Jyothirmayi, W/o.S.Venkata Ramana Rao, Aged about 30 years. 2.S.Venkata Ramana Rao, @ S.V.Ramana, S/o.S.Seshadri Rao, aged about 36 years, Corporate Private School Teacher. Both are residing at D.No.7-1-15, R.N.Mada Street, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. Appellants/ Complainants And 1.C.S.I.Compbell Hospital, Rep. by its Director/Bishop Church of South India, Rayalaseema Diocese, Jammalamadugu Town, Kadapa District. 2. P.P.T.C.T.Coordinator ( Wing of ICTC, APSACS), By name Nagi Reddy, C/o.CSI Campbell Hospital, Jammalamadugu Town, Kadapa District. 3. Founder Director of ASHA Foundation, ASHA Foundation, No.58, 3rd Main SBM Colony, Anand Nagar, Bangalore, Karnataka 560 024. Respondents/ Opp.parties Counsel for the Appellants : Mr.Y.V.Shiva Sharma Counsel for the respondents : Mr.T.Eswar Reddy-R1. R2- Notice returned. M/s.A.Srinath-R3. QUORUM: SRI T.ASHOK KUMAR, HONBLE MEMBER, AND SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER.
MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN.
Oral Order: (Per Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Honble Member) *** The unsuccessful complainant filed this appeal against the order dt.09.10.2012 on the file of District Forum, Kadapa Y.S.R.District in C.C.No.16/2011, which is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.19 lakhs as compensation towards re-canalization expenses, future medical expenses for the fear of contracting the deadly virus in future, and for causing loss of life of a new born male baby and to pay costs of the complaint.
The appellants are the complainants and the respondents are the opposite parties in C.C.No.16/2011. For the sake of convenience , the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint.
The brief case of the complainants as set out in the complaint is as follows:
The complainants are the wife and husband and are permanent residents of Tirupati. Opp. party no.1 is the hospital, opp.party no.2 is PPTCT coordinator (Wing of ICTC, APSACS) who is the person to look after whether any HIV patient suffered due to the negligence of any doctor or any hospital, the 3rd opp.party is foundation/NGO, who is giving aid to the HIV oriented hospitals. The complainant no.1 during her second time pregnancy approached Dr.V.Bhavani, M.D., D.G.O., Professor & HOD, S.V.Medical College, Government Maternity Hospital, Tirupati for check up and advise, who checked the complainant no.1 and gave opinion that the child and the complainant no.1 were hale and hearty. After regular check-ups and on the advise of the said doctor, the complainant no.1 had gone to her mother town Jammalamadugu on 02.04.2010. On 06.04.2010, the complainant no.1 visited the opposite party no.1s hospital as an out patient and took O.P.Ticket by paying Rs.40/- and also paid other medical expenses and tried to admit in the opp.party no.1s hospital, but they advised her to get admission whenever she get labour pains. Accordingly, the complainant no.1 on 11.04.2010 came to the opposite party no.1 hospital, with severe labour pains, she took another I.P. by paying the requisite fee and she was admitted in the hospital and opposite party no.1 has taken blood samples for all the tests again, though the complainant no.1 showed the reports which were taken at Tirupati. The doctors of opposite party no.1 made all arrangements for her caesarean surgery and also demanded to pay the medical fee and expenses and also advised to purchase necessary medicines. Opposite party no.1 took the blood samples of complainant no.1 without her consent by violating the rule followed by the AIDS Control Board. The complainant no.1 was taken to the surgery table and at that juncture, lab technician brought the report and according to the said report the Head Nurse announced that the complainant no.1 is having HIV+ve and stated that they are not going to do caesarean surgery as there is no facility to give treatment for HIV patient for delivery and also asked to shift to any other hospital for delivery safely. The opposite party hospital is recognised by the Government and NGO/private authorities like Asha Foundation and that they are having facility to give treatment for HIV especially for HIV delivery cases.
On request of the attendants of the complainant no.1, Dr.Archana Mitra gave advise with a referral letter to shift to Government General Hospital at Proddutoor town and also orally suggested to take her to Kadapa RIMS Hospital. Thereafter, the complainant no.1 was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa and she was treated as HIV patient and there she gave birth to a dead male baby. The complainants to know whether both of them are the HIV patients or only the complainant no.1, they got medical checkup in the said hospital and the reports revealed that both of them are not the HIV patients. Immediately after the caesarean surgery, the complainant no.1 undergone tubectomy operation under compulsion, as the authorities of RIMS general hospital stated to save the life of the complainant no.1 she has to undergo tubectomy operation.
Complainant no.2 approached opp.party no.1 on 20.04.2010 to know about the reasons of issuing a wrong report, for which no response was given.
The complainant no.2 issued letters dt.28.04.2010 and 16.06.2010 by registered post acknowledgement due, to the opp.party no.1, to know the reasons for issuing a wrong report, for which, the opp.party no.1 did not give reply. The opp.party no.2 tried to mediate in favour of opp.party no.1 and hence the complainant no.2 suspected opp.parties 1 and 2 and lodged a complaint before Jammalamadugu Police Station on 20.04.2010. The Media published the same as news article in Surya Daily Newspaper, Kadapa Dist Edition on 05.05.2010. The complainants issued legal notice and reminder notice on 24.06.2010 and 29.07.2010 respectively to all the opposite parties and medical and technical staff of opposite party no.1, for which only one official of opp.party no.1 gave reply. Hence the complaint seeking the above mentioned reliefs.
Resisting the complaint , opp.party no.1 filed counter contending that on 11.04.2010 the complainant no.1 with labour pains came to their hospital and was admitted in the hospital and she was examined thoroughly with due diligence by the duty doctor and all the preparations with due precautions for caesarean operation were made. Meanwhile a blood report came diagnosing as she is HIV+ve . The Duty Doctor, who was attending on her, explained to her and her attendants about the result of her blood samples and assured her not to worry & get panic, with due precautions the caesarean operation will be done and due care will be taken to prevent the spread of disease to the to be born child, which is the primary necessity at that stage and further evaluations about HIV will be done later on and the doctor tried her level best to counsel complainant no.1 and her attendants and advised her to stay in the hospital and undergo required caesarean operation. After diagnosing the patient as HIV+ve, further evaluations were not done as primarily the important thing at that time is safe caesarean operation with due precautions of saving the child from getting infected with the disease. But the complainant no.1 and her attendants were adamant and preferred to go to other hospitals for further treatment. As there was no option, complainant no.1 was discharged with a referral letter addressed to the Medical Officer, Government General Hospital, Proddutur. The patient was taken to RIMS hospital, Kadapa instead of Proddatur, which is near by and in the said hospital only the patient was saveed and the child was delivered dead and the patient blood report on 12.04.2010 at RIMS showed result of HIV antibody test as non reactive. The complainant and her attendants preferred to go to RIMS, Kadapa against medical advise given by opp.party and thereby lost her would be born child by her wrong decision.
The opposite party contends that there is no deficiency in service either on the part of the medical officer or the institution in dealing the said case, and the loss perhaps might have occurred due to the negligence of the patient and her relatives, who left the institution, against the medical advise and not followed the instructions to go to nearby Proddatur General Hospital and by taking their own decision went to RIMS Hospital, which is far away and thereby loosing the valuable time. The opposite party no.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The case against opp.party no.2 was dismissed for default on 6.4.2011 but it was set aside by this Commission by its order dt.27.04.2012 in R.P. No.36/2011 and notice to opposite party no.2 in Prajasakthi was ordered and it was published. But there was no representation for opposite party no.2 and was set exparte.
Opposite party no.3 filed counter contending that this opposite party is no way concerned with the management or functioning of the opposite party no.1 and the complainant has not explained as to how this opposite party is connected to any matter pertaining to the management or functioning of the opp.party no.1.
Opposite party no.3 is a registered charitable trust working in the field of HIV/AIDS since 1998. Their services include:
i.
An AIDS helpline and telephone counselling service including direct counselling ii.
Adolscent health education.
iii.
Care services for children at risk and their families.
iv.
Prevention of mother to child transmission of HIV.
The opposite party no.3 further contends that nowhere in the complaint, it has been stated that this opposite party has treated the patient or even given any advise whatsoever to the patient. Opposite party no.3 has no role to play in any matter connected with the opposite party no.1 or the complainants. The opposite party no.3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
During the course of enquiry, in order to prove their case, the complainant no.1 herself was examined as PW.1. On behalf of the complainants, the doctor from RIMS Hospital, Kadapa was examined as PW.2. Exs.A1 to A67 were marked on behalf of the complainants. Opposite party no.1 was examined as CW.1 through Advocate Commissioner. Ex.B1 is marked on behalf of the opp.parties.
The District Forum, based on the evidence adduced and pleadings put forward, observed that the complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of opp.parties 1 to 3 and dismissed the complaint without costs.
Aggrieved by the said order, the complainants preferred this appeal questioning the legality and validity of the order of the District Forum. In this appeal the appellants filed a petition to receive the annual report of the respondent no.3/opposite party no.3 as additional evidence in this appeal.
The petition is allowed and the document is marked as Ex.A68 subject to proof and relevancy.
We heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material placed on record including the written arguments filed by both the parties.
Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order of the District Forum is vitiated for misappreciation of fact or law.
Opposite party no.3 Asha Foundation was a registered charitable trust with head quarters at Bangalore. It is not the case of the complainants that opposite party no.3 has run or managed the opposite party no.1 hospital. The case of the opposite party no.3 is that their charitable trust never run or managed the opposite party no.1 hospital and had no knowledge of the present case until the present claim was made. Nowhere in the complaint, the complainants have given the reasons for claiming compensation against the opposite party no.3 and that there was negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.3. The complainant no.1 took treatment from Dr. Bhavani at Tirupathi during her pregnancy. The complainant no.1 went to Jammalamadugu for her second delivery at her parents house. PW.1 the complainant was admitted in opposite party no.1 hospital and from there she went to Kadapa and was admitted to RIMS where the complainant no.1 gave birth to a dead male child. From these admitted facts, there was no basis for the complainants to claim anything against the opposite party no.3 as opposite party no.3 is not connected with the management of opposite party no.1. There was no connection between the complainant and opposite party no.3. As stated above, the complainants have not mentioned any reasons for claiming compensation against opposite party no.3. In her evidence as PW.1, the complainant no.1 had admitted that opposite party no.3 was not at all concerned with the case. As a matter of fact, the opposite party no.3 stands on a different footing, as no service was provided to the complainant, nor was the opposite party no.3 concerned, in any way, with what had happened during the treatment. Therefore, the District Forum rightly came to the conclusion that there was no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opp.party no.3.
Now coming to the allegations made by the complainant against opposite parties 1 and 2 , it is an admitted fact that the complainant no.1 visited opposite party no.1 hospital on 06.04.2010 and that after thorough examination of the complainant no.1 and the documents she brought, regarding her treatment at Tirupathi, the complainant no.1 was advised to visit as and when need arise. It is also an admitted fact that on 11.04.2010 the complainant no.1 came to the opposite party no.1 hospital with attendants and was admitted in the hospital with labour pains. It is an admitted fact that the blood test conducted revealed that the complainant no.1 is an HIV+ve.
The case of the complainants is that without conducting caesarean operation in opposite party no.1 hospital and without examining the complainant no.1, they gave wrong advise to her to go to Proddutur by giving referral letter and orally advising to go to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa and that at RIMS she was treated as HIV patient and gave birth to a dead male child.
On the other hand, the case of the opposite parties 1 and 2 is that the duty doctor at opposite party no.1 hospital assured the complainant that not to worry and get panic, with due precautions the caesarean operation will be done and due care will be taken to prevent the spread of the disease to the to be borne baby, which was primary necessity at that time and further evaluation with regard to the HIV will be done later on. The Duty Doctor tried her level best to counsel the complainant no.1 and her attendants and advised to stay in the hospital and undergo required caesarean operation which is primary, but the complainant no.1 and her attendants were adamant and all the advises given by the doctor went to deaf ear and they were ready to leave the hospital to go other hospitals for further treatment. As no option left with the institution, with a referral letter addressed to the Medical Officer, Govt.
General Hospital, Proddutur, the complainant no.1 was discharged from the opposite party no.1 against the medical advise.
Ex.A25 is the referral letter given by the doctor at opposite party no.1 hospital. While referring the patient (complainant no.1) from opposite party no.1 hospital to Medical Officer, Govt. General Hospital, Proddutur, it is stated in the said referral letter that Referring to you Mrs.Jyothi G2 P1 L1 previous LS CS in labour (newly diagnosed as HIV +ve) kindly evaluate & do needful. From Ex.A25 it is clear that the complainant no.1 was referred by opposite party no.1 without any treatment regarding evaluation of HIV+ve. It was natural that during pregnancy there was likelihood of changes in blood and urine. In these circumstances, the opposite party no.1 cannot be found fault with, for collecting blood sample and conducting blood test, which revealed that the complainant no.1 was found to have HIV+ve. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had given birth to her first child in 2007 at opposite party no.1 hospital and satisfied with the services rendered by the opposite party no.1 at that time.
In Ex.B1 Case Sheet it was mentioned that after knowing the blood test result, the opposite party no.1 advised the complainant no.1 for her safety and her to be borne child for caesarean operation. The complainant no.1 refused to undergo caesarean operation at opposite party no.1 hospital and was discharged against the medical advise at 3.30 p.m. on 11.04.2010. As seen from Ex.A25, referral letter, opposite party no.1 referred the complainant no.1 to Govt. General Hospital, Proddutur, which is within a distance of 22 Kl.Mts. stating her condition and requesting to evaluate and do the needful to HIV+ve.
It is an admitted fact that the complainant no.1 went to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa instead of Govt. General Hospital, Proddutur. The RIMS hospital is situated at a distance of 100 Kl.Mts. from Jammaamadugu. However, the complainant no.1 went to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa without following the advise of doctors of opposite party no.1. Absolutely, there is no evidence on record to show that the duty doctor at opposite party no.1 hospital orally asked the complainant no.1 to go to RIMS, Kadapa, though Ex.A25 referral letter is given to go to Govt. General Hospital, Proddutur and that the duty Medical Officer of the opposite party no.1 refused services to the complainant no.1 on 11.04.2010 basing on the status of HIV. The complainants therefore failed to prove that due to denial of services by the opp.party no.1 hospital, the complainantno.1 suffered loss to still borne child. The loss perhaps might have occurred due to the negligence of the complainant no.1 and her relatives, who left the institution against the medical advise and not followed the instructions to go to nearby Proddutr Govt. General Hospital and by taking their own decision went to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa, which is far away, thereby losing the valuable time.
On the other hand, there is no material on record, to deny the contention of opposite parties 1 and 2 that the institution tried its level best to counsel the complainant no.1 and made all arrangements for caesarean operation, which was important at that stage, but for the reasons best known to the complainant no.1 and her attendants, they preferred to leave the hospital against the medical advise.
Evidence of the complainant no.1 as PW.1 is sufficient to show that opposite party no.1 took required precautions with care and due diligence and prepared for caesarean operation and never violated their duties and moreover they collected blood samples to carryout required tests, which was not negligent act, on the part of the opposite party no.1, because the opposite party no.1 took blood samples for tests, before conducting caesarean operation, by observing careful methods.
PW.2, Dr.Laxmi Susheela, who conducted caesarean operation at RIMS, Kadapa has categorically stated that first one test would be done and if it would confirm that it was HIV positive then two more tests to be conducted , then only HIV positive would be confirmed. In this case, only one blood test was conducted at opposite party no.1 hospital and two more tests were not conducted to confirm HIV positive of the complainant no.1, as the complainant no.1 refused to stay in the hospital and take the treatment. In Ex.A25 the opposite party no.1 referred the complainant no.1 stating that it was newly diagnosed HIV positive case and so evaluate and do needful. From this it is evident that opposite party no.1 had not confirmed HIV+ve and was only in doubt.
Evaluation of blood tests would have been definitely done, had the patient i.e. the complainant no.1 stayed in the hospital and continued with the treatment. At that time, proceeding with the required treatment is important, than immediately proceeding for further evaluation of blood test. Infact, in RIMS, Kadapa PW.2 Dr.T.Lakshmi Suseela proceeded with the required treatment than waiting for further evaluation of blood samples. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the loss sustained by the complainants is due to their own negligence, who have not followed the medical advise of opposite party no.1 and even not responded for the counselling of opposite party no.1.
On perusal of Ex.A68, Annual Report of opposite party no.3, which is filed as additional evidence by the complainants in this appeal, made it clear that the said Annual Report is no way connected to this case and opposite party no.3 has not stated anything with regard to this case in its said annual report, but only stated that their project is closed in opposite party no.1 hospital in that year, due to lack of HIV +ve identified. Under these circumstances, basing on Ex.A68 report, no negligence can be fastened to opposite party no.1 in this case.
For all the afore said discussion of facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the complainants have failed to establish that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3. On the other hand, there is ample evidence on record to show that the complainants sustained loss on account of their own negligence and not on account of the negligence, if any, on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3. Therefore, we do not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order of the District Forum to interfere with it.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum, Kadapa . However, there shall be no order as to costs.
MEMBER MEMBER Pm* Dt. 07.4.2014