National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Pushpa George vs Carithas Hospital & Anr. on 31 August, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2939-2941 OF 2009 (Against the Order dated 29/10/2008 in Appeal No. 355,527,686/05 of the State Commission Kerala) 1. PUSHPA GEORGE Panampunnayil. Kanjikuzhy. Kottayam ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. CARITHAS HOSPITAL & ANR. Represented by its. Administrator Thellakom P.O Kottayam 2. DR. ANNIE LTTIAYIRAH Gynecologist Carithas Hospital Thellakom P.O. Kottayam ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE DR. B.C. GUPTA,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : MR. RAGHENTH BASANT For the Respondent : MS. PREETHA JOHN K. M/S. JOGY SCARIA
Dated : 31 Aug 2016 ORDER
These revision petitions have been filed against the impugned order dated 29.10.2008, passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in appeal Nos. 355/2005, 527/2005 & 686/2005, vide which, while partially allowing appeal No. 355/2005 and appeal no. 527/2005, filed by the OPs, the order passed by the District Forum Kottayam in consumer complaint No. 242/2003, filed by the present petitioner Pushpa George, allowing the said complaint, was modified. The third appeal No. 686/2005 filed by the petitioner/complainant Pushpa George was ordered to be dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant Pushpa George who works as Manager at Syndicate Bank, Kottayam, filed the consumer complaint No. 242/2003, against the OPs, Carithas Hospital OP-1 and Dr. Annie Ittiayirah, Gynaecologist at that Hospital, alleging that she consulted the OP-2 Doctor for some gynaecological problem, whereupon she was diagnosed as having fibroids in uterus and was advised to undergo hysterectomy. She was admitted in the OP-1 Hospital on 13.06.2002, where the hysterectomy operation was conducted on 14.06.2002. It is alleged that in the afternoon of 16.06.2002, she developed discomfort, followed by distension of abdomen, associated with great pain. The Doctor after examining the complainant assured her that there was nothing to worry. However, since the said pain and discomfort aggravated, Ryle's tube was inserted through her nostril to her abdomen. Since her condition deteriorated, she was shifted to the intensive care unit (ICU). On 18.06.2002, her CT scan was taken at a diagnostic centre near the medical college. After returning to the hospital, the OP gave her blood transfusion. The Doctors further advised that due to internal bleeding, an emergency surgery was needed. Thereafter, exploratory laparotomy, using a mild vertical incision was performed on her, but the Doctors failed to detect the real cause of internal bleeding. Being in a serious condition, she was put on a ventilator. On 19.06.2002, the bile started oozing out from the drain tube placed in the pelvis region. The complainant was subjected to a short surgery to stop bile percolation. During the surgery, a perforation was found in the terminal ileum, through which, bile was leaking and it was closed. The complainant had to remain on ventilator for about 10 days. On 24.06.2002, she was subjected to tracheotomy and thereafter, ventilator was removed. The complainant was discharged from the hospital on 20.07.2002, but she was readmitted to the same hospital on 25.07.2002 as her fever persisted. She was advised to undergo bronchoscopy, but there was no facility for that in that hospital. She was then shifted to Medical Trust hospital, Kochi on 26.07.2002, where her CT scan and other investigations were done and a new treatment was started, which led to improvement in her condition. The complainant finally returned home on 07.08.2002. She alleged that the real cause of her post-operative trauma was the perforation caused in the terminal ileum, which happened during hysterectomy, due to the negligence of the gynaecologist, who conducted the surgery. Had reasonable care and diligence were taken by the OP-2 Doctor at the time of hysterectomy, perforation in the terminal ilium and consequent internal bleeding and inflammation could not have happened. The Doctors at the OP-1 Hospital failed to detect the perforation in the peritoneal ileum for about 5 days. Through the consumer complaint, the complainant sought directions to the OPs for payment of compensation of ₹20 lakh, which included ₹10 lakh for pain and suffering, ₹1,85,000/- as medical expenses incurred at OP-1 Hospital and ₹10,000/- as medical expenses at Medical Trust Hospital, ₹2 lakh for loss of amenities of life, ₹2,82,000/- for loss of expectation of life and ₹ 3 lakh for loss arising from permanent disability.
3. The District Forum, vide their order dated 28.02.2005, directed payment of ₹3,66,173/- as compensation alongwith cost of ₹1,000/- to the complainant. The said compensation included a sum of ₹1,80,360/- spent by the complainant at the time of treatment at OP-1 Hospital and ₹32,963/- spent at Medical Trust Hospital, for which the bill had been issued. The District Forum also awarded compensation for ₹1,50,000/- and a further sum of ₹2,850/- for making expenses on her stay in the hospital @ ₹50/- per day. Being aggrieved against the said order, the complainant as well as the OP-1 Hospital and the OP-2 Doctor filed separate appeals before the State Commission. As stated already, the appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed by the State Commission, but the appeals filed by the OPs were partly allowed vide impugned order dated 29.10.2008 and it was directed that the OP-1 shall pay a sum of ₹180,360/- to the complainant as expenses incurred during treatment and a further sum of ₹1 lakh as compensation. It was also directed that the liability of the OP-2 Doctor shall be confined to payment of ₹50,000/- only. The District Forum had ordered both OP-1 & OP-2 to pay the compensation allowed jointly and severally. Being aggrieved against the order passed by the State Commission, the complainant is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition, seeking enhancement of compensation and award of interest on the amount allowed by the Consumer Fora below. On the other hand, the OP-1 Carithas Hospital filed a reply statement before this Commission on 08.01.2015, saying that in the execution application filed by the complainant, a sum of ₹2,31,360/- had been paid to her by OP-1 Hospital vide DD No. 185261 dated 10.02.2010. The complainant filed the second execution application also, in which the OP-1 Hospital deposited a sum of ₹1,29,797/- vide DD dated 09.03.2012 towards interest, which was withdrawn by the petitioner and hence, in total, a sum of ₹3,61,157/- was paid by the OP-1 Hospital. In addition, the OP-2 has also made payment of ₹50,000/- to the complainant as ordered by the State Commission.
4. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner argued during hearing before this Commission that the petitioner/complainant was entitled to payment of interest from the date of complaint. Further, the State Commission was not justified in reducing the amount of compensation to the complainant from ₹1.5 lakh to ₹1 lakh. The State Commission was also not justified in not allowing the expenses made at Medical Trust Hospital, saying that the case sheet for treatment at that hospital had not been produced. Since a copy of the Bill for ₹33,963/- issued by the Medical Trust Hospital was already on record, the said amount should not have been disallowed by the State Commission. The Petitioner/complainant prayed that the impugned order dated 29.10.2008 of the State Commission should be set aside to the extent that interest had not been awarded and compensation had been reduced, instead of enhancing the same.
5. The Ld. Counsel for OP-1/Respondent-1 Hospital stated that they had already made payment of compensation and interest in the execution applications as stated already. The order passed by the State Commission was in accordance with law and they had rightly reduced the compensation and disallowed the expenditure made at Medical Trust Hospital in the absence of the case-sheet for treatment at that hospital.
6. The Ld. Counsel for OP-2/Respondent No. 2 Doctor stated that the order passed by the State Commission was in accordance with law and they had already accepted the same.
7. I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.
8. The first issue that merits consideration in the present case is whether the reduction by the State Commission in the amount awarded by the District Forum to the complainant, is justified or not. The State Commission stated in their order that the case-sheet of the Medical Trust Hospital had not been produced and hence, the amount of compensation claimed for treatment at that hospital, cannot be allowed. This contention of the State Commission is wholly unjustified, because the copies of the bills raised by the said Hospital are already there on record. As per the said bill dated 07.08.2002 with number MRP02-132485 in favour of Pushpa George, a sum of ₹32,963.62ps. has been charged from the complainant. It is held that keeping in view the documentary evidence, the complainant is entitled to be given the said amount as well.
9. The main issue for consideration in the present case is whether interest should be allowed to the complainant for the period in question. Once, the contentions raised by the complainant against the OP Hospital have been proved to be true and keeping in view the fact that they have not challenged the order passed by the State Commission by way of revision petition etc., it shall be in the interest of justice that suitable interest should be awarded to the complainant in addition to the compensation already given to her. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it seems appropriate that interest @9% should be awarded to her on the amount allowed from the date of the complaint. It is clarified, however, that for the period the OP-1 has already paid interest for the default in implementing the orders of the consumer fora below, the complainant shall not be entitled to any further interest for the said period. With these directions, this petition is partly allowed and the order passed by the consumer fora stand suitably modified with no order as to costs.
...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER