National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Meenakshi Mission Hospital And ... vs Samuraj And Anr. on 12 August, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2005(1)ALT20, I(2005)CPJ33(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging medical negligence on the part of the petitioner.
2. Brief facts of the case are that 13 years old daughter of the complainant, named Subatha was admitted in the petitioner hospital on 17.12.1995 for surgery of her 'cleft lip'. She was taken for surgery on 20.12.1995 around 9.30 a.m. and she was declared dead at 10.30 p.m. It is in these circumstances that alleging medical negligence a complaint was filed before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties and finding the petitioner negligent directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as cost within a stipulated period after which interest has to run @ 18% p.a. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was filed before the State Commission which through a very judicious and comprehensive order dismissed the appeal with cost of Rs. 5,00/-, hence this revision petition before us.
3. We heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Four points have been raised under the grounds of revision. Firstly, that the District Forum and the State Commission had passed orders only on 'assumption and presumption' which we dismiss without going into any details as we see that the order of the District Forum and State Commission is a detailed order and dealing with each and every points raised by the parties.
4. Secondly, that the doctors of the appellant had taken all the necessary and reasonable steps to save patients and death of the patient occurred beyond the control of the doctors. The question is not of efforts to save the patient. Both the lower Forums have fastened the responsibility on the petitioner hospital on the very cause of cardia-rest within half an hour of the administering of anaesthesia. It is this which resulted death of the child. It is not after-care which is important. The whole case revolves around as to what caused the cardiac-rest resulting in death.
5. Thirdly, no one prevented the complainant to take the patient for post-mortem which would have established the cause and nature of death. It cannot be rebutted that at the time of death what was given to the wards of the patient was a two liner stating "This is to certify that Ms. Subatha aged 13 years was admitted and expired on 20.12.1995." The conduct of the petitioner hospital need to be condemned that they are so insensitive of the fact that the child died and they did not ascribe any reason of death having all the material and expertise to do so. We are not to sure as to what they were trying to hold back from the parents of the child!
6. Fourthily, that the body of the child was carried by the ambulance of the hospital. In our view, this does not involve a case of medical negligence and not been made the ground by both the lower Forums for determining the case of negligence against the petitioner.
7. Lastly, as per said report of anaesthesia cardiac-rest in different children of different age group is not uncommon.
8. We have very carefully gone through the material on record and the conclusion is "anaesthesia related to cardiac rest most often in patients one year of age and in patients with severe underlying disease". This was not the case here as the patient had undergone test and was found to be normal. In our view the petitioner is trying to skit the main issue. We only like to reproduce an extract from the written version filed by the petitioner:
"On 20.12.1995 at 10.00 a.m. the complainant's daughter was posted for secondary cleft lip connection and was provided general anaesthesia under ECG Monitor and pulse Oximeter cover by Dr. Maharajan and Dr. Baskar, the anaestheists."
We also reproduce the extract of the affidavit filed by the MD of the petitioner, hospital "On 20.12.195 at 10.00 a.m. the complainant's daughter was Hosted for secondary cleft lip connection and was provided general anaesthesia under ECG Monitor and pulse Oximeter cover by Dr. Maharajan and Dr. Baskar, the anaestheists."
(emphasis supplied)
9. These two statements, one of which on oath by way of affidavit, leaves little doubt that the anaesthesia was given by two doctors. In order to save the situation, the petitioner has filed the affidavit of Dr. Maharajan, who was one of the anaesthestists, we reproduce the extract form his affidavit.
"I respectfully submit that I am the consultant in Anaesthesia at the Adversay Hospital. Dr. Baskaran, Anaesthetist in this case is no longer in the service of this hospital since he has proceeded to Bangalore..."
10. It is very pertinent to note that no where in any one's affidavit filed by the Managing Director or in the operation notes maintained for the purpose, it comes out the name of the person who administered the anaesthesia. It is not clarified as to what two anaesthetists were doing inside the O.T., where was the necessity of two of them being there? We have very carefully gone through the operation notes dated 20.12.1995 at 10.00 a.m. (page 77 of the record) where it is recorded "She was anaesthised by GA under EDG monitor and pulse oximeter cover." No where in whole of Progress Record, it is mentioned as to who administered this anaesthesia. Like the State Commission we are also unable to appreciate as to why Dr. Bhaskaran who allegedly had administered the anaesthesia and Available within the country, could not be produced. We are also unable as to how there could be two progress cards about the same patient on 2 separate papers, especially, after 11.30 a.m. when the child was shifted to ICRU. (pages 7778 and 75-76 respectively). The record is quite clear that the child was administered anaesthesia by two anaesthetists at 10 a.m. and at 10.30 a.m., the child was pulsless. All the reasons given for the death have been duly examined at length with reference to the medical text and details by the State Commission with which we are in full agreement. This is a clear case of medical negligence.
11. We may mention here also that normally it is the doctors upon whom the specific allegation on negligence would be attributed, but in this case all the operation notes/progress record are silent about the names of the doctors and it is admitted position that it was before the surgery and no name of anaesthetists is mentioned any where, hence it is the hospital which would be accountable for whatever happens in the hospital. In view of this, we find no merit in the revision petition filed before us, which is dismissed.
No order as to costs.