Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.      Opposite parties 1 to 3 filed joint version before the Forum.  They contended that the patient was admitted in the ICU of the 1st opposite party on 1.2.07 with complaints of dyspnoea and pain in the neck and chest.  The Physician and Cardiologist attached to the hospital examined her X-ray chest revealed pleural effusion right side with pneumonitis.  ECG showed sinus bradycardia.  On admission itself the patient was sick.  Hence she was admitted in the ICU for intensive observation and treatment.  The patient had dyspnoea due to respiratory infection and bronchospasm.  She had pleural effusion and had slow heart rate-sinus bradycarida with diabetes mellitus and hypertension.  The patient was given appropriate antibiotics and bronchodilators without any ill effect for treating respiratory infection and bronchospasm.  She was under the care of Physician, Chest Specialist and Cardiologist for the heart problem.  Investigation was done to find out the cause of pleural effusion.  Pleural fluid aspiration was done on 1.2.07 and fluid sent for cytology and malignant cells were detected which was suggestive of malignant pleural effusion.

6.      On 7.2.07 the patient was out on ventilation weaning mode and switched to 'T' piece with 10 liters of oxygen.  But after 3 hours patient developed respiratory distress and oxygen desaturation and hence reconnected to SIMV mode and ventilation continued to avoid hypoxic brain damage.  The condition of the patient was explained to the relatives on 8.2.07.  Patient's relatives insisted for disconnecting the ventilator and removing the endotracheal tube.  The risk of doing so without step down weaning was explained to the relatives.  But as per their written request the patient was extubated at 9.50 am on 8.2.07.  She was discharged at request against medical advice as the relatives wanted to take her home.  The opposite parties have done their best medically in this matter to the best of their knowledge and ability and only because of the competent and timely care given by the team of doctors consisting of Physician, Cardiologist and Anaesthetist the patient could tide over the medical emergency.  The allegation that the complainants were not allowed to visit the patient while in the ICU is denied by the opposite parties.  They contended that the patient's condition was informed to the relatives whenever required.  There was no medical negligence or improper management of the patient on the part of the opposite parties.  Only required medicines were given and the bills issued were normal.  No signed blank papers were obtained from the relatives as alleged.  The opposite parties obtained only the required papers.  There was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part.  The 1st opposite party is duly insured with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company during the period and the said insurance company is a necessary party to the proceedings.  The District Medical Officer, Pathanamthitta, Dy. Superintendent of Police and Circle Inspector of police also conducted detailed enquiry in the matter on the basis of a complaint made by the complainants to the Government and the findings on enquiry are infavour of the opposite parties. They prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

7.      Based on the version of opposite parties 1 to 3 the Cardiologist attached to the hospital of the 1st opposite party was impleaded as additional 4th opposite party and the insurance company was impleaded as the additional 5th opposite party.  The contentions raised by the 4th opposite party in his version were identical to the contentions of opposite parties 1 to 3.  The Insurance company remained ex-parte.

8.      Before the CDRF, Pathanamthita, the 3rd complainant gave evidence as PW1.  4 more witnesses were examined on the side of the complainants as PWs 2 to 5.  Exts.A1 to A9 were marked on their side.  2nd opposite party was examined on the side of the opposite parties.  Exts.B1 to B3 were marked on their side.