Smt.Shivamuddamma,
W/o Late Papanna,
A/a 40 yrs, R/o B.V.HalliVillage,
Virupakshipura Hobli, Channapatna Taluk,
Ramanagara District.

…. Complainant.

V/s

01. Dr.Lathamani,
MathaHospital,
2nd Cross, B.M.Road,
Kuvempu Nagar,
ChannapatnaTown,

02. Dr.N.Venkataramanaiah,
Radilogist & Sonologist,
MathaHospital,
2nd Cross, B.M.Road,
Kuvempu Nagar,
ChannapatnaTown.

…. Opposite Parties

-: ORDER:-

This complaint is filed claiming a total compensation of Rs.9,83,000/- under different heads as detailed in Para-5 of the complaint on the following grounds:-
Smt.Ramya, the elder daughter of the complainant was given in marriage to one Prakash of Malagalu Village and the marriage was performed about two and half years prior to the date of complaint. On account of domestic violence, Ramya consumed LAKSHMANA REKHA (Cockroach poison) on 27/06/2008 and on the same day, she was admitted to B.J.LINGEGOWDAHospital Channapatna, for treatment. On 28/06/2008 she was shifted to the Hospital of the Opposite Parties and she was inpatient in the said Hospital from 28/06/2008 and 30/06/2008. During that period, the Opposite Parties conducted a number of tests and collected more than Rs.5,000/-. The complainant had requested the Opposite Parties to give proper treatment to her daughter. But the Opposite Parties used to tell that Ramya is acting drama in order to avoid going to the house of her husband and her condition is normal, therefore treatment is not necessary. Ramya was discharged on 30/06/2008 though on that day also she complained of stomach pain and vomiting. On 02/07/2008 at about 7.00 a.m. Ramya was again taken to the Hospital of the Opposite Parties for treatment for vomiting and stomach pain. But Opposite Party No.1 attended Ramya at 10.00 a.m. and subjected her to X-ray and ECG and other tests through Opposite Party No.2 and collected more than Rs.2,000/-. On that day also Opposite Party No.1 informed that the patient is in normal condition and she is making drama. But at 12 noon on that day, Dr.Basavaraju examined the patient and stated that the condition of the patient is very critical and serious and advised to take her to VictoriaHospital, Bangalore immediately for treatment. Accordingly the complainant brought Ramya to VictoriyaHospital in an Ambulance on the same day, but at about 3.00 p.m., Ramya died in VictoriaHospital. The Doctor in VictoriyaHospital informed that if proper treatment was given earlier, she would have been saved. The Doctor also informed that the main cause for death was negligence and non availability of proper treatment in the earlier days. The above facts reveal the negligence in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and therefore they are liable to pay compensation. Due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has lost her young aged daughter. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for the following amounts:-
(a)Rs.20,000/- towards treatment, Doctor’s Fee and Room Charges in the OppositePartiesHospital,

(b)Rs.2,000/- towards Ambulance Charges,

(c)Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental harassment,

(d)Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection,

(e)Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of maintenance in old age,

(f)Rs.50,000/- towards expenses of first day ceremony and other ritual functions,

(g)Rs.10,000/- towards general loss and other expenses,

(h)Rs.5,00,000/- towards loss of nourishment and love and affection of her mother for the one year baby of the deceased, and

(i)Rs.1,000/- towards notice charges

In all Rs.9,83,000/-. Hence, the complaint.

2.In the version, the contention of Opposite Party No.1 - Dr.Lathamani of Matha Hospital, Channapatana is as under:-
The complaint is devoid of merits. The complainant has suppressed the true facts and has not approached this Forum with clean hands. On 28/06/2008 at about 8.00 p.m., a patient by name Ramya came to the Hospital along with her husband Prakash with complaint of abdominal pain and vomiting since three days. The attendant of the patient gave previous history that 15 days back the patient was admitted to B.J.LINGEGOWDAHOSPITAL and was discharged after treatment. On examination, the patient appear to be in depression and with ADP signs but her vital organs was normal and BP was also normal. The patient Ramya was admitted to the Hospital and was treated up-to 12 noon on 30/06/2008. By that time, the condition of the patient had improved, she was normal, the patient and her attendant namely her husband requested to discharge the patient stating that she will take rest at home. Explaining the condition, the patient was discharged against the medical advise. The attendant was advised to take care of the patient and not to allow her alone as she was in depression. At the time of discharge, the husband of the patient paid Rs.9,000/- towards inpatient and supervision charges and Rs.300/- towards ultra sound and blood investigation fee. Therefore the allegation that the complainant herself had brought the patient to the Hospital on 28/06/2008 and that she paid Rs.5,000/- to the Hospital and that she was informed that the patient is acting drama in order to avoid going to the house of the husband is false. The allegation that on 02/07/2008 at about 7.00 a.m. the complainant again brought the patient to the Hospital and Opposite Party No.1 attended the patent at about 10.00 a.m. and subjected her to X-ray and ECG through Opposite Party No.2 and collected more-than Rs.2,000/- is false. On that day namely on 02/07/2008 at about 11.00 a.m. the patient Ramya along with the two Ladies, (excluding complainant) and a male member came to the Hospital and requested for treatment. Since the patient was looking very serious, the BP was also low, it was advised to take her to VictoriaHospital and referring letter was also given. But they did not agree to go to MajorHospital and stated that they will take treatment with Dr.Basavaraju and wait till the said Doctor comes to the Hospital. After Dr.Basavaraju came to the Hospital at about 11.45 a.m., and advised to take the patient to MajorHospital, thereafter the patient was taken from the Hospital of the Opposite Parties. Thus, timely advise was given to take the patient to the MajorHospital as the patient was in depression and her BP was also very low. As such, there is no negligence or lapse on the part of Opposite Party No.1. The above facts have been suppressed by the complainant with the sole intention of extracting money. Since there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the question of paying compensation as claimed does not arise. After the death of Ramya, the complainant and her followers came to the Hospital on 03/07/2008 at about 2.30 p.m. abused the Opposite Parties in filthy language, trespassed into the Hospital, took-away the cash in the cash box, destroyed the cash counter and medical store and caused damage to the extent of Rs.60,000/-. On the complaint given by the Opposite Parties, charge-sheet has been filed against the complainant and 17 others for the offences punishable U/Ss.143, 448, 427, 594, 354 r/w Sec. 149 of IPC. After the police registered the case, the elders of the complainant put force in all possible manner to withdraw the criminal case, but the Opposite Party did not agree. It is thereafter the present complaint is filed with false allegations even though the complainant never visited the Hospital when Ramya was under treatment. Opposite Party No.1 has also received information from VictoriaHospital that the death of Ramya was not due to poisoning. On these grounds, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Opposite Party No.2 Dr.N.Venkataramanaiah of MathaHospital has adopted the version filed by Opposite Party No.1.
4. In support of the respective contentions, the complainant and Opposite Party No.1 have filed their affidavits and have produced copies of documents.
5. We have heard the arguments on both side.
6. The points for consideration are:-
1.Whether the complainant has proved medical negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties?
2.Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?
7. Our findings are:-

Point No.1 : In the Negative

Point No.2 : In the Negative,

for the following:-

-:REASONS:-

8. The case of the complainant is that on 27/06/2008 deceased Ramya – the daughter of the complainant had consumed Lakshmana Rekha and therefore on the same day she was admitted to B.J.LINGEGOWDA Hospital, Chennapattana and on the next day she was admitted to the Hospital of Opposite Party No.1 and she was inpatient in the said Hospital from 28/06/2008 to 30/06/2008. The fact that Ramya was admitted as inpatient in the Hospital of Opposite Party No.1 from 28/06/2008 to 30/06/2008 is admitted. The complainant has not produced any medical records such as copy of case sheet and discharge summary issued either by Opposite Party No.1 or by B.J.LINGEGOWDAHospital. The Opposite Parties have produced the medical case sheet in respect of the treatment given to Ramya from 28/06/2008 to 30/06/2008. In this document, the previous illness is recorded as under:-
Patient’s attendants gives history of consumption of Lakshmana Rekha 15 days back and admitted in B.J.LINGEGOWDAHospital, treated and discharged. The present history is abdominal pain and vomiting since three days. It is also recorded that the patient is conscious, responding to oral commands, good oriented and looks to be in depression.
Since the complainant has not produced the medical records pertaining to the treatment of Ramya in B.J.LINGEGOWDA Hospital, it is doubtful whether Ramya had consumed LAKSHMANA REKHA on 27/06/2008 as alleged in the complaint or whether she had consumed LAKSHMANA REKHA 15 days prior to 28/06/2008 as recorded in the case sheet of Opposite Party No.1 Hospital. From what is recorded in the case sheet, it appears that except the depression, the condition of the patient was normal. On 30/06/2008 at about 10.00 a.m. it is recorded in the case sheet that the general condition of the patient is good, no complaints, no breathlessness, the patient and her attendants want to go home, the condition of the patient was explained and discharged against medical advise. The entries made by the Hospital authorities in the case sheet is not disputed by the complainant. The fact that the patient was discharged from the Hospital on 30/06/2008 is also admitted. It is also not in dispute that on 02/07/2008 the patent was again brought to the Hospital of Opposite Party No.1. According to the complainant, the patient was taken to the Hospital at 7.00 a.m., but according to the Opposite Party No.1 the patient came to the Hospital at 11.00 a.m. It is also not denied that an advice was given to take the patient to MajorHospital. According to Opposite Party No.1 soon after the patient came to the Hospital at 11.00 a.m. on 02/07/2008 the patient was looking very serious and her BP was very low and therefore she was advised to-be taken to MajorHospital immediately. According to Opposite Party No.1 in spite of such advise being given, the persons accompanying the patient did not take the patient immediately to MajorHospital, but they were waiting for Dr.Basavaraju to take his advise. It is stated that Dr.Basavaraju came to the Hospital at about 11.45 a.m. and he also directed to take the patient to MajorHospital and it is thereafter the patient was taken from the Hospital. If on 02/07/2008 Opposite Party No.1 and Dr.Basavaraju opined that the patient needs to be taken to MajorHospital immediately for treatment, no negligence can be attributed on the part of the Opposite Parties. Admittedly, no treatment was given to the patient on 02/07/2008. Nothing is alleged in the complaint nor expert evidence is adduced to show that the treatment given in Opposite Party No.1 Hospital to the patient between 28/06/2008 and 30/06/2008 was not proper and that was the reason for the serious condition of the patient as on 02/07/2008. Even the fact that the complainant was present with the patient on 02/07/2008 is denied by the Opposite Parties. The presence of the complainant in the Hospital between 28/06/2008 and 30/06/2008 is also denied by the Opposite Parties. If that is so, it indicates that the complainant has no personal knowledge about the treatment given to the patient between 28/06/2008 to 30/06/2008 and about the advise given on 02/07/2008 to take the patient to MajorHospital immediately. However, the fact remains that on 02/07/2008 the patient was not shifted to MajorHospital soon after the advice in that regard was given. If that is so, no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties can be alleged. The advised to take the patient to MajorHospital immediately was given in the best interest of the patient. When the attendants of the patient did not act upon that advice, it is the attendants of the patent who are to be blamed and not the Hospital authorities. The fact that the patient was got discharged from the Hospital on 30/06/2007 against medical advise also indicated that the attendants of the patient themselves were negligent in providing proper treatment to the patient. It appears after Ramya died in VictoriaHospital, PM Examination was conducted on the dead-body. In the copy of PM report produced by the complainant it is stated that opinion as to the cause of death is reserved pending chemical analyses report. The complainant has not produced any document disclosing the cause of death of Ramya. The Opposite Parties have produced a copy of the report sent by FSL to the Dy.S.P., Channapattana Sub-Division. After examination of the stomach and its contents, portion of liver and kidney and blood, the FSL has given opinion that the Residue of volatile poisons Pesticides, Barbiturates, Benzodiazepines, Toxic metal ions and anions were not detected in the above exhibits. Therefore, it is clear that Ramya has not died on account of consuming poison namely LAKSHMANA REKHA. In the absence of material disclosing even the cause of death, in the absence of expert evidence, it is not possible to conclude that Ramya died on account of negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties. Therefore, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove medical negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties and as such not entitled to the relief prayed for. In the result, we pass the following:-

-:ORDER:-

1.The complaint is DISMISSED. No order as to costs.