Consumer Guidance Society Representing Sri P. Gowri Shankar, R/o Sai Sudharsan Apartments,

III Floor, 7th Line, Chandramoulipuram, Guntur – 522007.



…… Complainant.

And



1. Help Hospitals (P) Limited., represented by its Managing Director, Behind Victoria Museum, M.G. Road,

Vijayawada – 2.



2. Dr. Puvvada Rama Krishna, Help Hospitals, Behind Victoria Museum, M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 2.



3. Citi Cardiac Center, represented by its Managing Director, Ring Road, Near I.T.I. College, Vijayawada – 8.



4. New India Assurance Company Limited., represented by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office,

Near All India Radio Station, M.G. Road, Vijayawada.



…. Opposite parties.




ORDER


This complaint is filed by Consumers Guidance Society of Vijayawada City on behalf of Sri P. Gowri Shanker, who is a resident of Guntur Town, whereas the opposite parties are stationed in Vijayawada City. The wife of the complainant by name Smt. P. Aruna Devi, aged about 37 years working as a teacher suffered with Granuloma health problem. For which she had undergone treatment in Guntur. Later on hearing of opposite party No.2, the complainant brought his wife to the opposite party No.1 for proper diagnosis and effective treatment. The 2nd opposite party after examining the wife of the complainant and advised late Smt. P. Aruna Devi to undergo MRI of Brain and accordingly she underwent and produced the report to opposite party No.2. After thorough examination, the 2nd opposite party prescribed medicine to late Smt. P. Aruna Devi.

While using the medicine prescribed by the opposite party No.2 she undergone unexceptional and unbearable ordeals in the form nauseating sensation, dizziness, vomiting, loss of appetite, general debility etc., and the same were intimated to the 2nd opposite party, who inturn stated to the wife of the complainant that the above side effects are minor symptoms and are inevitable while using the medicine prescribed by the 2nd opposite party and advised the patient to continue treatment. Despite the assurances and reassurances of the opposite party No.2 there was no tangible improvement in the condition of the complainant’s wife and further her position had been aggravating alarmingly with every passing day and therefore, the complainant’s wife approached the 2nd opposite party very often along with her husband in order to apprise her unbearable ordeals, trouble and tormentation being undergone by her. On all these occasions, the opposite party No.2 was in the habit of telling casually that all these symptoms were usual and one had to endure them and there was absolutely no cause for any anxiety or concern.



2. In due course, the condition of the complainant’s wife became more serious and critical with every passing day from the commencement of treatment by the opposite party No.2. So, the wife of the complainant once again approached the opposite party No.2 along with her husband on 17.07.2006 and whereat the complainant was asked to admit as an inpatient in the hospital of opposite party No.1 and further directed to undergo MRI of Brain and other tests.

Accordingly the complainant’s wife got herself admitted as an in-patient in the hospital of opposite party No.2 by depositing an amount of Rs.5,000/- and undergone all the tests. After verification of the reports belonging to the complainant’s wife, the 2nd opposite party had reassured once again that there was nothing unusual nor cause for any concern. Further the condition of the complainant’s wife became increasingly critical, precarious on 18.07.2006 contrary to assurances of the opposite party No.2. Then opposite party No.2 advised the complainant to take his wife to CITI Cardiac Research Institute, Vijayawada for fixing ventilator on her and further refused to issue even discharge summary on the pretext that the opposite party No.2 had already apprised the matter to the In-charge Doctor at CITI Cardiac Research institute, Vijayawada (O.P.3). Accordingly the complainant’s wife was picked up by the ambulance of the opposite party No.3 and whereat the doctors after examining the complainant’s wife had pronounced that she had expired due to complete heart block, Septicaemia etc.,
Thereby the 2nd opposite party had utterly, carelessly, incompetently and negligently failed to keep any monitoring over the ailment of the complainant’s wife though the case by its very nature warranted periodical monitoring, in view of tentative diagnosis and treatment administered by the opposite party No.2, in the absence of certainty and confirmation as to the etiological causes of the disease of the complainant’s wife and further was in the habit of taking very lightly the ordeal, agony and side effects of medication brought to the notice of the opposite party No.2 by the complainant as well as his wife and which was never expected from a doctor of a similar qualification and expertise under like circumstances. The 2nd opposite party had adamently and stridently refused to issue discharge summary and case sheet, which would speak volumes of careless, lackadaisical and negligent attitude and actuated by a desire to manipulate and obfuscate the case sheet records in order to cover up his legally assailable acts and omissions. If the opposite party no.2 had taken care of the treatment in a proper perspective the death would not have occurred. Because of the negligent acts of the opposite party No.2 only the complainant’s wife passed away and thereby the complainant and his two children sustained unbearable grief, love and affection in all aspects. At the time of death of the complainant’s wife she was working as a teacher and drawing monthly salary of Rs.4,400/- having 23 years more service and thereby the complainant and his children also lost the monitory benefit. So, the complainant approached Consumers Guidance Society, who inturn issued a legal notice to the opposite parties on 16.11.2006, though the opposite parties received, but no reply, and hence, the complaint.



2. The opposite parties 1and 2 jointly filed counter/version inter alia denying the allegations of the complaint stating that late Smt. P. Aruna Devi wife of the complainant attended the opposite party in the 3rd week of June, 2006 with complaints of headache &epilepsy of one month duration. CT scan of brain done in Guntur showed left frontal granuloma with oedema. Patient was advised MRI of Brain and after examining the MRI report, patient was diagnosed to have left frontal tuberculoma and was started on anti-tuberculous and antiepileptic treatment and that tuberculoma of that size is usually managed with medicines only and surgery will be opted only if there is no response to the treatment in the form of progressive increase n the size of the lesion. It is well known fact that anti-tuberculous drugs produce nausea, vomiting, dizziness and patient was educated regarding the symptoms and as the patient developed occasional nausea &vomiting symptomatic treatment was also given for the same in addition to anti-tuberculous and antiepileptic treatment.

Patient only turned up on 17.07.2006 with history of more than 20 times vomiting on the previous day. On examination patient was fully conscious. Repeat MRI of Brain was done on the same day and it showed very significant decrease in the size of the lesion indicating the response to anti-tuberculous treatment. Patient was admitted immediately and symptomatic treatment for vomiting and dehydration was started. Investigations revealed mild increase in S.creatinine level for which Nephrologist opinion was taken and also mild increase in S.Bilurubin and enzymes for which Gastroenterologist opinion was taken. There was no clinical evidence, that patient is having septicemia. Patient developed sudden unexplained severe hypotension at 6.30 A.m. on 18.07.2006 for which necessary intensive resuscitative treatment was started. Emergency cardiac consultation was sought and Cardiologist immediately attended the patient and investigated the patient with ECG &Echo cardiogram and diagnosed heart block.

As the patient needed temporary pacemaker insertion, patient was shifted to City Cardiac Centre, Vijayawada that to after discussing with the Chief Cardiologist of City Cardiac Centre, where the patient was put on ventilatory support since the same facility is not available with opposite party No.1. The patient attendant’s signature was also taken in the case sheet after giving all the reports to them. There was no negligence on the part of these opposite parties and the opposite party no.2 is practicing Neuro Surgery in Vijayawada since March, 1997 and had treated many patients and there is no medical evidence suggesting that anti-tuberculous drugs do produce heart block. Heart Block had developed suddenly and it was not related to the treatment given to the patient. There was no negligence and patient was given immediate and appropriated treatment. The complainant intentionally suppressed the facts and came with this complaint for wrongful gain and prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.



3. The 3rd opposite party filed separate counter inter alia stating that it is true that the opposite parties No.2 advised the complainant to take his wife to City Cardiac Centre, Vijayawada for fixing ventilator on her and accordingly patient was picked up by the ambulance of this opposite party and admitted and started treatment. In spite of better efforts of the Doctors of this opposite party they could not save the wife of the complaint as the patient was brought to the hospital in a highly critical condition and she was declared dead on 19.07.2006 at 6.20 Hrs. There was no negligence on the part of this opposite party and prayed to dismiss the complaint against this opposite party.



4. The 4th opposite party filed separate counter stating that this opposite party is an unnecessary party and that the opposite parties 1 and 2 have not taken any policy from this opposite party and that there is any proof. So, this opposite party is not at all liable to pay any compensation and prayed to dismiss the complaint against this opposite party with costs.



5. On behalf of the complainant Sri P. Gowri Sanker and Sri Dr. N.V.Sundara Chari are examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and this forum marked Exs.A1 to A18 and on behalf of the opposite parties Sri Dr. P. Rama Krishna examined as R.W.1 and Sri Dr. P. Ramesh Babu examined as R.W. 2 and Sri Ananda Kumar filed an affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.4 and this forum marked Exs.B1 to B8.



6. Heard.



7. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:



1. Whether there was deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties 1&2 in treating the deceased?


2. Whether the 3rd and 4th opposite parties are unnecessary parties to the proceedings?


3. To what relief the complainant is entitled?



8. POINT NO.2: It is the submission of the learned counsel for the 4th opposite party that the opposite parties 1 and 2 have not taken any policy from the 4th opposite party. As such, the 4th opposite party is not at all liable to pay any compensation to the complainant due to the acts of the opposite parties 1 and 2 and that the 4th opposite party is an un-necessary party to this proceedings and prayed to dismiss the complaint against this opposite party. The learned counsel for the 3rd opposite party submitted that the 3rd opposite party is a formal party and of course necessary party but no claim was claimed against the 3rd opposite party and prayed to dismiss the complaint against this opposite party.



9. In contra, the learned counsel for the opposite parties 1 and 2 submitted that the deceased died in the hospital of opposite party no.3 only. As such, the 3rd opposite party is a necessary party, but the complainant with an ulterior motive to defame these opposite parties (1&2) have not claimed any compensation or damages from the 3rd opposite party. The submission of the learned counsel for the complainant is that it is a fact that the complainant (husband of the deceased) has not claimed any relief against the 3rd opposite party and it is a fact that the opposite parties 1 and 2 have not taken any policy from the 4th opposite party and as such, the complainant has no objection to dismiss the complaint against the 3rd and 4th opposite parties. But as a matter of fact, they are necessary parties in the circumstances of the case.



10. In view of the rival contentions and as could be seen from the material on hand, it is a fact that there is no claim what so ever against the 3rd opposite party and it is a further fact that the opposite parties 1 and 2 failed to file any proof that of taking policy from the 4th opposite party so also the complainant also failed to file any proof regarding medical insurance. As such, the 4th opposite party is not at all liable to pay any compensation and in fact, no claim lies against 4th opposite party and as already noted supra no claim against the 3rd opposite party. But however it is a fact, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that the 3rd opposite party is a necessary party, why because, he also treated the deceased for some time and so he is necessary party so also the 4th opposite party and accordingly this point is answered in favour of the opposite parties 3 and 4.



11. POINT NO.1: The learned counsel for the complainant argued and submitted that the oral and documentary evidence adduced and produced by the complainant is so clear and cogent. But because of improper diagnosis and lack of timely and vigilant supervision by the 2nd opposite party while administering ATT to the deceased she succumbed. The learned counsel further submitted that the expert evidence (P.W.2) is very clear and sufficient and pinpointed the negligence of opposite party no.2.

Further, the evidence of R.W.3 is also clear that the deceased was shifted to opposite party no.3 when the condition of the deceased was so precarious and that the deceased was shifted when she was almost clinically dead. As such, to say further that there is no need of voluminous evidence R.W.1, the 2nd opposite party treated the deceased so causal and irresponsively. If so fact, the evidence of R.W.1 (O.P.2) is sufficient to come to a conclusion, that he treated the deceased negligently but not consciously. The learned counsel further submitted that even after admission of the deceased in the hospital of opposite party no.1, the opposite party no.2 has not attended on the deceased proper and no supervision at least and he has not called the experts who are necessary that to when the condition of the deceased was precarious and her kidneys and lever damaged, but yet, he continued the ATT which is contra that itself is sufficient to say about the negligent act of the opposite party no.2 and further submitted that there is no scope to come to a conclusion that he called the experts and that the experts concerned came over to the hospital of opposite party no.1 and examined the deceased.

As such, the defense taken by the opposite parties 1 and 2 has no legs to stand and that the acts of the opposite parties 1 and 2 clearly falls within the purview of deficiency in service and the treatment without proper follow up is nothing but negligence on the part of 2nd opposite party and the same was proved through the evidence of P.W.2, who is an expert and in support of his contentions the learned counsel for the complainant relied upon catena of decisions viz., In Ujjain Charitable Trust Hospital & Research Centre Vs. Ramesh Chandra & Anothers, 2004 (1) CPR 448, MPSCDRC, Bhopal, where in held that “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 12 and 17 – Medical Negligence – Pregnant wife of complainant was admitted in appellant Hospital on 30-03-1999 & patient died on 31-03-1999 at 8.30 A.m. – After study of sonography report doctor found the foetus dead & medicines were given for induction & delivery through vagina – Patient had excessive bleeding & died – Distt. Forum holding appellants responsible for medical negligence awarded a compensation of Rs.80,000/- - Appeal – Doctor owes several duties towards patient – Doctor had taken care to examine patient – Doctor had taken care in deciding what treatment was to be given – Doctor however failed to carry out care in administration of treatment – Doctor failed to attend upon patient from 30-03-1999 at 8.00 P.m till 31-03-1998 8 A.M. during which period, patient had excessive bleeding & no steps were taken t prevent it – Conclusion reached by Distt. Forum called for no interference and in Surinder Singh Sodhi & Ors Vs. Santosh Nursingh Home & Ors, 2002 (2) CPR 221 SCDRC, UT, Chandigarh, where in held that “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(g) and 2(1)(0) – Deficiency in service – Medical negligence – 3rd respondent a doctor, admitting patient in 1st respondent’s hospital – Treatment given to patient, who sustained serious head and brain injuries in an accident, as per advice of 3rd respondent – Patient died allegedly due to lack of proper care and timely treatment – Compensation of Rs.19,25,000/- claimed against the respondents – No negligence on part of the 1st and 2nd respondents, who followed the advice of the 3rd opposite party – 3rd respondent did not act with reasonable degree of care regarding treatment of patient – 3rd respondent was deficient in rendering service which was due from him and which had been hired by complainants for treatment of deceased – On only one occasion 3rd opposite party personally examined patient – He did not closely monitor supervise treatment of patient – compensation claimed had no reasonable nexus and basis with deficiency in service or medical negligence – Sum of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded as compensation 3rd respondent was ordered to pay compensation amount” and contended that the above decisions are applicable to the present case on hand and prayed to allow the complaint.



12. To rebut the above, the learned counsel for the opposite parties 1 and 2 submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 is nothing but created story with a malicious intention to defame the opposite parties 1 and 2 and to enrich himself, yet there is no substance in it and that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party no.2. The learned counsel further submitted that the evidence of P.W.2 the alleged expert is a trumped up witness with an intention to strengthen the case of the complainant and to say that the opposite party no.2 is a partisan witness, yet his evidence is not up to mark and he has not examined the patient and he only gone through the documents alleged to have been produced before him by the husband of the deceased (complainant) and also submitted that the way in which opposite party no.2 treated the deceased was in accordance with medical ethics and literature and further submitted that the 2nd opposite party is a competent person to treat the ailment of the deceased and it is the deceased who failed to approach the 2nd opposite party in time for follow up and only took instructions by phone that to after lapse of time. So, there is no need to attribute any negligence to this opposite parties and the learned counsel lastly submitted that the 2nd opposite party admitted the deceased in the 1st opposite party on humanitarian grounds and that they have not charged any pie for treatment much less for hospitalization. As such, the complainant is not entitled for any relief, since the treatment was of free and not for payment and prayed to dismiss the complaint.



13. Before adverting to the rival contentions, the admitted facts are as follows: That the deceased was suffering with Granuloma. Prior to that she had treatment for her head ache. On knowing about 2nd opposite party she approached the 2nd opposite party and that on examination the 2nd opposite party diagnosed as Tuberculoma and started treatment (ATT). Later she developed Nausea, vomitings etc., and she took advise of the 2nd opposite party but opposite party no.2 stated that it is common while taking ATT and informed her to continue the medicine. The deceased had severe vomitings etc., and so, she was brought to the opposite party no.1 hospital and was admitted.



14. The main contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that opposite party no.2 failed to diagnose the ailment of the deceased, though the same was denied by the counsel for opposite parties 1&2, but there is force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant, why because, the deceased was subjected to MRI of brain and other clinical tests and thereafter only the 2nd opposite party started treatment. Later the deceased underwent un-exceptional and un-bearable ordeals because of dizziness, vomiting, loss of appetite, general debility etc. Of course, in ATT treatment at first loss of appetites and Nausea are common, but yet, it has to be subsided/over come by giving separate drugs. But here in this case there is no such treatment and on the other hand the evidence of R.W.1 the 2nd opposite party is that “C.T., scan of brain done in Guntur showed left frontal granuloma with oedema. Patient was advised MRI of brain on 22-06-2006 and after examining the MRI report, patient was diagnosed to have left frontal tuberculoma and was started on anti-tuberculous and antiepileptic treatment.

The 2nd opposite party further stated in his evidence that it is well known fact that anti-tuberculous drugs produce nausea, vomiting, dizziness and patient was educated regarding the symptoms and as the patient developed occasional nausea & vomiting symptomatic treatment was also given for the same in addition to anti-tuberculous and antiepileptic treatment. But there is no such prescription as seen from Ex.A4 and the other allegations of the complaint are that the 2nd opposite party has not taken any care even after intimating about the condition of the deceased while taking the medicine prescribed by him. Further contended that the 2nd opposite party instead of asking the patient/deceased to stop the swallowing of the medicine advised her to continue, thereby her kidneys and lever were damaged and the same was categorically spoken by the expert etc.,


So, it is better to analyse the evidence of the expert (P.w.2 Dr. N.V. Sundharachari) who is working in the department of Neurology in Guntur Medical College and Guntur General Hospital and he categorically deposed that “The disease with which the patient was suffering from and diagnosed by the opposite party no.2 was absolutely curable and the risk factor of death is minimal”….. As the treatment is based on Presumptive Diagnosis and therefore it necessarily demands careful monitoring of the case of the patient and anticipation of any possible adverse effects of drugs and due to individual peculiarities of the patient in order to ensure the immediate withdrawal of drugs in the event of noticing such adverse experts. Ex.A6 incontrovertibly reveals partial damage to liver and kidneys most probably due to Anti-Tuberculosis drugs and which also indicates that the side effects of drugs administered had already set in and which definitely warrants the withdrawal of Anti-Tuberculosis drugs.

In fact it is a normal standard practice adopted by any competent doctor. Ex,A4 on its back side clearly discloses that the same treatment has been continued and further no protective agents were prescribed for reversing the partial damage already caused to kidneys and liver of the deceased patient and further discloses that he opined that opposite party no.2 ought to have advised the patient (deceased) to stop taking of A.T.T. forthwith and this witness was cross examined at length by the learned counsel by the opposite parties 1 & 2 but nothing contra was elicited accept suggestive that P.W. 1 is known to this witness etc., so there is no need to disbelieve the evidence of expert.



15. Apart from the above the 2nd opposite party contended that he took advise of Dr. Tirumala Rao, MDDM, Gastro Anthologist. As per the material on hand “the said Doctor has not examined the patient (deceased) but it is elicited that he was contacted by phone. Further suggestion which was denied by the expert “It is true to suggest that the patient went into the hospital with critical stage due to continuation of ATT and other suggestions were also denied, and nothing elicited in favour of the opposite party no.2 in the evidence of expert. So, the evidence of expert holds good and furthermore certain duty casts on the treating Doctor, as noted in “Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab and Another, 2005 CTJ 1085 (SC) (CP)=(2005) 6 SCC 1, the Apex Court observed as under: “Negligence by professionals “ The only assurance which such a professional can give or can be understood to have given by implication is that he is possessed of the requisite skill in that branch of profession which he is practicing and while undertaking the performance of the task entrusted to him he would be exercising his skill what the person approaching the standard, a professional may be held liable for negligence on one of two findings: either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed., or, he did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess. The standard to be applied for judging, whether the person charged has been negligent or not, would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession…”



“Legal and ethical aspects of practice of medicine inter alia provides:

“2. Details about the duty to attend the patient – Once a Doctor accepts a patient, the Doctor-patient relationship gets established and the Doctor becomes duty bound to attend the patient as and when necessary.



4. Duties related investigations – Wherever necessary, for proper diagnosis and to know the progress, the Doctor should not forget or hesitate to advise for investigations like X-ray examinations, biopsy, etc.


5. Duty to give a proper prescription with clear instructions to the patient. The Doctor may or may not give medicine to the patient. But, he must give him a prescription with proper instructions:



Here in this case, because of ATT there is every possibility of some side effects. So, treating Doctor has to evince much more care on the patient, but there is no such care by opposite party no.2 towards the deceased and that there was no evidence on hand that opposite party no.2 has taken care even as per medical literature etc., why because, the opposite party no.2 in his evidence stated that he took the advise of Gastro Anthologist, but in fact, Gastro Anthologist has not seen the deceased and no prescription by Gastro Anthologist. So, this forum is of the view that there is some negligence on the part of the 2nd opposite party.



16. Furthermore the evidence of Dr. P. Ramesh Babu, (Pw.3) Managing Director of City Cardaic Research Centre Limited, Vijayawada discloses that “Patient was brought to his Cardaic Centre while her condition was critical and he treated her (deceased) with proper care and caution with all available source and in the cross examination of R.W.3, stated that “I have not seen the previous record (case history) of the patient referred to my hospital so also the previous record was not sent to me……… No discharge summary of the patient was sent along with the patient by Opposite parties 1 and 2. He further stated that “there is possibility of Acidosis due to excessive use of drug or drug reaction and even due to increasing number of vomitings”. So, the evidence of R.W.3 strengthens the version of the complainant herein that because of continuation of anti-tuberculosis drugs, the deceased developed Nausea and vomtings and the same was not controlled by opposite party no.2 by giving anti dots.

In general it is common experience that in the case of medical negligence Doctor carrying on medical profession is generally reluctant to give adverse opinion against another Doctor. In expert opinion, it is rather difficult to give findings of medical negligence against the Doctor, who treated the patient. For want of expert opinion justice cannot be denied, but here in this case the expert who was examined as P.W.2 categorically supported the version of the complainant. It is not out of plea to mention that there was cordiality between the patient and his Doctor previously as patient had full confidence, faith and trust in his Doctor’s capability, sincerity and dedication/devotion. The patient also knew well that whether a physician or surgeon was not an insurer, but he believed that the Doctor would provide him with best treatment and try his level best to cure him. But those days are gone, why because, the profession (medical) became commercial like education and the Doctors are found to be in endless hurry moving from one clinic to the other and have no time to have even a word with those who placed their lives in their hands.
Further more it is being heard that the experts are leaving the patients in the hands of their juniors or nursing staff etc., who are neither trained nor equipped with full knowledge and thereby losing confidence of patients. So much so in this case, since the evidence of the complainant is that the Doctor has not responded properly and he has not seen the patient though admitted and that he has not even furnished the case sheet etc., at the time of sending the deceased to City Cardiac Centre and the same was spoken by R.W.3 as already noted supra. In a decided case, the Hon’ble National Commission as already held in V.K. Ghudekar Vs. Sumitra) that “if Doctor prescribing a drug fails to inform a patient about its side effects, it amounts to deficiency in service. So, in this case also the Doctor has not informed the patient about the side effects of the drugs (ATT) and precautions Para.17. Further the 2nd opposite party has not supplied any literarature regarding the drugs which were administered, and that the record filed by the 2nd opposite party vide Exs.B1 to B8 were already filed by the complainant.
Ex.B1 is dated 17 and 18 with regarding treatment given to the deceased Aruna Polineni and Ex.B2 not dated reads that All reports handedover to patient attenders patient shifted to City Cardiac Centre at 8.45 A.m. Ex.B3 is the Angikara Patram, where in the contents are printed and in applicable words are not struck-off so no need to give any priority to Ex.B3 and Ex.B4 to B8 are pertaining to City Cardiac Research Centre limited, where in it was written “Patient brought from Help hospital in our Ambulance with Ambu support. Already ventilated there to day at 7.30 A.M. which is not tallying with Ex.A2 (Ex.B4) and at the time of admission in the City Cardiac Centre and it was written patient un-concisious, paralyzed by (paralti drugs) pulls in probable etc., not recordable, that means patient was paralyzed because of drugs only, means opposite party no.2 has not evinced so much care and caution while administering the drugs to the deceased. So, it means that there was negligence at least on the part of the opposite party no.2.
As such, no need to discuss further in the circumstances of the case, though the learned counsel for the opposite parties 1 and 2 took plea that the deceased was treated for Gratis so, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation and the same was denied by the complainant and stated that Rs.5,000/- was deposited in the opposite party no.1 hospital and that the complainant purchased several drugs prescribed by opposite party no.2 (Ex.A17). So there is no scope to come to a conclusion that the 2nd opposite party much less the 1st opposite party treated the deceased without charging anything. Even otherwise also in view of the verdicts of the Hon’ble Apex court vide Lakshman Thamapa Kotagiri vs G.M., Centeral Railways and others in III (2006) CPJ 6 (SC) II 2005 SLT 387 1 2005 (I) SCALE 600. Indian Medical Association Vs V.P. Santha I (1996) CLT 81 (SC) III (1995) CPJ 1 (SC) (1995) 6 SCC 651. There is no force/merit in the objections taken by the opposite parties 1 and 2 muchless the arguments of the learned counsel for the opposite parties 1 and 2 that of giving of treatment for gratis.
Further more the citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant vide Ujjain Charitable Trust Hospital & Research Center Vs Ramesh Chandra & Anr. Wherein it was held where though doctor took proper care to examine patient & adopted a line of treatment but it failed to take proper care in administration of treatment then he would be responsible for that negligence of which patient died. The other decision Surinder Singh Sodhi & Others Vs Santosh Nurshing Home & Others is also clear and applicable to the present case on hand on facts and circumstances further, no contra citations or proper rebuttal evidence, as such no need to disbelieve the version of the complainant herein. In view of the discussion supra, the complainant has proved deficiency/negligence on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 by way of substantial evidence and so this point is answered in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties 1 and 2.


17. Point No.3: In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, though the complainant asked huge sum under different heads i.e., deprivation of services, love and affection to the children, loss of earnings, mental agony and anguish etc., but the complainant is not entitled for total claim. Of course, even in consumer cases also the Apex Court awarded compensation even by applying multiplying method (as that of motor vehicle accident cases) and further in A.U. Sukumaran Vs. N.S.D. Raju and others, 2009 CTJ 380 (Supreme Court) (CP), where in the Hon’ble Appex court held that in para no.4 “The disability suffered by the appellant is of permanent nature. The appellant, who was in government service, was forced to take pre-mature retirement nine years before the date of superannuation apparently because he could not effectively discharge his duties. At the relevant time his salary was Rs.6,400/-.
On retirement, the appellant was given pension at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month. Thus, the difference in salary and retirement benefit was Rs.3,900/- per month. After, taking into consideration the expected increase in salary, the appellant claimed compensation of Rs.4,32,000/- in lieu of the loss of salary. The respondents have not disputed the fact that the appellant had sought voluntary retirement and consequently, he suffered pecuniary loss. The State Commission awarded paltry amount of Rs.40,000/- without even considering the appellant’s that he was forced to seek voluntary retirement nine years before the age of superannuation. The National Commission did enhance the compensation to Rs.1,00,000/- but without adverting to the pecuniary loss suffered by the appellant due to pre-mature retirement from service. In our considered view, the monetary loss suffered by the appellant furnishes valid basis for award of enhance compensation to him. So much so in this case, because of premature death of the deceased, the children lost love and affection and the husband lost her better half so they are entitled for compensation.



Further the deceased was working as teacher in Oxford Public School, Guntur and was drawing salary of Rs.4,400/- per month and her left service is of 23 years (Ex.A6) so, considering the pecuniary loss to the complainant through the deceased wife love and affection and loss of services to the complainant and children, mental agony and other aspects into consideration, if a consolidated amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh) is awarded, would suffice and accordingly the opposite parties 1 and 2 (jointly and severally) ordered to pay Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh) to the complainant and on such payment, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh) only each to be deposited in the name of minor children (Ex.A15) in any Nationalized Bank till they attain majority and rest goes to the complainant and do pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) towards costs. Rest of the claim if any claimed by the complainant is rejected. Time for compliance two months. Complaint against opposite parties 3 and 4 is dismissed, but no costs.