Sir Harkisandas Narottamdas Hospital & Research Centre
This is a discussion on Sir Harkisandas Narottamdas Hospital & Research Centre within the Judgments forums, part of the General Discussions category; CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.125/2002 Date of Filing:- 27/12/2002 Date of Order:-05/08/2009 Mrs.Arshtul Aminuddin Shaikh, R/at ...
- 08-31-2009, 11:57 AM #1
Sir Harkisandas Narottamdas Hospital & Research Centre
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.125/2002 Date of Filing:- 27/12/2002
Date of Order:-05/08/2009
Mrs.Arshtul Aminuddin Shaikh,
R/at Room No.12, 1st Floor,
7-9, Nizam Cross Lane,
Mumbai-400 003 … Complainant
Sir Harkisandas Narottamdas Hospital & Research Centre,
Padamshi Gordhan Bapu Chowk,
Raja Ram Mohan Roy Road,
Mumbai-400 004 … Opponent
Corum :- Mr.P.N.Kashalkar,Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member,
Smt.S.P.Lale, Hon’ble Member.
Present :- Mr.Jayanti Patel, Adv. for the Complainant
Dr.Bhujang, Medical Director of O.P.
O R D E R
Per Mr.P.N.Kashalkar,Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
1) This complaint has been filed by the lady complainant against Sir Harkisandas Narottamdas Hospital & Research Centre alleging deficiency in service on the part of it.
2) Briefly case of the complainant against the hospital is that on 2/1/2002, she was having chest pain. She went to O.P.D. of J.J.Hospital. On examination, it was found that her blood pressure was high. There was no proper palpitation and there was severe pain in chest. E.C.G. was taken in J.J.Hospital and then she was admitted in the J.J.Hospital. They collected blood sample for pathological test of CKMB and her husband was asked to take sample to the laboratory of O.P./Hospital. The sample was deposited in the laboratory of the O.P. on the same day and Rs.325/- was paid as laboratory charges. On the same night, report was received from the O.P./Hospital which revealed that CKMB was as high as 2490 whereas normally it should be just 25. Seeing the report, doctors of J.J.Hospital admitted her in ICU but since there was no vacancy in the ICU of the hospital she was admitted to Bhatia Hospital at Grant Road. She deposited Rs.22,000/- by cheque in the Bhatia Hospital. In Bhatia Hospital, within one hour since her admission at midnight her CKMB report was called from pathology department and Bhatia Hospital Laboratory report revealed her CKMB was just normal. It was only 22.
3) The complainant avers the report given by pathology department of O.P./Hospital was incorrect and false. They were careless and negligent in rendering services to the complainant and because of incorrect report, she was required to undergo expenses of Rs.11,891/- besides medical expenses of Rs.1,000/-. Her husband who was advocate also incurred loss because he could not continue his legal practice for eight days. In all, she has claimed amount of Rs.5,21,216/- from O.P.Hospital for the defective services rendered to her.
4) The O.P. filed written statement and pleaded that pathology centre of the O.P. was having well trained, highly qualified and specialist team of doctors and technicians who conduct various tests in the pathology department. It is headed by Dr.Mrs.R.Y.Patel who is an M.D. in Pathology. The hospital admitted that blood of the complainant was received on the night of 2/1/2002 for a test known as CKMB which is conducted to detect the myocardial injury. Blood was delivered to the hospital on 2/1/2002 at 7.00 p.m. and test was performed on the same day using a kit known as RANDOX KIT. The test was performed as per standard procedure by using undiluted sample of complainant’s serum. The test was carried out by computerized chemical analysis. The test was conducted with the known standard samples which are available with the kit to ensure correctness of the result. The hospital pleaded that the test of CKMB is not full proof or 100% accurate. There are many substances and antibodies in the human body which can mimick the chemical for which the test is conducted. Such reactions are called ‘False Positive Tests’ which in simple language means test is positive and is to be rejected or confirmed by other tests. To avoid ‘False Positive Tests’, it is usually the practice to subject the patient to other tests which can confirm the occurrence of suspected disease. The attending doctor is left with the discretion of asking for the further test to confirm the presence or absence of certain ailments. The hospital further pleaded that CKMB test used for the complainant has similar inherent disadvantages that have been mentioned above in connection with tests involving chemical reactions. The test can be false positive for reasons other than the patient being suffering from heart disease. In the CKMB test performed on the blood of the complainant, the test was reported as calculated by the computerized machines. A wide range of events within and outside the human body can cause alterations in the CKMB and the pathology department has no option but to report it as detected. It is for the referring physician to interpret the tests as conducted by the Pathologist. The hospital pleaded that the very fact that doctors at Bhatia Hospital performed same test within an hour of admission and test was found normal would indicate no loss occured to the complainant as a consequence the mistake or error if any. The hospital further pleaded that the claim preferred by the complainant is highly inflated demand for a mistake or error if any in the instant case when she had rechecked her CKMB at Bhatia Hospital within an hour from her admission in the said hospital. Her demand of Rs.5,21,216/- as damages for the alleged wrong report given by O.P./Hospital was unjustified because she had suffered no loss. The hospital pleaded that this tendency clearly demonstrates mercenary attitude of the complainant to exploit even slightest mistake if any committed by the respondent. Hence, it pleaded that the O.P. is not liable to pay any monies or claim as asked for by the complainant. Whole case of the complainant is based on false presumptions, twisting of facts and malafide intentions. The hospital therefore prayed that complaint should be dismissed with compensatory cost as complaint is false and vexatious.
5) Both parties filed affidavits and documents to support their respective pleadings. We heard submissions of Mr.Jayanti Patel, Adv. for the complainant and Dr.Bhujang, Medical Director of O.P./Hospital. Upon hearing rival submissions, following issues arise for our consideration. The issues and our findings thereon are as under :-
Does the complainant prove that O.P./Hospital gave absolutely incorrect pathological report on the blood sample of the complaint sent to it for CKMB test ?
Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of pathology department of O.P./Hospital ?
What order if any ?
Complaint is partly allowed.
6) Issue No.1& 2 :- This is a simple case of patent deficiency in service on the part of pathological laboratory of O.P./Hospital. The complainant had sent her blood sample to the pathology department of O.P. on 2/1/2002 around 7.00 p.m. and within 2-3 hours report was given after conducting CKMB test and the report revealed that complainant’s blood sample was having CKMB as high as 2490 as against normal range from 0 to 25. So, the test result at O.P’s pathological laboratory surely scared everybody including doctors treating complainant at J.J.Hospital. They immediately directed that complainant should be admitted in ICU immediately. But, since ICU bed was not available, doctors suggested relative of the complainant that she should be admitted in any other hospital for urgent treatment without loss of time. Hence, she was admitted to Bhatia Hospital around midnight and by 1.00 a.m. her blood was collected in Bhatia hospital and its pathology department gave report that complainant’s CKMB test was normal since it was 22 (normal range is 0 to 25) It means the report furnished by O.P./Hospital was inaccurate, incorrect and it tended to raise false alarm in the patient, in the patient’s relative and among the doctors of J.J.Hospital who were treating the complainant. So, this was a case of res ipsa locator (things speak for itself) There was per se negligence, carelessness in giving report by the pathology department of O.P./Hospital. Within three to five hours, second report was found to be normal. It would necessarily go to show that pathological report given to the complainant by the hospital was per se inaccurate, incorrect and there was apparent carelessness and negligence in testing the said sample. No further proof is required to prove this fact and no amount of text can come to the rescue of O.P./Hospital and we are not at all convinced that test conducted by O.P. was foolproof and it was done with the help of RANDOX KIT and it was a standard test conducted with the help of computer. We are not satisfied with the excuses put forth by O.P./Hospital. In answer to para 6 & 7, the hospital did mention that the complainant was claiming inflated demand for the mistake or error if any committed by the hospital. So, they are conscious of the fact that laboratory had committed some mistake or error in giving this report to the complainant which contained explosive report sending alarm bells to all the concerned who read the report. The complainant and her relatives must have suffered trauma in reading this report. So, this is a fit case wherein we can hold on the basis of material on record that the O.P./Hospital was guilty of deficiency in service in issuing such type of inaccurate, incorrect report to the complainant when after 4-5 hours in the second test conducted by Bhatia Hospital for CKMB report was “within normal limits”. Thus, this is a fit case wherein we must award some compensation to the complainant. Had the report been normal as was ultimately found in the Bhatia Hospital, the lady would have been treated by J.J. Hospital virtually free of cost. But in Bhatia Hospital, because of inaccurate finding recorded in the report by the O.P./Hospital she was required to spend more than Rs.11,000/- and for eight days she was hospitalized. Thus, we hold that there was clear cut deficiency in service on the part of O.P./Hospital because they charged complainant Rs.326/- to give that report which was surely inaccurate, incorrect, prepared carelessly and which sent alarm bells ringing in the family of the complainant. The doctors at J.J.Hospital too were very much scared and panicked seeing the report of CKMB test submitted by the O.P./Hospital. In the circumstances, we hold that there has been deficiency in service on the part of O.P./Hospital for which due compensation will have to be given to the complainant by allowing this complaint partly.
7) Question is what amount of compensation should be awarded to the complainant. Complainant has claimed under various heads amount of Rs.5,21,216/-. But, we are of the view that the complainant should be paid Rs.12,891/- towards medical expenses and hospital charges of Bhatia General Hospital, Rs.325/- towards refund of charges paid by the complainant to the O.P. for conducting pathology test and Rs.5,000/- towards agony she suffered because of inaccurate finding handed out by O.P./Hospital. Thus, the complainant would be entitled to get amount of Rs.18,216/- besides we would like to grant Rs.2,000/- as a cost of this proceeding to the complainant. Hence, we record our finding on issue no.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass final order.
O R D E R
1) Complaint is partly allowed.
2) The O.P./Hospital is directed to pay to the complainant sum of Rs.18,216/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as cost of this proceeding.
3) O.P. is left to bear its own cost.
4) The order should be complied with within one month from the receipt of this order lest the whole amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipt of this order till actual payment.
5) Copies of this judgment be sent to the parties free of cost.
( Smt.S.P.Lale ) (P.N.Kashalkar )
Member Presiding Judicial Member
- By admin in forum JudgmentsReplies: 1Last Post: 03-12-2013, 05:30 PM
- By Advocate.sonia in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 09-02-2009, 03:32 PM
- By Sidhant in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 09-01-2009, 02:29 PM
- By Sidhant in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 09-01-2009, 12:31 PM
- By Sidhant in forum JudgmentsReplies: 0Last Post: 08-31-2009, 12:25 PM