BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL BENCH OF A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:HYDERABAD.



F.A.No.588/2006 against C.D.No.43 of 2003, District Forum, Guntur.



Between:



Dr.Vandanapu Lakshman,

Naveen Hospitals,

Old Club Road,

Kothapet, Guntur. ..Appellant/

Opp.party

And



1. Nandipati Koti Subba Rao,

S/o.Venkata Ramana Rao,

Hindu, aged about 51 years,

Business, Railpet, Guntur.



2. Nandipati Ramadevi,

W/o.N.Koti Subba Rao,

Aged about 45 years, Housewife,

Railpet, Guntur. ..Respondents/

Complainants.



Counsel for the Appellant : M/s.V.Gourisankara Rao.



Counsel for the Respondents: : .M/s.M.Hari Babu.



QUORUM:SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER

AND

SRI K.SATYANAND, HON’BLE MEMBER.



WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH,

TWO THOUSAND NINE



ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri K.Satyanand, Hon’ble Member.)

***





This is an appeal preferred by opposite party, a medico by profession, challenging the award passed by the District Forum, Guntur in C.D.No.43/2003 directing him to pay Rs.3,00,000/- with interest to the parents of the patient, who died as a sequel to the treatment that he had given to her, on the ground of negligence.

The facts of the case in brief are as follows:

The complainants/respondents are the parents of one Krishna Kumari and she fell sick due to fever on 31-10-2002. She was taken to the appellant doctor for treatment. It was reported to him that she was suffering from fever since 28-10-2002. On 31-10-2002 the appellant claimed to have examined her thoroughly and also subjected her to some tests like blood, urine and x-ray. Accordingly the complainants got the patient tested for the tests prescribed by the doctor. It is contended by the appellant that the tests did not disclose Malaria symptoms. The doctor, however, identified that she was suffering from typhoid, which was at primary stage. The appellant assured the parents of Krishna Kumari that she would be cured within 10 days. The appellant continued to administer medicines and injections on 31-10-2002 and 01-11-2002. The fever did not subside and she continued to suffer even beyond 03-11-2002 when she was again taken to hospital. On 3-11-2002 the doctor administered injections including one known as E-mal Periset, a drug for Malaria. The doctor specifically stated in his version and also affidavit that he had changed the diagnosis and identified Malaria only on the ground of mere clinical examination precluding any pathological tests or investigations concomitant with the onset of malaria. Soon the patient developed breathing trouble and respiratory depression and also vomiting and was in the hospital during the night of 4-11-2002 and ultimately she died that night itself. The parents filed the consumer complaint alleging that E-mal injection given to late Krishna Kumari on a wrong diagnosis of malaria proved fatal and the doctor tried to cover it up by giving the reason of death a wrong name ‘pulmonary embolism’. Thus the complainants alleged that the doctor recklessly administered a powerful drug for malaria without proper investigations to identify the ailment as malaria.

Opposite party/appellant resisted the claim by submitting in his version as also later in the affidavit that malaria was not disclosed in the initial tests. On 3-11-2002, he surmised that the persisting fever could be due to malaria and therefore administered the drug for malaria which in his perception was safe to control malaria. He relied upon medical literature commending the efficacy and safety of E-mal in the treatment of malaria.

As the pleadings of either side threw up a dispute, the District Forum embarked upon an enquiry on the issue of alleged negligence on the part of the appellant.

In support of their case the complainants filed the affidavit of the father of the deceased, Krishna Kumari. They also relied upon the documents marked as Exs.A1 to A6 obviously to prove that the opposite party had treated their daughter and that the administration of E-mal injection signified the negligence on the part of the appellant/opposite party.

The appellant filed his own affidavit and also Exs.B1 to B6 which are again commonplace but at the same time confirmative of the fact that the appellant had treated the deceased.

On an appreciation of the affidavit and documentary evidence, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of negligence and awarded Rs.3,00,000/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization together with costs of Rs.2,000/-.

Aggrieved by the said order of the District Forum, opposite party filed this appeal on the grounds inter-alia that the District Forum failed to appreciate the fact that on the first day when he administered E-mal injection on 03-11-2002, there was no reaction and that there is no substance in blaming the drug, E-mal for the ultimate death of the deceased on account of onset of pulmonary embolism. Thus the appellant tried to extricate himself from the liability assigning the reason of death to an inexplicable disease which earned the notoriety in the medical world as a sudden bolt from the blue, a dubious defence indeed.

Heard both sides.

The point for consideration is whether the negligence alleged against the appellant doctor is established. Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the order of the District Forum.

The basic jurisdictional facts are absolutely beyond any controversy in this matter. The deceased having died during the course of treatment given by the appellant is not at all in dispute. It is a matter of fact that the documentary evidence of either side established the same. Most of the essential facts are also not in dispute. There are some vital admissions on the part of the appellant himself in his own affidavit which speak volumes of recklessness on his part in suddenly changing the diagnosis which led to using a very powerful drug like E-mal on the patient, the after-effects of which are quite inconceivable and unpredictable when wrongly used not only because of the inherent qualities of the drug but also because of the condition of the patient at the time of treatment. It is also an admitted fact that till 3-11-2002 the deceased was on treatment for Typhoid. Before treating her for typhoid, the appellant doctor subjected her to all the tests which showed negative for malarial parasite but the doctor on some kind of complaint by the deceased, changed the diagnosis all of a sudden on 3-11-2002, merely on the basis of her symptoms and merely on the basis of his visual appreciation and came to a jumping conclusion that she should be henceforth treated for malaria. Thus in this case the whole element of negligence had come into being at this juncture. When the doctor is well aware that any final diagnosis has to be preceded by a thorough clinical and diagnostic examination, it is rather surprising how he could take it so lightly ignoring the necessity of getting her tested before coming to the conclusion that the patient had to be then onwards, treated for malaria. This really signifies the bulk of negligence and carelessness on the part of the doctor, to prove which no expert evidence is required as this is more a case of professional negligence than a case of medical negligence. It is incomprehensible as to why the doctor did not resort to proper investigations before administering a very powerful drug for an ailment which was ruled out 3 or 4 days before by the tests on 31-10-2002. In this regard, the most relevant admissions on the part of the appellant set out in his own affidavit read as follows:

“It is true and correct that she was prescribed E-mal on 3-11-2002

but in fact E-mal was prescribed after perusing the clinical symptoms only

as the probable cause of the fever would be due to malaria since the time

the patient was put on E-mal treatment apart from other necessary safe

drugs the patient was doing well and responding to the treatment”.

It is abundantly clear from the above excerpt and some more in his affidavit not cited, that he administered E-mal injection surmising that the fever could be due to malaria. In these days when such a kind of a very drastic change in diagnosis is effected, it is but natural for any doctor to resort to proper investigations. It is rather amazing that this appellant gave a goby to that kind of discipline in the profession. This therefore is clear negligence which the District Forum has rightly identified and fastened to him. In these circumstances it is very reasonable to form an opinion that the professional negligence of the appellant is amply made out and the District Forum rightly gave a finding to that effect. Thus there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the District Forum.

Accordingly the appeal is dismissed but without costs.













MEMBER. MEMBER.

(MS) (KS)

Dated 25-3-2009.