PER MR. ROHIT KUMAR SINGH, MEMBER

1. The present Revision Petition No. 778/2018 has been filed by the Petitioners under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 09.11.2017 passed by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala in First Appeal No. 510/2013. The State Commission’s order upheld the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thirussur.
2. Brief facts of the case, as per the present Petitioners are that the wife of the first Respondent/Original Complainant and mother of the second and third Complainants namely Ms. Sudha was brought to the first Opposite Party/Petitioner’s hospital on 08.09.2024 with acute abdominal pain, back pain, breathlessness and sweating and consulted the third Opposite Party who was the duty doctor. The third Opposite Party took ECG and told that cardiologist was not available and asked the first Complainant to go to the residence of the Physician Dr. M.R. Govindan with the ECG. He deputed his brother to go with the ECG and after going through the ECG Dr. Govindan advised shifting of the patient to ICU and reached the hospital shortly thereafter. After examination Dr. Govindan informed the first Complainant that the cardiologist was not available and she had to be taken to another hospital namely West Fort Hospital, Thrissur. The patient was taken to the said hospital in an ambulance of the 1^st  Opposite Party, but on reaching the hospital the doctors reported that the patient had already died. It is alleged that the patient was kept in the first Opposite Party's hospital without required medical attention and that she died due to negligence and carelessness of the Opposite Parties on account of which the complaint was filed.
3. The Respondents/Complainants approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thirussur (O.P. 1390/04). The District Forum, vide its order dated 14.05.2013 allowed the Complaint and directed the Respondents to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation to the Complainants with costs Rs.2,000/- within two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
4. The Petitioner filed an appeal (F.A. No. 510/2013) before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala. The State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal with costs of Opposite Parties quantified at Rs.20,000/- realisable from Appellants. It was also directed that “Appellants to pay compensation with costs awarded by the lower Forum within a period of one month from the date of this judgment, failing which the sum awarded as compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of judgment till realisation.”
5. The Petitioner have challenged the impugned order mainly on the following grounds:

i) That the State Commission has seriously erred in hauling up the Petitioners for medical negligence or carelessness on account of the non-availability of any competent physician in the hospital to scrutinise the EGG and for the usual practice of sending the EGG through a staff to the physician residing far away for his opinion. The above finding in any event cannot amount to professional negligence or carelessness of the 2^nd   and 3^rd  Petitioners herein, who gave necessary treatment to the patient in the casualty before seeking expert opinion of the physician who had gone to his nearby residence for lunch break, in the absence of the cardiologist;

ii) That the State Commission is not at all justified in finding that the non-shifting of the patient to ICU is a tell-tale circumstance that there was carelessness and negligence by Opposite Parties in attending the patient. In view of the admitted evidence of PW2 that the casualty of the hospital is equipped with all lifesaving instruments like in the ICU, where patient will be under constant surveillance of the duty doctor the above finding is totally unjustified. Further, the relatives were not willing to shift the patient to the ICU in the absence of the Cardiologist and the Physician;

iii) That the State Commission ought to have found that the condition of the patient when brought to the hospital was precarious and that before referring her to any other speciality hospital her condition ought to have been stabilised as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in respect of the duty of care to be discharged by any hospital in respect of trauma. This was precisely attempted by the Petitioners within the half an hour time when the patient was with them until the physician, PW2, examined her and found out that she should be immediately referred to a Cardiology Centre;

iv) That the State Commission ought to have found that there was no  consumer-service provider relationship between the patient and the petitioners herein in the instant case as the hospital had not charged any fee for the emergency treatment that was provided, nor the relatives of the patient had paid any amount to the hospital, a private hospital, by way of consideration for the services provided. Therefore, the Complainant had no locus standi to file the complaint and the Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction in the matter.

6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner(s)/Original Respondents has argued that on arrival, Smt. Sudha had severe Tachycardia, weak pulse and low B.P. She had some breathing difficulty, oxygen saturation of the blood was 95%. She had bilateral creps, mild tenderness of abdomen. There was no chest pain or sweating. Her Electro Cardio Gram was taken. Because of severe Tachycardia a definite diagnosis could not be made out. Cardiologist was out of the hospital and hence a senior physician was brought immediately, who examined the patient and injection Lasiz and Deriphyllin were given. By this time the pulse and B.P. had become unrecordable. The physician made the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction with complications and advised the patient to be shifted to the nearest Cardiological centre. The critical condition of the patient was explained to the relatives and the patient was immediately transferred to the Westfort Hi-Tech Hospital from the 1^st Respondent’s hospital. It was submitted that the medical management given by the doctors of the 1^st Respondent hospital was the standard one. It was also submitted that the patient died due to the severity of the disease and not because of the carelessness of the hospital or concerned doctors.
7. Learned Counsel for the Respondent(s) has argued that the Petitioner has taken a false plea that relatives did not give consent for shifting the patient to the ICU. The Respondent relied on the decision of “Asha Abbhi v. Kanpur Medical Centre Pvt. Ltd. & 2 Ors. 2015 SCC OnLine NCDRC 2587” wherein it was held that “We hesitate to accept the contention of OP that the relative of patients were reluctant to decide the correct line of treatment. In the interest of saving the life of patient, the doctor should act. The OP just blindly accepted the words of relatives. This itself would be unethical, as discussed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee [(2009)9 SCC 221)].”
8. The issue for consideration is whether there was medical negligence on the part of the Petitioners in providing reasonable care and treatment to Ms. Sudha when she was brought to the Petitioner hospital. We have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the reasoned orders of the District Forum and the State Commission and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by Learned Counsels for the Parties.
9. Since there was no competent physician to diagnose the patient and cardiologist was also not available in the hospital, despite the said hospital having been advertised as one having a Cardiology unit, the patient should not have been detained in the hospital and should have been immediately shifted to a well-equipped ICU with competent doctor(s). To wait for the opinion of a physician located away from the hospital caused unwarranted delay in further course of action in the treatment of the patient. This tantamounts to medical negligence on the part of the Petitioners due to which, the patient’s life could not be saved, as also held by both the lower Fora below.
10. ​​It is a well settled position in law that revision under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, (which are pari materia to Section 21(b) the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case there are concurrent findings of facts, and the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. We do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order passed by the State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269”.
11.  It has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in  “Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Limited and Anr. (2022) 9 SCC 31” that:

As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record.

12. Based on the discussion above, we do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition, and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the impugned Order passed by the State Commission is upheld.
13. There shall be no order as to costs.
14. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.