A.J.DEVARAJAN vs MANAGEMENT OF THE GUEST HOSPITAL

THE case of the complainant is that his son Karthikeyan aged 20 years was admitted in the 1st opposite party Hospital on 14.8.1995 as an emergency case for the treatment of renal failure under care of the 2nd opposite party who is the consultant there. THE complainant''s son was given dialysis emergently. As his son was given more dialysis than actually needed, his condition deteriorated. He developed fits on 19.8.1995, on the date of discharge, at 10.30 a.m.

BECAUSE of the excessive dialysis, the complainant''s son developed fits and the Doctors of the 1st opposite party failed to attend on the patient and oxygen was not given as the cylinder was not working in the Hospital. The complainant was told by the Hospital Authorities that the oxygen cylinder did not work. The doctor attended on the patient only at the last moment to pronounce his death. The said Karthikeyan died at 8.05 p.m. on 19.8.1995. After developing fits from 10.30 a.m. till 8.00 p.m., the patient was not attended properly. Due to the gross negligence of the opposite parties which amounts to deficiency in service, the complainant''s son died. The 1st opposite party is vicariously liable for the negligence and careless service of the doctors who attended on the patient. The 2nd opposite party and other doctors who attended on the patient were also liable for the deficiency in service.

The complainant claimed a compensation of Rs. 11,50,000/- totally (Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation for the loss of his son, besides a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- toward treatment and other expenditure).

THE opposite parties in their version denied all the allegations in the complaint. Karthikeyan was admitted in the 1st opposite party Hospital on 14.8.1995 as an emergency case for the treatment of renal failure. The 1st opposite party provided the room and facilities for dialysis and the 2nd opposite party treated the patinet with utmost care. The 2nd opposite party examined the patient at the time of admission on 14.8.1995 and found the patient was drowsy, sick and was having fever, fungal infection of the oral cavity and pericardial rub. The complainant also informed the 2nd opposite party that his son was previously treated and had dialysis in a private Hospital at Royapettah and he discontinued dialysis for some time and took the patient from there and treated him with native medicines. Since the condition of the patient deteriorated, he brought him to Guest Hospital as the previous private Hospital where he was treated refused admission and treatment for him.

THE 1st opposite party submitted that renal failure itself was a serious condition and in addition to that the patient had fungal infection of the oral cavity and pericardial rub, both of which are very sinister and life threatening. THE 2nd opposite party explained this to the complainant and the patient was admitted in dangerously ill list. He was given emergency haemodialysis on 14.8.1995 and regular dialysis on 15.8.1995,17.8.1995 and on 18.8.1995 and his blood urea was brought down successfully and fungal infection treated with appropriate drugs. However, the fever continued and the complainant wanted to discharge his son and have treatment as outpatient and accordingly the patient was advised to get discharged on 19.8.1998 and to continue dialysis as an out-patient. But on 19.8.1995, just before discharge, the patient started having epileptic fits and he was given treatment. He was also attended by Neurosurgeon but the patient expired late in the evening. THE opposite parties further contended that the case sheet Ex. B-l would reveal the utmost care taken and the treatment given at every moment and stage by the opposite parties. The allegation that oxygen cylinder failed to work was deliberate falsehood as the same was not mentioned earlier in the notice sent by the complainant but it was introduced as an afterthought in the complaint. The opposite parties further submitted that there was no truth in this as the nursing home has abundant provision for oxygen and adequate cylinders are available.

THE opposite parties came to know subsequently that the complainant''s son had a surgery at the age of six and he was suffering from fits which fact was not disclosed to the 2nd opposite party. THE opposite parties had been able to get the case sheet of Karthikeyan from K.S. Hospital where he was treated previously filed herein as document Ex. B-6. This disclosed that the boy was treated in their Hospital for renal failure and he was a known epileptic.

THE opposite parties submitted that on receipt of the notice dated 29.9.1995 from complainant''s Advocate, they sent a reply dated 6.10.1995 which gives the details of treatment given as the case sheet could not be parted with. THE xerox copy of the case sheet is now filed in the Commission. The opposite parties denied the complainant''s allegation that the complainant spent Rs 1,50,000/- towards stay in the Hospital, medicines, clinical examination, transport and food etc. The 1st opposite party charged only Rs. 5,630/- for the treatment besides a sum of Rs. 700/- paid to the 2nd opposite party towards professional charges. The claim for Rs. 10,00,000/- for the loss of his son are all false as there was no deficiency of service at any point of time on the part of the opposite parties.

The opposite parties contended that the complainant has filed reckless, irresponsible, false and untenable allegations on the opposite party Hospital and its doctors and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

WE heard the arguments on both sides and perused the available records. The points for determination are : (1) Whether there was any deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the opposite parties ? (2) If so, what amount of compensation the complainant is entitled to ?

POINT No. 1 : In this case, the case of the complainant is that the patient was given excessive dialysis which caused convulsions and the opposite parties did not give any medicines or injections to stop the convulsions. The opposite parties denied the above statement. The patient was brought to the opposite party Hospital in a very serious condition with renal failure, other complications like pericardial effusion, and oral thrush. It was also pointed out that the patient had been previously treated in K.S. Hospital from 7.2.1995 till 20.2.1995. Ex. B-6 - this record reveals that the patient had milky white urine in childhood and operated for urethral anomaly at the age of 6 years. The patient was treated for renal failure by dialysis and treated with tablet Eptoin 100 mg. daily. A perusal of the record Ex. B-l shows that the patient was treated for convulsions with Epsobin and Eptoin 100 mg. through rhyles tube (R.T.). Ex. B-6 is the record of K.S. Hospital where the patient was previously treated. As per this record the patient was treated with tablet Eptoin (100 mg.) daily throughout his stay there. Tablet Eptoin is the drug given specifically for treatment of epilepsy. So, the patienthad epilepsy previously which fact was not disclosed to the opposite parties when admitted on 14.8.1995.

FROM the above facts, we conclude that the complainant''s case that the convulsions were caused by excessive dialysis by the opposite parties is false. We are, therefore, satisfied that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. This point we find against the complainant.

POINT No. 2: In view of the above findings, this point does not arise. This point we find against the complainant. In the result, the complaint is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 1,000/-, to each of the opposite parties. Complaint dismissed with costs.