Arul Raj vs N RAMANATHAN

-PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the respondents/complainants had filed a complaint alleging medical negligence on the part of the petitioner.

VERY briefly the facts leading to filing the complaint were that the wife of the first respondent/complainant was suffering from severe pain in stomach and chest. She was taken to the Sundaram Arulraj Hospital, where she was admitted as an in-patient on 4. 12. 1998, where she remained under treatment from 4. 12. 1998 to 9. 12. 1998. The wife of the complainant was kept in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) in the 2nd floor of the Hospital and she was on oxygen continuously. At 5. 00 p. m. on 9. 12. 1998 the oxygen cylinder was exhausted. There was no spare oxygen cylinder provided in the ICU. The second cylinder from the ground floor was rushed but it could not come to the second floor as the lift did not stop on the second floor and finally when the cylinder was brought it was found to be defective. Meanwhile, the patient was gasping due to lack of oxygen supply and finally she died around 6. 30 p. m. on 9. 12. 1998. It is in these circumstances that a complaint was filed before the District Forum alleging medical negligence against the petitioners. District Forum after perusal of material on record and hearing the parties held the petitioner to be medically negligent and directed as follows : "in the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 to the complainants and a cost of Rs. 5,000. Time for payment is one month. Out of the compensation amount if paid a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 will be deposited in a fixed deposit in the name of the minor complainants 2 and 3 each Rs. 1,00,000 in a nationalized bank till they attained majority. The other sum of Rs. 1,00,000 and a cost will be paid to the first complainant. "

Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was filed, which was dismissed by the State Commission after hearing the parties at length and passing a well-reasoned order. Para 13 of the order reads as follows : "the patient was admitted on 4. 12. 98. The treatment was between 4. 12. 98 and 9. 12. 98. She was diagnosed to be suffering from severe oesophagitis duodenitis and diffusive erosive gastritis. According to the opposite parties, it was highly improbable arid impossible on the part of the opposite parties to have given any hope of survival of the patient at 4 p. m. on 9. 12. 98. In our view, we need not take serious notice of what the opposite parties said or did not say to the patient''s relatives. The fact remains that the patient was in the Intensive Care Unit and she was also on ventilator support. She was being administered oxygen. It is not disputed that the oxygen got exhausted. There was no spare cylinder available in ICU. The Intensive Care Unit was in the second floor. The ground floor was informed for supply of oxygen cylinder immediately. According to the complainants, the spare cylinder which was loaded in the lift could not be taken out in the second floor as the lift did not stop there. Finally the cylinder was brought to ICU through the ramp. But it was found to be defective and oxygen did not flow out. We are able to see that very valuable time had been lost between the time the oxygen got exhausted and got replenished. "

In the aforementioned circumstances, we find that there is a concurrent finding of the fact on the point of non-supply of the oxygen to the deceased. The patient was on ventilator in the ICU. The oxygen got exhausted. There was no spare cylinder in the ICU and when the spare cylinder being brought to second floor the lift did not stop there and finally when the cylinder did come it was found to be defective and oxygen did not flow out. Both the lower Fora have held this to be a clear case of medical negligence.

IT is admitted position of law that as per Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, our jurisdiction is very limited. No illegality or lack of jurisdiction has been shown to us to call for any interference under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in view of the concurrent finding of the fact at issue, by both the lower Fora. In the aforementioned circumstances, we find this is a clear case of medical negligence resulting in death of the deceased.

NO ground has been shown to us to call for our interference in the order passed by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission. This revision petition has no merit, hence dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.