B G BUSAPPAIAH vs HOLDSWORTH MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

-THIS appeal is by the complainant before the District Forum and is directed against the order dated 6. 2. 2007 passed by the Mysore District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum dismissing his complaint. The respondents in the appeal are the O. Ps. before the District Forum. We shall refer to the parties in accordance with their ranks before the District Forum.

THE complainant''s son Sundar Raj @ Sharath was a IInd year Engineering student in Bangalore. After his practical examination on 22. 6. 2006 he came to his parents'' house in Mysore as the next examination was on 27. 6. 2006. On 23. 6. 2006, he developed severe headache which could not be relieved by medicines given by the family physician who advised C. T. Scan and MRI Scans. The boy was admitted in O. P. 1 Hospital on 26. 6. 2006. O. P. 2 being a Neuro Surgeon in that Hospital conducted surgery on 27. 6. 2006 and the sample removed in the course of surgery was sent for biopsy. After the surgery, boy recovered and complainant was told that he would be discharged by 14. 7. 2006. At about 11. 00 p. m. on 9. 7. 2006, the boy complained of pain and uneasiness in the abdomen. The duty Doctor instructed the Nurse to prescribe some gel. Accordingly ''muccaine gel'' was prescribed and on application of the gel, the boy went to sleep. On 11. 7. 2006, second surgery was done by O. P. 2. After the surgery, the boy was kept in the SICU. On the complainant entering SICU, he found his son shivering and was unattended. He was crying for water. The complainant contended that his son was not looked after properly in the SICU. As a result he developed low B. P. and acute Pancreatitis. In the morning of 12. 7. 2006, the duty Nurse informed the complainant that the boy was complaining of pain in the abdomen. O. P. 2, after examining the boy, informed the complainant that he had requisitioned X-ray and a Scan. The staff failed to carry out orders of O. P. 2 immediately. In the afternoon, the complainant was informed that the problem could not be idenitfied by X-ray. At about 5. 00 p. m. , the boy was taken to Vikram Hospital where good number of medicines were administered. Ultimately, at 8. 30 a. m. , the next day, the boy was declared dead. The complainant has contended that the death was due to failure on the part of the O. Ps. to accurately diagnose the ailment and hence the complaint before the District Forum claiming compensation of Rs. 10. 00 lakh for deficiency in service. O. P. 2 is the Neuro Surgeon who treated the boy in O. P. 1 Hospital. They have contended that the boy was suffering from headache for 3 months preceding his admission to O. P. 1 Hospital. The family doctor was under the impression that it was sinusitis. However, C. T. Scan revealed that the boy had left pariental tumour with surrounding oedema, causing mass effect and mid line shift from left to right. Neurologist, on examining the boy, found that he had bilateral papillo oedema which may cause blindness or sudden loss of consciousness and some times leading to death. Early surgery was suggested to reduce intra-cranial pressure. Both complainant and his brother-in-law who himself is a Doctor by profession were explained about the condition and the possibility of tumour being cancerous and need for post-surgery Radiotherapy and the poor prognosis. O. Ps. have further contended that they have informed the complainant and his brother-in-law that the survival rate in such cases is generally one year. They have also explained the post-operative complications. On the complainant giving his consent, surgery was conducted on 27. 6. 2006 for craniotomy and decompression of the tumour. They have further contended that the brain was tensed up and did not decrease even after decompression and therefore, entire tumour could not be removed as it would have increased chances of morbidity. They have further contended that since the brain was bulging, the bone flap was not replaced. It was decided to preserve the bone flap and replace it once the boy''s condition stabilized.

The boy was shifted to the ward after he recovered post-surgery. On 9. 7. 2006, the boy complained of indigestion. Since the boy was already given Rantac, a second drug Muccaine Gel was given as an anesthetic agent without being sedative. After Muccaine Gel was given, boy was relieved of the pain and slept well. On the following day (10. 7. 2006), the complainant took permission to take his son home for a day and the boy returned at 11. 30 a. m. on 11. 7. 2006 with the complaint of abdominal pain and vomiting.

SECOND surgery was done on 11. 7. 2006. They have contended that appropriate treatment was given for the chill developed by the patient in the course of transfusion of intravenous fluids. The patient also developed hypertension and Tachycardia. He was not responding to any treatment. He could not be sent to Vikram Hospital for C. T. Scan. O. P. 2 consulted Physician and surgeon who suggested of acute Pancreatitis. O. Ps. have contended that Pancreatitis did not have anything to do with the surgery done. They have denied any negligence on their part. On the basis of evidence on record, the District Forum held that the complainant did not have any grouse about the surgery conducted by O. P. 2. The District Forum found that the main complaint is about application of Muccaine Gel, which, according to the complainant, was sedative and made the boy to sleep. The complainant has contended that before applying Muccaine Gel, the O. P. should have conducted necessary investigations to rule out Pancreatitis and should have given proper treatment for pancreatitis. The explanation given by the O. P. is that while prescribing Muccaine Gel they have naturally suspected that the problem was gastritis and the treatment given was symptomatic and there was no reason for suspecting Pancreatitis.

DEALING with this contention, the District Forum observed that there was nothing wrong in the O. P. having treated symptomatically instead of suggesting the parties to go for expensive and invasive tests. The District Forum has observed that abdominal pain is generally attributed to acidity and the Doctor will not normally suspect Pancreatitis initially unless abdominal pain is associated with other symptoms or complications. The District Forum has further taken the view that once the patient gets relief from the Muccaine Gel, there was no reason for the O. Ps. to have resorted to other investigatory process. However, condition of the boy deteriorated quickly thereafter and there was no time to give any other treatment for the suspected Pancreatitis. Under such circumstances, the District Forum held that the O. Ps. cannot be found fault with. We do not find anything wrong in the conclusion drawn by the District Forum. We concur with the District Forum that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency or negligence on the part of the O. Ps. in the matter of treatment given to the patient. The appeal, therefore, fails. In the result, we pass the following Order: order the appeal is dismissed. The order passed by the District Forum is confirmed. In the circumstances, we direct the parties to bear their own costs in the appeal. Appeal dismissed.