D.C. BHAVANI PRASAD vs KRISHNA NURSING HOME

IN this complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant has sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- from the opposite party Sri. Krishna Nursing Home, Bangalore.

IT is the case of the complainant that his son Ashwin, aged about 10 years, suffered con tenuous vomiting in the night on 19.8.92 and so he was admitted to the opposite party-Nursing Home in the early hours of 20th August, 1992 for treatment. At the time of admission the fingers and legs of Ashwin had become stiffened. The opposite party Doctors immediately got Ashwin admitted in the Nursing Home given drips and other medicines. The condition of Ashwin did not improve inspite of administering injunctions and drips. By about 12.30 p.m. the condition of the boy Ashwin became very critical and brain of Ashwin was not functioning properly. The opposite party Doctors administered certain medicines, even then the condition did not improve. The opposite party Doctors secured Paediatrician Dr. Prasad, who examined and suggested certain medicines. The opp. Party doctors administered the said medicines even then the condition of the boy Ashwin did not improve. So thereafter the opposite party Doctors secured Neurologist Dr. Suresh, who examined the patient Ashwin and suggested certain medicines even then the condition did not improve.

As per the advice of Dr. Prasad, Paediatrician by about 9.00 p.m. chest Ex-ray was taken. The opposite party Doctors advised to shift the patient to St. Johns Hospital for further treatment. The opposite party Doctors secured the Ambulance from St. Johns Medical College Hospital and while the patient was being shifted from the ward to the Ambulance the patient expired.

THE complainant averred that the death of his son Ashwin was due to the gross negligence in giving treatment to the patient by the Doctors of the Nursing Home-opposite party and on that basis claimed compensation in a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-from the opposite party. The opposite party filed its version, admitted the fact that the patient Ashwin, son of the complainant, aged about 10 years was admitted to the Nursing Home at about 6.00 a.m. on 20th August, 1992 on being referred by Dr. Madhusudan. The patient was admitted with the problem of vomiting and mild breathlessness. The patient had the past history of repeated episodes of Bronchial asthma. The patient had earlier in the year 1990 taken treatment for Asthma in the said Nursing Home.

THE opposite party further averred that the necessary medicines were given to the patient to control the vomiting and breathlessness. THE opposite party Nursing Home had no ventilatory facility and so advised the complainant to shieft the patient to St. Johns Medical College Hospital. But the complainant asked the opposite party to continue treatment there itself. So the opposite party secured Paediatrician who examined the patient and advised certain medicines. Accordingly the medicine was administered. Even thereafter when the condition of the patient did not improve, a Neurologist was summoned and chest X-ray was taken and necessary treatment was given but the condition of the patient did not improve. So finally after 9.00 p.m. on that day the complainant was advised to shift the patient to St. Johns Medical College Hospital for further treatment. THE complainant agreed for the same. So an Ambulance was secured from St. Johns Medical College Hospital and while the patient was being shifted from the ward to the Ambulance unfortunately the patient expired. THE opposite party further averred that there was no negligence on their part in giving the treatment to the patient; necessary treatment was given, even Paediatrician and Neurologist were secured to examine the patient and as per their advice necessary medicines were administered but unfortunately the condition of the patient did not improve and while the patient was being shifted from the ward of the Nursing Home to the Ambulance the patient expired. THE opposite party further averred that there was no negligence on their part in giving treatment to the patient. During enquiry the complainant examined himself as C.W. 1 and got Exs. C1 to C 5 marked in evidence. The opposite party examined Dr. Subhas, the Administrator and Physician of the Nursing Home as R.W. 1 and got Exs. R. 1 and R. 2 marked in evidence 9. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the pleading and the material on record. The complainant has stated that his son Ashwin suffered continuous vomiting in the Night of 19.8.92 and so he took his son to Dr. Madhusudhan, who gave him some medicine but the vomiting did not subside. C.W. 1 has in this regard stated thus : ".In the night of 19.8.92 may son Ashwin began to vomit continuously, I took my son to Dr. Madhusudhan, a neighbout of my son and gave some medicine. We came back to the house but the vomiting did not subside. Again in the morning of 20.8.92 I took my son to Dr. Madhusudhan. Dr. Madhusudhan examined my son and opined that it would be better to admit him in a Nursing Home."

The Complainant has further stated that by the time he took his son to the opposite party Nursing Home the hands and legs of his son had become stiffened. C.W. 1 has in this regard stated thus : ".I took my son to opposite party Nursing Home by 6 a.m. on 20.8.92. Opposite party Nursing Home examined my son and admitted in the Nursing Home. By the time we went to the Nursing Home the hands and the legs of my son had become stiffened. Immediately on admitting my son Doctors in the Nursing Home gave some medicine and they told me that they have to watch for some time"

The complainant has further stated that by about 12-30 p.m. the condition of the patient deteriorated. The patient was not able to recognize any one. So the opposite party secured Paediatrician Dr. Prasad and thereafter a Neurologist Dr. Suresh, the complainant has in this regard stated thus : ".By about 3 or 3.30 p.m. a Paediatricfian Dr. Prasad was sent for and he came to the Nursing Home. Dr. Prasad examined my son, gave some other medicine and also told me that the condition of the patient was critical. The doctors in the Nursing Home thereafter sent for a Neurologist. Dr. Suresh, came to the Nursing Home by 8.00 p.m He also examined my son, discussed with doctors there and went away. By about 9.00 p.m. Dr. Prasad advised chest X-ray. "

THIS would go to show that the opposite party tried its best to provide all possible treatment to the patient. The complainant has further stated thus : "My son Ashwin was suffering with allergic bronchitis, much earlier to 19.8.92. My son was suffering with this ailment since about 6 years. My son was taking medicine for this ailment. Ususually we used to go to Dr. Prasad About 2 years prior to 20.8.92 my son was admitted in the same Nursing Home for the ailment of allergic bronchitis. At that time my son with a treatment of the Nursing Home got well and discharged "

THIS would go to show that the complainant had even earlier taken his son Ashwin to the Nursing Home for the treatment. Paediatrician Dr. Prasad was virtually a family Doctor who had examined earlier and even on that day he examined the patient Ashwin and gave treatment C.W. 1 has further in this regard stated thus : "..Dr. Prasad knew the case history of my son well. Dr. Prasad immediately on examination told me that the condition of the patient was critical. Dr. Prasad did not tell then to shitt the patient either to Nimhans or St. John hospital Bangalore."

These circumstances would clearly go to show that the opposite party Nursing Home Doctors made all possible efforts to give treatment to the patient Ashwin. But unfortunately the medicine did not help the patient and the patient Ashwin finally succumbed to the ailment.

These circumstances did not show any negligence on the part of the opposite party Doctors. Having regard to these facts and in the circumstances of the case, we are constrained to hold that the complainant failed to substantiate his claim.

IN the result, therefore, this complaint fails and it is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear and pay their own costs in this proceeding. Complaint dismissed.