DEAN TIRUNELVELI MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL vs U SUBRAMANIAN

THE opposite party in C. P. O. P. No. 1/2002 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tirunelveli, is the appellant herein. The case of the complainant was as follows: (a) They were the parents of one Sundar. Sundar developed breathing trouble. They admitted him as an inpatient in Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital at 9. 50 p. m. on 7. 4. 2001. Reference was made by Dr. Ramnath of Tirunelveli. On examination, it was found that Sundar was suffering from respiratory distress and ICD should be done immediately to save his life. ICD was not installed immediately and when enquired, it was reported that the ICD tube and bag were not available in the hospital. On 8. 4. 2001 the complainants themselves purchased ICD tubes and bags from outside and gave it to the doctors. But the ICD was installed only on 9. 4. 2001. Because of the delay in handling the ICD, air spread over the upper part of the body and due to the said incident Sundar developed cardio-respiratory arrest and died on 9. 4. 2001 at 10 p. m. The ICD tubes and bags were handed over even on 8. 4. 2001 but Sundar was admitted in ICU only on 9. 4. 2001. The death was solely due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party ought to have taken sufficient care to fix the ICD immediately and even when the ICD tube and bag were handed over, the opposite party did not take steps to fix them on 8. 4. 2001 itself and on 9. 4. 2001 prior to installing ICD tubes no precautionary measures were taken and monitored and the complainants had lost their only son at the age of 31. The complainants caused a notice to be issued to the opposite party claiming Rs. 5 lakh as compensation. A reply was sent on 27. 8. 2001 containing false allegations. In those circumstances, the complaint came to be filed.

THE opposite party resisted the complaint contending inter alia that Sundar was a case of pulmonary tuberculosis with pneumothorax on the right side with Diabetes Mellitus and he was not regularly treated for the said ailment and as he was a problematic case, the chance of survival was less even though best treatment was offered to him and the death was not due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complaint was liable to be dismissed. On the side of the complainants Exs. A1 to A5 were marked while on the side of the opposite party Exs. B1 to B5 were marked.

The District Forum by order dated 19. 3. 2003 allowed the complaint in part and directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation to the complainants together with a sum of Rs. 2,000 as cost. It is as against that the present appeal has been filed.

LEARNED Counsel Mr. K. Senthil Kumar, appearing for the appellant/opposite party submitted that Sundar was thoroughly examined by doctors in the hospital. They confirmed that he was a case of pulmonary tuberculosis with pneumothorax on the right side chest with diabetes mellitus. He was complaining of difficulty in breathing for a period of 2 days prior to the date of admission in the hospital that his ailments resulted in destruction, damage and rupture of the lung on the right side and ended up in the final complication of pneumothorax which was due to direct communication of the bronchus of the destroyed lung into the pleural cavity. Even after taking Anti TB treatment with the chest specialist Dr. Ramnath, the deceased had ended up in an advanced stage of the destroyed lung. The opposite party hospital soon after admission, gave proper treatment. Anti tuberculosis drugs and Antibiotics treatment along with oxygen administration were given. Opinion from surgical specialities was sought on the midnight of 7. 4. 2001 itself. The surgeon was of the opinion that the patient might require an inter costal drainage procedure. The condition of the patient was continuously monitored. General condition was stabilished and was made fit for undergoing ICD procedure. The patient was prepared and the inter costal drainage tube procedure was done on 8. 4. 2001 morning as a first case in a clean and seterile emergency operation theatre. The patient unfortunately developed surgical Emphysema during the course of treatment on 9. 4. 2001 at 9. 30 a. m. This was sequel to his disease and was a known complication in a damaged and ruptured lung with tuberculosis lesion along with pneumothorax. Moreover, surgical Emphysema was not a killing complication. Even after inter costal drainage was done, ICD drainage and function were quite normal. However, the patient did not show any signs of improvement. He continued to be dysphonic which indicated that the lungs had been badly damaged by the tuberculosis disease process. There was absolutely no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. A perusal of the materials on record leaves us with absolutely no doubt that the opposite party had been negligent. For a patient of pulmonary tuberculosis providing ICD was the most important treatment and the same had not been given to the patient on 7. 4. 2001 even though ICD was available with the opposite party as per their counter and proof affidavit. Because of the delay in taking the procedure, the situation aggravated and the patient ultimately died. According to the opposite party, ICD was given on 8. 4. 2001 morning. Ex. B2 is the copy of the operation register to show that ICD was given on 8. 4. 2001. In the case sheet, it is seen that the signature of the 2nd complainant was obtained for ICD operation only on 9. 4. 2001. Apparently, the case sheet page 9 of Ex. B5 had been prepared subsequently. This has been noticed by the District Forum. The District Forum has further noticed as follows: The endorsement on 8. 4. 2001 appears at the bottom of the page. The other endorsement related to 9. 4. 2001 as above. Whether the ICD was done on 8. 4. 2001 or on 9. 4. 2001 but it was not done on 7. 4. 2001. The non-providing of ICD procedure to the patient on 7. 4. 2001 when it was prescribed as one of the treatments at the time of admission on the ground that ICD was not available amounted to medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Medical Officer who gave the treatment and also on the part of the opposite party not providing the ICD in the ward. May be the non-providing of ICD was not the cause for the death of the patient. Respiratory disorder was the cause of the death of the patient. The fact remains that ICD was not given on 7. 4. 2001 though it was prescribed. It was the most important treatment for the patient of pulmonary tuberculosis with severe damage to the lungs and with diabetes mellitus. This is a case of clear negligence on the part of the opposite party. Absolultely, no exception can be taken to the decision reached by the District Forum.

CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No cost. Appeal dismissed.