KASHIRAM BHIMRAO KAMBLE vs UDAYA A. PATIL

THE appellant Shri K.B. Kamble has preferred this appeal against the order of the District Forum, Sangli in Case No. 1238/1994 rejecting his claim for compensation in respect of death of his wife Kasturi aged 45 years. THE appellant has alleged that his wife was taken by fever and she was, therefore, admitted to the Hospital of the respondent No. 2 Dr. P.R. Kulkarni. Dr. Kulkarni examined her and gave Ampicillin Tablets and Cosavil Tablets. He prescribed these tablets to be taken thrice in a day for two days. On 27.8.1994 in the evening, Kasturi again visited the opponent''s Hospital. Initially, she was treated by Dr. Kulkarni on 28.8.1994 and as stated on the next day, she visited the Hospital of Dr. Kulkarni and complained about the same eye trouble. Dr. Kulkami referred her to respondent No. 1 Dr. Uday A. Patil who is an eye-surgeon. Dr. Patil prescribed Kasturi some treatment. But on 28.8.1994, she developed some rashes on her face. and swelling on her eye-lids. Dr. Patil, therefore, told her to stop all medicines. She was admitted to the Hospital of the respondent No. 2 Dr. Kulkarni for Stevan Johson Syndrom, in which the patient''s skin gets peeled off (loss of skin). Kasturi was in the Hospital of Dr. Kulkami upto 10.00 p.m. on 1.9.1994 and during this period, she was examined by Dr. Naik, Dermatologist. As the appellant felt that no proper treatment was given, he removed her to Wanless Hospital in the mid-night of 1.9.1994. She was in the Wanless Hospital for about 4 days and it is said that she died on 5.9.1994 at about 8.30 p.m. THE cause of death was "Septicemia" due to 75% skin loss due to drug reaction and this is known as Stevan Johson-Syndrom.

THE complainant complained that both the respondents gave wrong treatment and that they administered anti-biotics without giving a test dose and this has caused the death of his wife on account of Stevan Johson Syndrom. In this matter, we find that complainant and his wife have been the regular patients of Dr. Kulkarni and Dr. Kulkarni contended that during all the period running in about couple of years, he never saw or witnessed any allergy to anti- biotics in the case of Kasturi. Dr. Kulkarni, therefore, has no reason to suspect that ampicillin will cause her allergy.

We find that the District Forum has extensively dealt with all aspects of the case in regard to Kasturi and some relevant aspects may be reproduced here.

NOW, in the first instance. Dr. Patil is an eye-surgeon and he prescribed the dose for a short while. These medicines were prescribed for eye ailment. However, Dr. Kulkarni was careful to engage the services of Dr. Naik, Dermitologist and it can be, therefore, urged that Dr. Kulkarni had taken necessary precaution. It is indeed true that both the Doctors did not know about the allergy of Kasturi to pennicilin or other allied medicines. But all the same, Kasturi had improved in the Hospital of Dr. Kulkarni. The appellant took her away to Wanless Hospital without any justifiable cause. Apart from that it can be gathered from the evidence of Dr. Shahpurkar, Dr. Chadda, Dr. Takale that the treatment so given to Kasturi in the Hospital of Dr. Kulkarni was proper in the given circumstances of the case. NOW, in this matter, we must observe that Dr. Dewan who is the Member of the District Forum has rather contributed his original thought and that can be seen from paragraph Nos. 13 & 14. Dr. Dewan has based this conclusion on the Medical Books vis-a-vis the facts of the case. Dr. Dewan has opined that under the medical ethics, there is absolutely no duty to refer or consult the Expert/s except the patient requests the referal or the consultation in a doubtful or difficult case/s or if the quality of care and management can be conceivably enhanced by referal or consultation. He has also stated that the Stevan Johson Syndrom is self limited disease and rarely involves several mucous membrance and internal organs producing a major syndrom. Therefore, when deceased Kasturi was admitted to the Miraj Nursing Home on 28.8.1994, any prudent physician would not have any consultation to accept the patient in view of the good prognosis. The respondentNo. 2 with two specialists Doctors Dr. Naikand Dr. Pathak continued the treatment and that there was satisfactory progress in the recovery of Kasturi. Even, Dr. Shahpurkar from the Civil Hospital, Sangli had consultations with these Doctors. In view of this, it is difficult to conclude that either of the respondents were responsible for the death of Kasturi. No negligence is seen in the administration of medicines. The District Forum has also discussed another circumstances about the actual treatment given to Kasturi and it is held that the treatment was proper and within the required parameters. We feel that a detail discussion of the circumstances made by the District Forum calls for no interference. There is no negligence on the part of the respondents. Of course, it is unfortunate that the complainant has lost his wife who was around 45 years of age. But all the same, no fault could be found or negligence can be attributed to the respondents. We are, therefore, unable to sustain the claim of the complainant and dismiss the appeal with, however, no order as to cost. Appeal dismissed.