AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE complainant''s daughter aged 13 years was admitted for fever, at SPIC Nagar Medical Centre on 8.7.1992. As the condition required dialysis, she was referred to the 1st opposite party Hospital. After that he wanted to take her for kidney transplant at Child''s Trust Hospital.
THE complainant''s daughter was admitted in the 1st opposite party Hospital on 11.7.1992 at 1.30 hrs. Dr. Gnaneswaran, the 2nd opposite party admitted the patient to provide the standard of reasonable medical care to bring down the blood urea and creatinine levels to normal. The opposite parties took X-ray, ECG, and other clinical tests, administered some medicines and carried out haemodialysis of 1 hours only. The first blood tests showed the value of blood urea 133 and creatinine 12.2. The opposite parties conducted dialysis for 1 hours only. The 2nd clinical test showed the value of blood urea 140 and creatinine 11.9. The 3rd clinical test showed blood urea levels 164 and 15.8 respectively. The opposite parties did not take the standard of reasonable medical to reduce the blood urea and creatinine levels. This caused the death of his daughter on 12.7.1992 at 11.30 hours.
The opposite parties gave only one dialysis for 1 hours. The patient was lying on bed under abnormal condition and the dietician of the 1st opposite party prescribed the diet which included Idiyappam, Idli, Chami, Sambar, Rice, Rasam and Poriyal. This clearly showed the negligence of the opposite parties.
THE 1st opposite party charged twice the charge of single dialysis, bed charges for 4 days, service charges for 4 days vide their bill No. 504831 in SI. Nos. 1 and 2 against the actual stay of 2 days at their Hospital. So, the 1st opposite party recovered twice the charge which is a deficiency in service. The complainants lost their only one precious daughter as a result of imperfection, shortcoming and inadequacy in quality, nature and manner of performance of medical service rendered by the opposite parties.
THE complainants claimed Rs. 4 lakhs as damages for the loss of their precious daughter, medical expenses and other expenditure Rs. 27,912/- and for mental agony Rs. 1 lakh, totalling Rs. 5,27,912/- only with 15% interest and cost of the complaint. The opposite parties in their version contended that the patient was admitted in a terminally ill condition. The opposite parties did not give any false hopes or promises to reduce the blood urea and creatinine levels. The first course of dialysis should never be aggressive or prolonged as it would result in unconsciousness and convulsion. Though all the best efforts were taken to reduce the blood urea and creatinine levels, they all failed due to the critical condition of the patient. The diet prescribed by the dietician was meant after recovery of the patient and the same was not given to the patient. The two bills for dialysis were for peritoneal dialysis followed by haemodialysis and the same was explained to the complainant.
THE patient''s relatives settled the bill on 14.7.1992. Due to error in the computer on that day, the date of discharge was printed wrongly as 14.7.1992 and the charges were specified as for 4 days. But the actual charges collected were for only one day. As the patient was treated in Intensive Care Unit, one bed charge of Rs. 400/-, one day service charge of Rs. 300/- and one day nursing charge of Rs. 200/- were only collected. THE visiting fee of Rs. 100/- of Doctor was also charged for one day only. THE total bill collected was for only one day.
THERE was no negligence in treatment or management of the case as the patient suffered from a serious disease namely infantile poly cystic kidney and she was brought to the opposite party Hospital at a very late and terminally ill condition. The opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the case with costs. We heard the arguments and perused the available records.
The points that arise for consideration are: 1. whether the 1st and 2nd opposite parties were guilty of negligence in service as alleged by the complainant ? 2. what amount of compensation, if any, the complainant can be granted?
POINT No. 1: The complainant Mr. C. Sankara Narayanan appeared in person and contended that only one dialysis for 11/2 hours was given and inspite of blood urea and creatinine level rising, the opposite parties did not take steps to bring them down. He further said that the diet prescribed by the dietician was wrong. His only daughter did because the opposite party gave only one dialysis that too for a short time of 1 hours. Even though the blood urea and creatinine were increasing no more dialysis was given and the opposite parties failed to give the proper treatment to bring down blood urea and creatinine. He claimed damages for the death of his daughter and also compensation. The learned Counsel for the opposite parties contended that the patient was brought to the 1st opposite party Hospital in a very serious condition. She was given peritoneal dialysis followed by haemodialysis for l hours. Dialysis could not be repeated as it was thought that the patient''s general condition was so serious that she would not withstand any more dialysis. The diet prescribed by the dietician was meant only when the condition improved after dialysis. The patient was given that diet as she was in the Intensive Care Unit.
ACCORDING to the assessment of the case by the opposite parties, the serious condition of the patient did not allow more than one haemodialysis. For haemodialysis the blood vessels must remain open for A-V shunt. Under such conditions, the opposite parties gave all the other necessary treatments possible to bring down blood urea and creatinine. In the above circumstances, we find that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. This point we find in favour of the opposite parties. Point No. 2: In view of our above findings, this point does not arise. This point we find against the complainant.
IN the result, the complaint is dismissed. Complaint dismissed.