SRIKISHAN NURSING HOME vs P.YASODA

THE present appeal is directed against the order dated 29.9.1995 of the District Forum, Warangal passed in C.D.374 of 1992 directing the opposite party No. 1 to pay sum of Rs. 65,000/- towards mental agony and costs of Rs. 1,000/-.

THE facts of the case in brief as alleged in the complaint are that one B. Aga Reddy, the husband of the 1st complainant and father of complainants 2 and 3 was brought to the Nursing Home i.e. O.P. No. 1 on 8.3.1992 and the said patient was referred to opposite party No. 2 for treatment and he in turn had ordered certain tests to be conducted. It is alleged that due to negligent prescription of certain medicines to the patient, there was reaction which led to complications. It was further alleged that the opposite parties have started some other treatment which had further deteriorated the condition of the patient with the result the opposite party No. 2 had called in Dr. P. Prathap who advised the patient to be shifted to MGM Hospital. This process was adopted to shift the blame for the treatment on MGM Hospital. Finally Dr. Veera Reddy MD Physician was called in, who examined the patient and found his condition serious and prescribed Avil Tablets to control the reaction. Having lost hope about the condition of the patient due to negligence of the opposite pary, the second complainant gave a complaint to the police and a case in Cr. No. 39 / 92 was registered. Having come to know about the police report, the opposite parties have cooked up the case-sheet to save themselves. It is alleged that viscera of the dead-body was sent for analysis. It was alleged that Aga Reddy died on account of the negligent treatment of the opposite parties, as such they claimed damages of Rs. 98,000/- for mental shock, distress, medical expenses etc. The opposite party No. 1 had filed a counter denying the allegation and stated that Aga Reddy was brought to the Nursing Home with fever, rash and loose motions. Opposite party No. 2 had examined the patient and prescribed some medicines and oral fluids, as the patient was suffering from sore-throat, the patient was prescribed for I.V. Fluids and the patient was admitted as an in-patient. When the condition of the patient was deteriorating Dr. Veera Reddy, Physician was called on 9.3.1992, who examined the patient and on the advise of Dr. Veera Reddy, Dr. Pratap Dermatologist and Dr. Devender Singh, Anaesthetist were called for treatment and advise. Dr. Kameshwar Rao, a Civil Surgeon-Dermatologist of MGM Hospital was also called in for diagnosis and advise. Inspite of the advise of the opposite party No. 2 and after being examined by the doctors mentioned, the complainants did not shift the patient to MGM Hospital for better treatment as it is a teaching and referal Hospital but created a scene and threatened the authorities. It was stated that there was no negligence on the part of the opposite parties as they had taken all precautions and given treatment according to the advise of the experts whose services were called in. The casesheet was seized by the Police. It is further stated that the patient and the complainants have not paid anything for the services except Rs. 100/-. The other allegations were also denied.

The opposite party No. 2 filed a counter denying the allegations that there was any negligence on his part in prescribing the medicines and the reactions to the patient are denied. It is stated that opposite party No. 2 came to the hospital of opposite party No. 1 to see a surgical case under his treatment and saw Aga Reddy who was known to him and was his patient and on the request of the complainants he examined him and prescribed medicines which were administered to him. It is further stated that on the next day he had advised some other medicines and he had also taken the services of specialists. It was started since the condition of the patient was serious they had advised that the patient had to be taken to MGM Hospital, but the complainants had not done so but gave a false complaint to the police. It is further stated that the services of experts were also taken in treating the patient. The patient died on 13.3.1992 with serious complications. The viscera was also sent for chemical analysis by the police as there was a case registered on the basis of a report given by the complainants. It was found that the patient was suffering from primordial stage of Stevons Johnsons Syndrome and the patient was given treatment under expert advise, as such the opposite party No. 2 is not responsible.

THE second complainant examined herself as PW 1 and'' consulting Physician Dr. P. Veera Reddy was examined as PW 2 and got marked Exs. Al to A9. Dr. R. Sharath Kumar, Managing Partner of opp. party No. 1 was examined as RW 1, opposite party No. 2 was examined as RW 2 and Ex. Bl was marked. The District Forum on a consideration of the material had held that opposite party No. 2 is not a "Consumer" coming under the purview of the Act, since he had not taken any remuneration for the services rendered by him and so it rejected the claim so far as opposite party No. 2 was concerned.

THE District Forum had awarded damages to a tune of Rs. 65,000/- for mental agony and expenses for medicines etc., and also costs of Rs. 1,000/- against opposite party No. 1 holding that there was failure of services. The evidence of PW 1 was that her father was admitted in the Nursing Home on 8.3.1992 at 7p.m. and the opposite party No. 2 had examined him and advised that the patient be admitted in the Nursing Home and administered some medicines. On the advise of opposite party No. 2 the Nurse gave an injection and on the next day rash had developed. This version is incorrect as seen from Ex. A7, the case-sheet which shows that the patient was suffering from fever for the past one week with rash all over the body and loose motions. This shows that the rash has not developed due to the injection given by the nurse in the O.P. No. 1 Hospital. Dr. P. Veera Reddy who was examined as PW 2 had stated that the medicines administered to the patient were all harmless except Srodicillin which is of Pencillin group which may sometimes give a reaction. The evidence of PW 2 would show that the treatment to the patient was done under the instructions of a competent doctors and the services of a Dermatologist, Anaesthetist and the Dermotologist from MGM Hospital were also requisitioned to see that the best possible medical attention was available to the patient. According to PW 2 Dr. Pratap, Dr. Malleshwar who were working in MGM Hospital were consulting physicians for O.P. No. 1-Nursing Home. The case-sheet Ex. A7 discloses the treatment given to the patient. According to PW 2 the treatment available to the patient was the same that would be available at MGM Hospital and from the evidence of RW 2, it can be seen that the patient got the treatment from the best of the medical facility available at the place. RW 2 had also explained the reason for giving such drug. The treatment was given by opposite party No. 2, under his directions and advise. According to PW 2 if there was any reaction of the drug it would be within seconds or minutes of administration of the drug and not after some hours or days. The deposition of PW 2 also shows that the drugs prescribed by opposite party No. 2 are the same and in his opinion there was no negligence on the part of any of the Doctors who attended on the patient. He had also denied the suggestion that the case-sheet was cooked up or manipulated. The opinion of the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem, the cause of death was due to natural causes. From the evidence of PW 2 and the material available on record, it can be seen that the opposite party No. 1 had brought in Specialists in various fields to diagnose and treat the patient. Opposite party No. 1 is a Nursing Home, where in-patients were admitted for treatment. Sometimes even private Doctors bring their patients for treatment as the Nursing Home provided facilities like Operation Theatres and Nursing facilities. The Nursing Home has competent visiting Doctors who are also Doctors working in MGM Hospital. It is not the case of the complainants that the nursing facility or other Hospital facilities were not available or that they were not upto the standards. The case of the complainants is that there was failure of service on the part of opposite party No. 2 and consequently there was failure of service on the part of opposite party No. 1. It can also be seen that the complainants had not mentioned what amount was paid for the services rendered by opposite party No. 1. From the case-sheet, it can be seen that an amount of Rs. 200/- and odd was paid for conducting the tests. When there is no negligence in the treatment given to the patient and the best of medical services were made available to the patient, it cannot be said that there is failure of service on the part of opposite party No. 1. PW 2 was a competent physician whose competence could not be doubted and from his deposition, it can be seen that all possible care was taken in treating the patient. When no negligence on the part of opposite party No. 1 could be made out, it cannot be said that there was failure of service, which had resulted in the death of the patient. The patient was suffering from a serious disease, even at the time when he was admitted in the Nursing Home. The opinion of the post-mortem Doctor was that the patient died of natural causes. In the absence of proof of any negligence on the part of opposite party No. 1, it cannot be said that there was any failure of service.

IN the result, the appeal is allowed and the order awarding compensation against opposite party No. 1 is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Appeal allowed.