V. CHANDRASEKAR vs MALAR HOSPITALS LTD.

THIS action has come up before us for admission today.

WE heard the arguments of learned Counsel Mr. C.R. Sathindran. We perused the averments in the complaint and also the documents filed alongwith it.

Such perusal reveals the following factors : The complainant is one V. Chandrasekar. On 2.8.1999 he was stated to have developed severe chest pain. He got admitted in Malar Hospitals Ltd. (opposite party). He was admitted as an in-patient in the said hospital for a period of five days.

AS per the diagnosis, he underwent Coronary Angiogram on 3.8.1999. On 5.8.1999, he underwent Coronary Angioplastry plus Stenting to LAD at the opposite party''s hospital. He was then discharged on 9.8.1999. He was not relieved of the pain and suffering even after such treatment. Again, he was re-admitted in the opposite party''s hospital on 8.9.1999. He was put in the ICU for a day and then shifted to the ward. He was stated to have been relieved of the pain. Later, it was found out that the relief was only temporary.

HE had paid a sum of Rs. 88,250/- for Angiogram and Angioplastry at the opposite party''s hospital. This apart, he also paid a sum of Rs. 41,400/- as hospital charges for hospitalisation for a period between 2.8.1999 and 9.8.1999. This apart, he had to pay a sum of Rs. 4,096/- when he was re-admitted in the opposite party''s hospital on 8.9.1999. Despite the treatment taken at the opposite party''s hospital at exorbitant expense, he was not relieved of the pain and sufferings. Consequently, he was not satisfied with the treatment given in the said hospital. He got admitted in Apollo Hospital on 3.3.2000 as he again had severe chest pain. There, he was advised to undergo by-pass surgery. As per the advice, he had undergone the by-pass surgery on 11.3.2000. The opposite party hospital refused to give the cassettes and photographs of the Angiogram and Angioplastry alongwith the report despite demand emerging therefor from him. He would say, a duty is cast upon the opposite party hospital to furnish such details. The non-functioning of such details, he would say, would tantamount to negligence or deficiency in service on their part.

THE diagnosis made at the opposite party''s hospital, he would say, was wrong. THE diagnosis, according to them, was that the complainant had a "Single Vessel Disease" whereas the diagnosis of the Apollo Hospital was that he had "Severe Triple Vessel Coronary Disease". THE complainant, therefore, would say that the diagnosis and treatment given at the opposite party''s hospital were wrong and consequently he had to suffer and get treatment again at a different hospital namely, Apollo Hospital.

BECAUSE of the opposite party''s hospital refusal to furnish the cassettes, photographs of Angiogram, he had to suffer irreparable injury, mental agony and damages in that he had to not only incur expenses for the Angiogram again but also because of the wrong treatment/wrong diagnosis given by the opposite party he has to suffer injury and damages. He would claim the amounts as below from the opposite party : (1)To pay the total medical expenses at opposite party''s hospital Rs. 1,33,746.00 (2)Medical expenses at Apollo Hospital Rs. 2,90,061.00 (3)Damages for mental agony and hardship Rs. 2,25,000.00 Total Rs. 6,48,807.00 He would also claim interest @ 25% on the said amount till payment.

The opposite party hospital, of course, furnished a discharge summary containing the details of investigation, diagnosis, treatment given besides the advice on discharge.

FROM the perusal of the factors as above, it is thus abundantly crystal clear that according to the complainant that wrong diagnosis and consequent treatment and refusal to give cassettes and photographs of the Angiogram and Angioplastry alongwith the report amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party''s hospital. No doubt true it is as getting revealed from the records filed that the opposite party hospital, on diagnosis, found out that the complainant had Single Vessel Disease but on the contrary, it was diagnosed by the different hospital namely, Apollo Hospital that he had Severe Triple Vessel Coronary Disease. Diagnosis is nothing but forming an opinion on examination of the patients suffering from a disease. Diagnosis may consist of physical as well as mechanical examination. Only on such examination, the opinion is formed as to the disease from which the patient is suffering. The opinion formed or diagnosed may vary from one medical expert to another medical expert just like the difference of opinion as expressed by the Lawyer regarding the factual matrix in the light of legal provisions. Only on the diagnosis, treatment is given. As respects wrong diagnosis and consequent treatment given, on occasions more than one, superior Forums had expressed, cannot at all amount to negligence or deficiency in service on the part of such professional.

THE other negligence or deficiency in service attributed on the part of the opposite party hospital is relatable to its refusal to hand over the cassettes and photos of the Angiogram. Such refusal, we rather feel, would not also amount to deficiency in service on their part when especially the complainant had been furnished with a discharge summary containing the relevant details such as investigation, diagnosis, treatment given and advice on discharge. In Poona Medical Foundation Ruby Hall Clinic v. Marutirao L. Titkare & Anr., I (1995) CPJ 232 (NC)=National Commission and Supreme Court on Consumer Cases 1986-96 page 2656 (NS), it was laid down by the National Commission that the non-supply to the complainant of the copies of the hospital records relatable to or pertaining to the surgical operation, can by no stretch of imagination to be construed as negligence unless there was a legal duty cast upon the hospital to furnish such documents to the complainant, patient. In the instant case, no material had been placed on record to point out that the complainant was legally entitled to have the copies of the document to be furnished to him. For the reasons as above, we are of the view that the factors getting revealed by way of averments incorporated in the complaint as well as the documents filed alongwith it do not at all prima facie point out any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party hospital requiring further enquiry into the matter by taking the complaint on file.

THE complaint, as such, deserves rejected in limine. We accordingly do so. Complaint rejected in limine.