V. Pusphamala vs K. Gangadharan

IN OP No.230 of 1998, the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, had allowed the complaint of one Mr. K. Gangadharan and his minor son, against Dr. P. Pushpamala and Balaji Hospital of Chingelpet. The present appeal is filed on behalf of these two OPs. While admitting the appeal, this Commission had stayed the operation of the impugned order subject to deposit of 50% of the award amount with the State Commission.

THE facts in the case in brief are that the 28 year old wife of Complainant Gangadharan was taken to OP Hospital on 14.7.1998, with sudden complaint of throbbing headache, fever, rigors and vomiting. She was admitted and her blood sample was sent for testing, as she was suspected to be suffering from malaria. THE Complainant alleges that he was told that his wife was suffering from malaria. A routine blood test was also done for jaundice. She was simultaneously put on treatment for malaria. When she was administered a course of Clockit tablets, she developed rashes on her body, bloating of stomach and premature menstruation. As there was no doctor to attend to her worsening condition, the Complainant called the duty doctor from his residence. When the doctor came, he informed that the patient had died. Allegedly, the death was due to administration of Clockit tablets without testing whether the patient was allergic to the same. In a nutshell the case of the Complainant is that- a) No tests, other than a routine blood test, were done to confirm the nature of disease she was suffering from. b) Clockit tablets were administered without testing her for allergy. c) When allergy developed and the condition of the patient worsened, its treatment was not handled properly. d) The cause of death was shown first as cerebral malaria and then as heart failure. Both were false as the actual cause of death was allergic reaction to the drug.

As per the complaint petition a legal notice dated 3.9.1998 was served on the OPs, which was replied on 28.9.1998. Allegedly, this reply admits that the death was caused by allergy to Clockit drug, which was administered on the fateful night.

IN reply to the above, it was claimed by the OPs that the patient was put up on the treatment for malaria after due diagnosis. At the time of giving Clockit tablets, the OPs were not informed that the patient had allergy to certain drugs. Even when the symptoms developed, the Complainant did not inform the duty doctor immediately. At about 5" o clock in the morning when the patient developed fits, the duty doctor attended to her. As claimed by the OPs, the death was due to natural causes and not due to any negligence in her treatment. It is claimed that the cause of death was correctly mentioned as cerebral malaria, which leads to heart failure. The State Commission has examined at length the claim of the OPs that they were not informed about the patient"s condition of allergy to drug and came to the following conclusion:- "The above would amply show that the stand of the opposite parties is highly improper and false. There was a systematic attempt on their part to cover their lapses and deficiency in service. Though at the earliest point of time, the opposite parties had been posted with the information of the patient being allergic to drugs, sufficient care had not been taken in this regard. This would evident from what happened subsequently."

THE State Commission has also pointed out series of discrepancies in the claim of OPs regarding diagnoses and treatment for malaria. THE diagnosis, according to the case sheet, was on the 14th . According to the affidavit evidence of Dr. Kannan, it was on the 17th. According to the case sheet, the treatment for malaria was started on the 15th , with administration of METROQUIN tablets. THE State Commission has therefore, concluded that the OPs were not consistent in their evidence about diagnosis and treatment of the patient. The State Commission has thus highlighted contradictions and inconsistencies in the stand of the OPs, which destroy the credibility of their evidence. It has awarded a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs out of which, Rs.3 lakhs is ordered to be kept in a fixed deposit, in the name of the minor child of the deceased. We have perused the records, including the record of the State Commission, which was called for. Counsel for the appellant/OP-1 argued before us, justifying the administration of Clockit on the ground that the patient was suffering from malaria. He argued that the Ops were not informed about the patient"s allergy to drugs. His attention was drawn to the noting in the record of treatment on the day of admission itself (page 57 of the paper book) in which it has been recorded in the hand of the doctor concerned as part of the past history of the patient that:- "Pt says she is allergic to several drugs in the past. That she may develop allergy to any drug at any time requesting to give the drugs after testing." Learned counsel for the OP responded by drawing our attention to the remark of the doctor, on the day Clockit tablets were first administered, to watch for any allergy and to inform if allergic symptoms occurred (page 63 of the paper book). We are surprised to find another remark on the same page on the record of treatment as " No History suggestive of allergic symptoms." This remark stands out as a piece of indefensible untruth, when compared to the remark of the duty doctor, (cited above) on the day of the admission itself, which clearly noted that the patient had not only informed about her history of allergy to several drugs but also requested testing before giving the drug.

LEARNED counsel for the appellants/ OPs also argued that they were not allowed to bring expert opinion before the State Commission. We have perused the record of the State Commission and do not find either any request on behalf of the OPs or its rejection by the State Commission. Interestingly, in Para 24 of the impugned order, the State Commission refers to a point made on behalf of the OPs, that the Complainant had failed to let in any expert evidence to prove the allegation of negligence. The State Commission has gone on to add that separate independent evidence, on behalf of the Complainant, had become totally unnecessary in the face of the contradictions in the evidence of the OPs.

THE counsel for the Respondent/Complainant argued that the OPs wrongly claimed that they were not informed about development of allergy. At 8.45 p.m. itself on 18.7.1998 the duty doctor has recorded that the patient complained of severe throbbing headache, vomiting, giddiness and itching sensation over the neck and the abdomen. THE doctor even prescribed avil injection, which was given intravenously. (Page 69 of the Paper book) In fact, by 10.45 p.m. the patient had become unconscious. We therefore, reject the argument as being factually untrue. The counsel for the respondent/complainant also argued that the doctor even recorded that " informed to the relatives that pt has developed symptoms of cerebral malaria. Out look is not bright". He has pointed out that the record of treatment does not disclose how this conclusion was reached, a few hours before the death of the patient. In fact, the explanation comes from the affidavit evidence of Dr. N. Kannan to the effect that when the patient developed fits and became unconscious, he concluded that it was a case of cerebral malaria. This is nothing short of a direct admission that the diagnosis for the disease came a few hours before the patient died on the 19th, when the treatment had been going on since her admission to the OP hospital on the 14th .

From the detailed examination above, we find that the evidence on record fully justifies the findings and conclusions reached by the State Commission. We are therefore, in total agreement with the decision of the State Commission. There is no merit in this appeal. It is therefore dismissed and the order of the State Commission confirmed. The deposit made by the OP, if any, with the State Commission shall be released to the complainants, with the order of the State Commission. The balance of the amount awarded by the State Commission shall be paid within two months from the date of this order. The period of delay in payment, if any, shall carry interest at 10%. There are no orders as to costs.