TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
R. Subbiah, President and Dr. S.M. Latha Maheswari, Member
Dr. Ajay Kumar and Anr. – Complainants
versus
Lotus Hospitals (Hi-tech Super
Speciality Hospital) and Ors. – Opp. Parties
C.C. No.19 of 2006
Decided on 27.1.2022

IMPORTANT POINT
(1) Non Supply of Medical Records – deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties is glaringly apparent with regard to non-supply of copies of the medical records, as sought for by the complainants.

Headnote:

(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 17 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 47(1)] – Services – Medical Negligence – Whether non-placement of ICD Tube would amount to negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties, particularly when one of their Doctors in the Medical Team has suggested for the same – In the present case, there is no difficulty for this Commission to derive the conclusion that skipping of ICD was based on medical reasoning and not a result of any negligence or inexperience – Thus, if there are two or more choices of treatment available for the Medical Professional and if he chooses one such mode in his professional wisdom, he cannot be found fault with for not choosing the other mode of treatment retrospectively – To put it otherwise, a Doctor cannot be held as such liable under medical negligence, just because the patient has not favourably responded to a treatment given by him or a surgery has failed. Obviously, a professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings viz., either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, he did not exercise with reasonable competence in a given case, the skill which he did possess – Therefore, two factors are apparently absent here and it is very much apparent that the medical team in this case acted in accordance with their professional wisdom and judgment – Thus Commission does not see any justification or good reasoning whatsoever in the claim that non-placement of ICD Tube was a negligent act and deficiency in service.

Held: It is explained that ICD is advisable only if there is any compromise in patient breathing and oxygen saturation, which was not so in the case of the victim. It could be seen that the amount of blood in the left pleural cavity as noted in the post mortem report was because of bleeding just before the patient collapsed at 1 PM. due to complete rupture of thoracic aorta and also due to the efforts of cardiopulmonary resuscitation initiated by the Opposite Parties during the last minutes of management of the victim. [Para 9].

(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.17 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.47(1)] – Services – Medical Negligence – Whether the Opposite Parties failed to give golden hour treatment from 10 AM. to 1.30 PM. on 11.04.2004 – A close reading of the entire case sheet would reveal that, till the last minute, the Hospital Authorities, despite the request for discharge, took all necessary medical follow-ups in treating the patient to the best of their ability – Therefore there is no merit whatsoever in the contention of the complainants that golden hour treatment was denied to the victim at the hands of the Hospital Authorities, as it is contrary to the facts and records. [Para 10].

(C) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.17 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.47(1)] – Services – Medical Negligence – Whether the Opposite Parties adopted Unfair Trade Practice in using the name of Apollo Hospital and in collecting charges towards CT Scan, which was not taken at any point of time – As regards another segment of unfair trade practice alleged in collecting charges towards CT Scan, which was admittedly not taken by the Hospital, straight away ill-conceived for the reason that although Dr. S, had suggested for a CT Scan only if the patient is stable, it seems that that the relatives of the complainant were insisting upon discharge and seemingly, they did not give consent for further procedure that would require after CT Scan. Since CT was not done, even according to the complainants, on 08.11.2004, the Opposite Parties had refunded the amount. [Para 11].

(D) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.17 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.47(1)] – Services – Medical Negligence – Whether non-furnishing of case sheet within a reasonable time would amount to deficiency in service – In the case on hand, the Opposite Parties abruptly failed to comply with the obligation to furnish the medical records to the complainants in spite of several requests. Therefore, deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties is glaringly apparent with regard to non-supply of copies of the medical records, as sought for by the complainants. By such act, the parents of the deceased were driven from pillar to post for a very long period to see/find the entire details of treatment provided to their son – complaint stands allowed in part to the extent that the 1st Opposite Party/Hospital shall pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakh only) as compensation to the complainants for deficiency of service/failure in timely furnishing copy of the medical records. [Paras 12, 13].

Held: In the case on hand, the complainants, who lost their beloved son, could only see the exhaustive records relating to the treatment given, only after it came to be produced before this Commission in July, 2014, about 10 long years after the first request made by the complainants on 11.05.2004, seeking supply of copies.

Result: Complaint allowed.