IMPORTANT POINT
(1) Res ipsa loquitur – The negligence alleged should be so glaring, in which event the principle of res ipsa loquitur could be made applicable and not based on perception.

ORDER

Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member.—This was the Complaint filed under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act 1986”) by the Complainant – Mr. Gopal Prasad Dokania against the Apollo Hospital Enterprises Ltd. and the team of treating doctors therein for alleged medical negligence, causing death of his son Vivek during the treatment.

2. The facts of the case are that on 30.06.2005, the Complainant’s son, Mr. Vivek Dokania, (since deceased, hereinafter referred to as the patient) aged about 23 years, a Chartered Accountant by profession was taken to Apollo Hospital at Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Hospital / Opposite Party No. 1’). He was examined by Dr. G. Anant Subramaniam, the General Physician (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Opposite Party No. 6’), along with Dr. Sridhar, one junior doctor (Opposite Party No.9). On the same day various tests were performed. On 03.07.2005, the reports were shown to Opposite Party No. 6, who diagnosed it as a case of ‘PUO, high Bilirubin and deranged liver function test (LFT)’. It was alleged that the Opposite Party No. 6 started treatment on his own instead of referring the patient to the liver or gastro specialists. The patient did not get any relief. At 8.00 pm for acute abdominal pain, he was taken to hospital. He was treated in emergency ward till 11.00 pm. On the next day i.e. 04.07.2005, the Opposite Party No. 6 referred the patient to the Gastroenterologist, Dr. Radha Ram Murthy (Opposite Party No. 5), who diagnosed it as a case of ‘Hepatitis-E infection’. The patient was treated on OPD basis and told nothing to worry, within 4-5 days everything will be alright and advised some dietary restrictions. The doctor prescribed Duphalac 30 ml, it was alleged high dose which caused loose motions (13 times), therefore he got admitted to hospital in the next night. On 07.07.2005, the Nephrologist, Dr. M. K. Mani and the Haematologist, Dr. Bhardwaj examined the patient in general ward. The patient’s blood urea was 90 mg and Creatinine was 3.6 mg. The total WBC count ws 20100/cm and platelet count was reduced from 1,30,000 to 80,000. However, the patient was not shifted to CCU till his condition deteriorated. It was further alleged that on 30.06.2005 itself, the Opposite Party No. 6 advised several tests, but failed to advise malaria test. Later on, Malaria tests were advised for three days i.e. 07.07.2005, 22.07.2005 and 24.07.2005; reported as negative. Such repeated testing was with intention to gain money. The Complainant further alleged that the hospital premise was in shabby condition and not free from mosquitoes. The Complainant further alleged that just after admission, in general ward, the patient was transfused two units of fresh frozen plasma (FFP) in general ward and thereafter, when the condition of the patient deteriorated due to infection. It was further alleged that on 07.07.2005, the patient started irrelevant talks and in the night, the Complainant contacted Dr. Radha Rammurthy on her mobile, requested her to attend the patient immediately but she refused and told that she will be visiting the hospital only on next day morning at 9 a.m. It was further stated that on 21.07.2005 one Dr. Babu Ibraham of CCU told the elder brother of the Complainant that as the patient was fit to transfer in general ward on Friday i.e. 22.07.2005, but Dr. Ramkrishnan refused to do so. In the ward, adjacent to the bed of the Complainant’s son, one very serious patient (in bed no. 43) was admitted, which was disturbing due to frequent visits of doctors and 4-5 nurses to that patient. There was no partition/curtain between beds, thus the serious patient was visible, therefore, the Complainant’s son became nervous and under fear passed motion in the bed itself. In spite of several requests, the serious patient was not shifted to other room. The learned Counsel for the Complainant relied upon Wikipedia to establish that no specific treatment exis