IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Return of Documents - As the patient did not bring any medical record, there was no question for the Opposite Party No. 2 to return any documents.
(2) Medical Protocol - while adopting a course of treatment, the duty cast upon the medical practitioner is that he must ensure that the medical protocol being followed by him is to the best of his skill and with competence at his command.

ORDER

Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member—The instant Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/Complainant (Smt. Sarita Shukla) under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the Order of the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) dated 18.04.2011 passed in Complaint No. 209/2001, wherein the Complaint was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the Parties are mentioned as in the Original Complaint.

3. Brief facts as stated in the Complaint are that the husband of the Complainant (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) was having difficulty of cough and cold and consulted Dr. Ashwin K Gadhvi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Opposite Party-1’on 01.01.2001. Opposite Party-1 advised him X-Ray and sonography which was done by one, Dr. Paresh Mehta and within few hours Dr. Paresh Mehta gave the sonography and X-Ray report based on which the Opposite Party No. 1 advised the deceased to get admitted in the hospital for general check-up without assigning any reasons for the X-ray and sonography. In the morning of 04.01.2001, the deceased experienced stretching in his hand and his mother-in-law informed about the same to the nurse who administered one injection to the patient stating that Opposite Party-1 was not in the hospital. However, after giving the injection, the condition of the deceased had become more serious.

4. On request of mother-in-law of the deceased, Opposite Party-1 came to the hospital, examined the deceased and informed the mother-in-law of the deceased to shift him to Shardaben Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Opposite Party No. 2’) and also stated to write a Reference Note to Opposite Party-2. However, Opposite Party-1 did not write any Reference Note stating that he was accompanying them to the Opposite Party No. 2 Hospital. At that time, deceased was unconscious and water with foam was coming from his mouth and in such condition he was admitted to the hospital of the Opposite Party No. 2. After examining the deceased, the doctor at Opposite Party No. 2 Hospital declared him dead. The cause of death in the PM note was shown as septicemic shock due to liver abscess, but nowhere did the report of Opposite Party No. 1 mention liver abscess or abdominal pain or jaundice as the cause of his death. It was alleged by the Complainant that Opposite Party No. 1 had not accompanied them while shifting the deceased from one hospital to another. Also, at the time of admission, X-ray as well as sonography reports of the deceased were submitted at the hospital of Opposite Party No. 2 but the same were not returned.

5. Being aggrieved by the improper diagnosis and improper treatment of the deceased done by the Opposite Parties which ultimately resulted in his death, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint No. 209/2001 in the State Commission praying for the Opposite Parties to pay a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- towards mental agony at 24% rate of interest per annum.

6. The Opposite Party No. 1 filed his written version and denied the allegations levelled. It was submitted that the deceased had come to Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital on 01.01.2001 with complaints of cold, bronchitis and respiratory problems. On being examined, it was found that he had pneumonia in his left lung and, therefore he was advised to get X-Ray Chest as also 2D Echo. It was seen that heart beatings of the deceased were fast and pericardial drub in the heart was also noticed. Relatives of the patient had informed the doctors that the patient was alcoholic. In this situation, it was essential to admit the patient and the same was done. The deceased was administered higher and broad spectrum antibiotics and was being continuously monitored. All necessary blood and urine test were also advised but any difficulty relating to jaundice or liver could not be detected. As per the defense of Opposite Party No. 1, no staff of the hospital had administered any injection witho