Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member
Dr. K. Vasanthi and Anr. – Petitioner
versus
Chalasani Satyanarayana – Respondent
Revision Petition No.1930 of 2012
(Against the Order dated 22/11/2011 in Appeal No. 1213/2009 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh)
Decided on 9.1.2023

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Manoj C. Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms. K. Radha, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Medical records - Medical records not only serve as necessary documents for apt management of a patient, they are also legal documents.

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.21(1)(b)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(b)] – Revision – Services – Medical Negligence - Septicemic shock - non-maintenance of medical record – if medical negligence can be attributed - On facts, in absence of medical record, the referral letter clearly mentioned about the mode of treatment adopted by the OP-1 for the painful Ano-rectal abscess. Such patient needs immediate relief from acute pain . I & D was performed after doing basic investigations viz. Blood Counts, Blood Sugar and ECG. It was reasonable standard of surgical practice – Thus, it was neither failure of duty of care during pre-operative stage nor negligence while performing I & D. It is pertinent to note that the clinical signs and symptoms show the patient was already in sepsis. Post operatively patient was kept in ICU and administered higher antibiotic Monocef and other drugs as per standard practice. The complication of septicemia was managed by inj Steroid, Dopamine drip and Oxygen supply also. The patient for better treatment was referred to the higher centre - Care Hospital - Medical records not only serve as necessary documents for apt management of a patient, they are also legal documents. These records contain useful evidence for diverse litigations including personal injury cases, criminal cases, workers’ compensation, disability determinations, and medical negligence claims. It should be borne in mind that “Good Record is Good Defense” Poor Record is Poor Defense” and “No record is No Defense.” Thus, accurate and complete medical documentation is vital for appropriate and efficient patient care -Thus, medical negligence is not attributable to the OPs, however OPs are held liable for non-maintenance of medical record – petition allowed. [Paras 10 to 18]
Result: Petition allowed.

ORDER

The Complainant Mr. Chalasani Satyanarayana filed the Consumer Complaint before District Forum, Visakhapatnam against Dr. K. Vasanthi (OP-1) and Anupama Surgical Children’s Hospital (OP-2) for alleged medical negligence during the treatment of rectal abscess and further he suffered septicemic shock. He incurred huge expenses for treatment taken from different hospitals.

2. The District Forum allowed the Complaint and directed The OP-1 ad 2 to pay Rs. 6,29,300/- with cost of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- as advocate fee. Being aggrieved, the OPs filed F.A. No. 1213/2009 for setting aside the Order of the District Forum, whereas the Complainant filed F.A. No. 291/2012 for enhancement of compensation.

3. The State Commission dismissed both the Appeals with the following observation:—

18. In view of the discussion made supra, we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service and negligence on the part of OP in treating the complainant properly and also for the reason that they did not maintain any pre or post operation reports so also the surgical notes etc. which lead the complainant to take further treatment in care hospital. In view of the above discussion and finding in favour of the complainant the written arguments and the decisions referred to in it are not helpful for the ops to decide the point in their favour. Thus, the point is answered in favour of the complainant and against the OPs.

19. Regarding quantum of compensation aspect, it is discussed as under: Ex. A3 final bill issued by care hospital, in favour of the complainant discloses that a sum of Rs.l,18,936/- was collected by the said hospital from the complainant for the treatment given to him. Ex.A19 two invoices for supply of 17, XIGIRS-20 mg injections reveal that the cost of the said injections was Rs.4,78,083/- the complainant produced empty viles in proof that the costly injections were administered to him in critical conditions. There is no clinching evidence from OP side that administering of such costly injections was unnecessary. Nobody would give such injections without there being any necessity and hence the version of the complainant that such injections were used to him in the care hospital and that he incurred expenditure of Rs.4,78,083/- is believed as true. Apart from the two said items, there are bills evidencing that the complainant has purchased some other medicines and had undergone diagnostic tests and thus the total medical expenditure of the complainant comes to Rs.4,90,341/- and if the said sum of Rs.l,18,936/- final bill is added the grand total of expenditure comes to Rs.6,09,277/-. Assigning satisfactory reasons the District Forum arrived at a right to conclusion that the complainant is entitled for such amount from the OPs for their deficiency in service to him and absolutely there are no reasons to scale down the said amount at all. For such a small operation, which resulted in complications to the complainant the Ops are made liable to pay such huge amount towards medical and incidental expenses and in such circumstances granting of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant for mental agony etc is also reasonable and there are no reasons to enhance the said amount. Thus, the orders under appeal are upheld and consequently both the appeals are liable to be dismissed.

4. Being aggrieved the OPs filed the instant Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

5. Heard the learned Counsel on both the sides.

6. The learned Counsel for Complainant argued that there are concurrent findings from both the fora below, therefore, National Commission has limited jurisdiction. He further reiterated the facts that on 9.3.2004 the complainant (for short ‘Patient’) was operated for rectal abscess by the OP-1. It was alleged that surgery fixed at 6 pm but due to non-availability of Anesthetist in the evening, the surgery was performed earlier at 1 pm without preoperative tests. The Complainant was informed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document