IMPORTANT POINT
Medical Negligence - It is necessary that sufficient material or medical evidence should be available before the adjudicating authority to arrive at the conclusion that death is due to medical negligence.

ORDER

Dr. S. M. Kantikar, Presiding Member—The present Appeal is a challenge to an impugned order dated 30.08.2011 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), whereby the Consumer Complaint No. 102/2000 was allowed and the Appellant/Opposite Party was ordered to pay Rs. 3 lakh with 6% interest from the date of complaint till realisation.

2. Brief facts are that Smt. Pushpaben, the wife of the Complainant, aged 44 (hereinafter referred to be the “Patient”) had symptoms of fever, edema, blood pressure and passing less urine. She was under treatment of Dr. Piyush Shastri, the OP from 26/03/1999 to 06/05/2000. During the said period, more than 25 times, she visited the OP, but there was no improvement in her condition. On 06/05/2000, the Renal Function tests (RFT) showed high values including the uric acid. Thus the kidney problem was diagnosed and she was referred to Kidney Institute, Civil Hospital. But her problem aggravated and within 24 hours, the patient died on 07/05/2000 in the Kidney Institute. As per the Kidney Institute’s medical report, the cause of death of patient was Rheumatoid Arthritis, Hyper uremia, Acute renal failure, with Cardio respiratory failure. The Complainant alleged that in-spite of regular treatment for more than one year, the Opposite Party failed to diagnose and treated properly to his wife. She died due to the negligence of the OP, thus being aggrieved he filed a Consumer Complaint before the State Commission and claimed compensation sum of Rs. 6,25,000/-

3. The Opposite Party filed his reply and denied negligence. He submitted that the patient had been coming since 26.03.1999 for her complaints of giddiness and Vertigo. She never complained of edema and oliguria and there were no symptoms of any renal involvement. After 21.04.1999, she did not follow her check-up, but after 5 months, she came on 07.10.1999 with the complaints of fever and pain in joints. Accordingly medicines were prescribed. She came again for the same complaints on 17.11.1999. The thyroid test showed hypothyroidism. Her urine report was normal, Rheumatoid Antigen (R.A.test) was positive and medicines were prescribed accordingly and she was advised to consult Orthopaedician. Thereafter the patient last visited on 29.02.2000. The period in between the patient never complained of edema or oliguria. She again came to OP on 01.05.2000 with the joint pain and backache. The certain tests were advised but the patient ignored it, she was not cooperative to the prescription, did not consult Orthopaedician and used to visit the OP as per her convenience. On 06.05.2000, the patient was specifically asked about urine output and at the first time she told that she had oliguria. Accordingly the renal function tests and other investigations were carried out and on the same day advised her to go to the kidney hospital for specialized treatment. She was taken to the Kidney hospital around 5:00 PM but unfortunately expired there on the next day at 10:30 PM.

4. After hearing the parties, the State Commission allowed the Complaint.

5. Being aggrieved, the OP filed the instant Appeal before this Commission.

6. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties.

7. The learned Counsel for the OP vehemently argued that the State Commission passed an erroneous order in absence of medical document of institute of Kidney disease and research centre at civil hospital, Ahmedabad. The patient took treatment at Pukhraj Hospital (Sabarmati). The Complainant deliberately has not filed important medical documents. No expert opinion was filed. The OP relied upon the medical text book ‘Clinical Nephrology’ chapter “Pathophysiology and aetiology of acute kidney injury in clinical nephrology.” He further relied upon few decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Commission on the issue of medical negligence.

8. The learned Counsel for the Complainant reiterated the facts and stre