IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Medical Negligence – In a case of medical negligence, it is obligatory on the part of the complainants to examine an expert and adduce evidence regarding the procedure to be adopted in this case.
(2) Commission – When medical negligence is alleged, it is the duty of the complainant to adduce clear and cogent evidence and convince the Commission that the opposite parties were negligent in providing treatment to the complainant.
(3) Late production – So the late production of the medical record by the opposite parties alone would never improve the case of the complainant.

JUDGMENT

Ajith Kumar D., Judicial Member—This is a complaint filed by the father of a minor child under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act against two doctors alleging medical negligence.

2. The allegations contained in the complaint in short is that on 05.04.2018 at about 10a.m. the minor daughter of the complainant by name Akasa Pramod aged two years suffering with intermittent fever was taken to Vijaya Hospital and consulted with the second opposite party, Dr. Muhammed Aslam in the paediatric unit of the hospital. The child had also a history of a fall five days back. The doctor after examination advised for blood test. After conducting the blood test, the doctor was again consulted and at that point of time the child was having slight fever and difficulty to move her head to one side. But the doctor opined that there is no problem to be anxious about and prescribed some ointment to apply on the neck and sent the child back .

3. The child was again brought to the residence of the doctor as the doctor had gone home for taking lunch. The doctor had examined and admitted the child in the hospital as the child was suffering with high fever. Ice was applied for reducing the temperature. Later the child showed seizure and the duty nurse had contacted the doctor over phone. But the doctor opined that it was due to the reaction of medicines which will be alright within a short time. The doctor visited the hospital only after two hours. Even then, the doctor had advised the complainants to use balm on the neck region. By 10 p.m. the condition of the child became worsened. The duty doctor told the complainant that he could do only in accordance with the direction of the 2nd opposite party. By 11 p.m. the 2nd opposite party was consulted at his residence who had advised for a CT scan in the morning.

4. During the whole night, the child was suffering with seizure in every minute. By 5 a.m. the child was taken to the scanning centre but the technician expressed difficulty to do the scanning on account of the continuous seizure. The doctor advised the duty nurse to give sedative to the child and by 8 a.m CT scan was conducted. By 8.30a.m. the 2nd opposite party came to the hospital and told the complainant that there is nothing to worry. But the condition of the child was deteriorating. The parents became anxious and persuaded the doctor to do something urgently. The doctor neglected the CT scan report and declined to peruse the same. In the CT scan report the impression was shown as

“Diffuse Confluent hypodensities in periventricular white matter bilaterally in frontal lobes, corona radiata, Centrum semiovale and posterior Corpus Collosum”.

5. When the complainant had asked for the results of the CT scan, the doctor got angry and told the parents to take the child to some other hospital if they have no confidence. An ambulance was made available and the child was taken to the SAT hospital, Thiruvananthapuram for further treatment. Subsequently, the child was taken to the KIMS Hospital from where MRI scan was taken. The following impression was noted.

“Confluent T2/FLAIR hyper intensities with patchy restricted diffusion, blooming in SW1 and no contrast enhancement in subcortical periventricular white matter and splenium of corpus collosum, suggestive of acute haemorrhagic encephalomy elitis”.

6. The 2nd opposite party had totally neglected all the clinical signs and even the CT scan report. The doctors in SAT hospital and KIMS hospital were of the opinion that it is the negligence and lack of timely care which deteriorated the health of the child. The child was admitted in the ICU and CCU and she remained in the ventilator for four days, in PISU for fifteen days and continued outpatient treatment for six months in KIMS Hospital. The parents of the child had to spend more than Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) for the treatment. The parents had underwent lot of stress and strain. The complainant would seek for compensa