Gare Devamma and Others Vs. Superintendent, Area Hospital and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1113930
CourtAndhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided OnJun-11-1997
Case NumberC.D. No. 267 of 1993
JudgeA. VENKATARAMI REDDY, PRESIDENT, THE HONOURABLE MRS. J. ANANDA LAKSHMI, MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. K. RANGA RAO, MEMBER
AppellantGare Devamma and Others
RespondentSuperintendent, Area Hospital and Another
Excerpt:
consumer protection act, 1986 - section 17/12 - industrial disputes act, 1947 - section 12(3) - comparative citation: 1997 (3) cpj 613a. venkatarami reddy, president: 1. according to the allegations in the complaint c.d. 267/93 the first complainant is the wife of madanaiah and complainants 2 to 6 are his children and the 7th complainant is his mother. 2. late madanaiah was employed in the singareni colleries company ltd., i.e. second opposite party. the first opposite party being the superintendent, area hospital, of singareni colleries company ltd. 3. it is the case of the complainant that on 25.4.1993 at about l a.m. g. madanaiah suffered from chest pain and was admitted in the area hospital of singareni colleries company ltd., i.e. first opposite party, and he was kept in medical ward. at about 9 a.m. on 25.4.1993 the medical officer came and diagnosed it as heart disease. there is no cardiologist physician in the hospital of the first opposite party. the first complainant, therefore, requested the first opposite party to shift her husband to osmania general hospital, hyderabad. but the opposite party no. 1 decided to shift the patient to osmania general hospital only on 3.5.1993. but they could not do so on that day and the patient died on 4.5,1993 at about 4.30 a.m. 4. alleging that, had the opposite party no. 1 sent the patient to osmania general hospital, hyderabad in time he would have definitely survived and due to mere recklessness and negligence on the part of the opposite parties, they never treated the first complainant's husband as human being and knowing pretty well that there are no adequate medical equipments or facilities to treat the patient, they kept him for 10 days resulting in his death, and that there was some discrepancy in the death certificate issued by the hospital authorities as in the certificate the date of admission noted as 28.4.1993 instead of 25.4.1993 to escape their liability and the age of the deceased was mentioned as 48 years instead of 38 years which was corrected after intervention of higher authorities which shows the negligence and recklessness on the part of the hospital authorities, and that the deceased was only the bread winner, the complainants claimed in all a sum of rs. 9,75,222/- representing rs. 7,90,222/- as loss of earning for 22 years which the deceased would have earned, and rs. 50.000/- towards loss of consortium, rs. 1 lakh towards pain and suffering and for mental agony, rs. 20,000/- towards pain and suffering by 7th complainant, and rs. 15.000/- towards funeral expenses with interest at 24% p.a. and costs. 5. the opposite parties filed counter and documents on 25.8.1994. 6. in the counter, the opposite parties pleaded that since the medical service rendered was free of cost to its employees, the complaint is not maintainable and the complainants are not consumers. even otherwise, it is submitted that the area hospital, ramakrishnapur is a 175-bedded hospital well equipped to provide medical attention and patients care. the intensive care unit particularly is fully equipped with ecg machines, cardiac monitors, defibrillators, boyle's apparatus for artificial respiration and manned by experienced staff and doctors. 7. on 25.4.1993 gade madanaiah, a worker is singareni colleries company ltd. was admitted in the area hospital at ramakrishnapur complaining of chest pain. he was immediately attended by duty medical officer and it was diagnosed that he was suffering from gastritis and suspected myocardial infraction. in the morning of 26.4.1993 the patient was examined by general surgeon and ecg was taken. as the ecg showed signs of heart attack, the treatment for heart attack was continued and the patient was kept in intensive care unit. they denied the allegation that the complainants requested for shifting of the patient to osmania general hospital and that the hospital authorities declined to do so and stated that no such request was made by the patient's attendants. as the condition of the patient was such that he was not in a fit condition for transportation and was treated for heart disease and his condition was closely monitored on hour-to-hour basis in the intensive care unit by the doctors right from the time he was admitted into the hospital on 25.4.1993. when his heart condition stabilised on 3.5.1993 arrangement were made for referring the patient to osmania general hospital, hyderabad. but the patient's attendants were not ready to gotohyderabad on 3.5.1993 for the reasons best known to them. unfortunately the patient died on the next day i.e. 4.5.1993 at 4.30 a.m. due to another heart attack at 4 a.m. inspite of giving cardiac message respiration, etc. it was further stated that the cases of perka narasaiah or sri zaimuddin which were referred to osmania general hospital are different and the first complainant's husband could not be shifted due to serious heart condition as compared to ischaemia or arrhythmia of narasaiah and zaimuddin. hence there cannot be any comparison between the case of madanaiah and that of the aforesaid two others as gare madanaiah was not in a condition to be moved 270 kms. to hyderabad. the clerical errors in mentioning the date of admission in the death certificate as 28.4.1993 instead of 25.4.1993 are due to inadvertant and as the case sheet shows that the admission was on 25.4.1993, no motive can be attributed to the opposite parties. similarly since the age was mentioned as 48 years at the time of admission in the hospital, but subsequently as it was transpired that he was aged about 38 years, it was corrected and no motive can be attributed to the opposite parties. 8. according to the terms and conditions of memo of settlement entered into between the workers and the management under section 12(3) of the industrial disputes act, 1947, which is binding on the parties, a male dependent of the deceased workman is provided employment in the company on compassionate grounds, where the deceased worker has no male dependent, the company agreed to pay a lump sum monetary benefit of rs. 50,000/- in lieu of employment and the complainant is, therefore, entitled to the lump sum amount of rs. 50,000/- and not for employment on compassionate grounds as she is a lady. the counter also mentions the various terminal benefits paid to the complainant. since the opposite parties have taken utmost care and as there is no negligence either in diagnosing the deceased or in the treatment given to the deceased, they are not liable to pay any compensation amount merely because inspire of best treatment the patient died. hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 9. after filing of the counter and documents by the opposite parties, the case underwent nearly 11 adjournments. except filing the xerox copies of the death certificate issued on 28.9.1993 after mentioning the correct age and death certificate dated 15.7.1993 in which some wrong particulars were mentioned in regard to the age and name and the letter dated 16.8.1993 from the superintendent of singareni colleries to the superintendent of area hospital in which, it was mentioned that the death certificate was issued as gare mudanaiah instead of gare madanaiah and to rectify the age also as 38 years, no other documents were filed and no oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. 10. on behalf of the opposite parties, case sheet of the hospital and the settlement arrived at between the management and workers were filed. 11. before adverting to the main controversy i.e. whether there is any negligence on the part of the first opposite party in diagnosis or treatment, it may be stated that the age and the date of admission were wrongly mentioned by inadvertence and subsequently they were corrected. no motive can be attributed to the first opposite party as they are not at all relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy i.e. medical negligence on the part of the first opposite party. 12. as mentioned, the complainant did not adduce any oral evidence or no documents were filed to show that there was any negligence on the part of the opposite parties. a perusal of the case-sheet shows that madanaiah was brought to the hospital on 25.4.1993 complaining of chest pain since some days burning in nature and no history of previous attacks and is a known smoker and alcoholic. he was examined immediately and in the remarks column there is a mark, whether it is gastritis or miocardial infraction. he was administered with necessary treatment including tablet sorbitrate for pain and on 26.4.1993 i.e. next day ecg was taken and the matter was referred to intensive care physician for evaluation of the case with a mark angine. on 26.4.1993 on examination it was found that anetero septal wall infraction and necessary medicines were administered. on 27.4.1993 when he complained of chest pain, necessary medicines were administered and on 28.4.1993 it was noted that the patient is comfortable except for occasional chest pain lasting for less than five minutes and tests of serum cholestrol, random blood sugar and blood urea were done and medication was continued on 29.4.1993 also. on 30.4.1993 again ecg was taken and it was diagnosed as ante-lateral infraction. on 1.5.1993 and 2.5.1993 it was noted that the patient was conscious and coherent and no history of pain in chest and no history of palpitations and same treatment was continued. the patient continued in the same condition on 2.5.1993 and on 3.5.1993 he complained of cough and chest pain and immediately medicines were administered and the first opposite party referred the case of the complainant who was suffering from antero septal myocardial infraction to osmania general hospital and patient was conscious, coherent, responding to oral commands and same treatment was continued upto 2.30p.m. on the same day. at 9.50 a.m. the patient complained of breathlessness and cough and immediately medicines were given at mid-night and there was no complaint of cough and at 3 a.m. on 4.5.1993 there was sweating and the temperature became sub-normal and at about 3.30 a.m. the patient became breathlessness, restlessness and sweating and inspite of medication he expired after 4.30 a.m. as there is another heart attack. 13. from the case-sheet and the progress note and nurses notes it is clear that the opposite parties have been attending on the patient carefully and almost once in an hour or two. the disease was diagnosed as heart ailment and treatment was given for the same. but unfortunately due to second attack the patient died on 4.5.1993. we are, therefore, satisfied that in the absence of any other evidence by the complainant relying on the case sheet the opposite parties carefully diagnosed the disease and administered proper treatment and there is no negligence on the part of the opposite parties. 14. with regard to the allegation that the first complainant requested the opposite party no. i to shift the patient and they did not acceed to her request, and had they shifted earlier the patient to osmania general hospital he would have survived, they are mere allegations in the complaint which are denied by the opposite parties. the examples of two patients mentioned in the complaint who were referred to osmania general hospital are different, as they are suffering from other ailments and not an ailment relating to heart. the opposite parties specifically pleaded that the patient was not in a position to move 270 kms. to osmania general hospital and after his condition became stable on 3.5-1993 he was referred to osmania general hospital, but the attendants of the deceased did not shift him on that date. 15. with regard to providing employment also according to the settlement reached, it is only the male dependent member that is provided with employment and in other case, rs. 50,000/- will be paid. we cannot go into the question whether they should provide employment to the first complainant or otherwise, as it is beyond the purview of the consumer protection act. 16. for all the aforesaid reasons, we are satisfied that there is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. 17. in the result, the complaint is dismissed. but in the circumstances of the case, without costs. complaint dismissed.
Judgment:

A. Venkatarami Reddy, President:

1. According to the allegations in the complaint C.D. 267/93 the first complainant is the wife of Madanaiah and complainants 2 to 6 are his children and the 7th complainant is his mother.

2. Late Madanaiah was employed in the Singareni Colleries Company Ltd., i.e. second opposite party. The first opposite party being the Superintendent, Area Hospital, of Singareni Colleries Company Ltd.

3. It is the case of the complainant that on 25.4.1993 at about l a.m. G. Madanaiah suffered from chest pain and was admitted in the Area Hospital of Singareni Colleries Company Ltd., i.e. first opposite party, and he was kept in medical ward. At about 9 a.m. on 25.4.1993 the Medical Officer came and diagnosed it as heart disease. There is no cardiologist physician in the hospital of the first opposite party. The first complainant, therefore, requested the first opposite party to shift her husband to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. But the opposite party No. 1 decided to shift the patient to Osmania General Hospital only on 3.5.1993. But they could not do so on that day and the patient died on 4.5,1993 at about 4.30 a.m.

4. Alleging that, had the opposite party No. 1 sent the patient to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad in time he would have definitely survived and due to mere recklessness and negligence on the part of the opposite parties, they never treated the first complainant's husband as human being and knowing pretty well that there are no adequate medical equipments or facilities to treat the patient, they kept him for 10 days resulting in his death, and that there was some discrepancy in the death certificate issued by the Hospital Authorities as in the certificate the date of admission noted as 28.4.1993 instead of 25.4.1993 to escape their liability and the age of the deceased was mentioned as 48 years instead of 38 years which was corrected after intervention of higher Authorities which shows the negligence and recklessness on the part of the Hospital Authorities, and that the deceased was only the bread winner, the complainants claimed in all a sum of Rs. 9,75,222/- representing Rs. 7,90,222/- as loss of earning for 22 years which the deceased would have earned, and Rs. 50.000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 1 Lakh towards pain and suffering and for mental agony, Rs. 20,000/- towards pain and suffering by 7th complainant, and Rs. 15.000/- towards funeral expenses with interest at 24% p.a. and costs.

5. The opposite parties filed counter and documents on 25.8.1994.

6. In the counter, the opposite parties pleaded that since the medical service rendered was free of cost to its employees, the complaint is not maintainable and the complainants are not consumers. Even otherwise, it is submitted that the Area Hospital, Ramakrishnapur is a 175-bedded hospital well equipped to provide medical attention and patients care. The Intensive Care Unit particularly is fully equipped with ECG Machines, cardiac monitors, defibrillators, Boyle's apparatus for artificial respiration and manned by experienced staff and doctors.

7. On 25.4.1993 Gade Madanaiah, a worker is Singareni Colleries Company Ltd. was admitted in the Area Hospital at Ramakrishnapur complaining of chest pain. He was immediately attended by Duty Medical Officer and it was diagnosed that he was suffering from Gastritis and suspected myocardial infraction. In the morning of 26.4.1993 the patient was examined by General Surgeon and ECG was taken. As the ECG showed signs of heart attack, the treatment for heart attack was continued and the patient was kept in Intensive Care Unit. They denied the allegation that the complainants requested for shifting of the patient to Osmania General Hospital and that the Hospital Authorities declined to do so and stated that no such request was made by the patient's attendants. As the condition of the patient was such that he was not in a fit condition for transportation and was treated for heart disease and his condition was closely monitored on hour-to-hour basis in the Intensive Care Unit by the doctors right from the time he was admitted into the hospital on 25.4.1993. When his heart condition stabilised on 3.5.1993 arrangement were made for referring the patient to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. But the patient's attendants were not ready to gotoHyderabad on 3.5.1993 for the reasons best known to them. Unfortunately the patient died on the next day i.e. 4.5.1993 at 4.30 a.m. due to another heart attack at 4 a.m. inspite of giving cardiac message respiration, etc. It was further stated that the cases of Perka Narasaiah or Sri Zaimuddin which were referred to Osmania General Hospital are different and the first complainant's husband could not be shifted due to serious heart condition as compared to ischaemia or arrhythmia of Narasaiah and Zaimuddin. Hence there cannot be any comparison between the case of Madanaiah and that of the aforesaid two others as Gare Madanaiah was not in a condition to be moved 270 Kms. to Hyderabad. The clerical errors in mentioning the date of admission in the death certificate as 28.4.1993 instead of 25.4.1993 are due to inadvertant and as the case sheet shows that the admission was on 25.4.1993, no motive can be attributed to the opposite parties. Similarly since the age was mentioned as 48 years at the time of admission in the hospital, but subsequently as it was transpired that he was aged about 38 years, it was corrected and no motive can be attributed to the opposite parties.

8. According to the terms and conditions of memo of settlement entered into between the workers and the management under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which is binding on the parties, a male dependent of the deceased workman is provided employment in the Company on compassionate grounds, where the deceased worker has no male dependent, the Company agreed to pay a lump sum monetary benefit of Rs. 50,000/- in lieu of employment and the complainant is, therefore, entitled to the lump sum amount of Rs. 50,000/- and not for employment on compassionate grounds as she is a lady. The counter also mentions the various terminal benefits paid to the complainant. Since the opposite parties have taken utmost care and as there is no negligence either in diagnosing the deceased or in the treatment given to the deceased, they are not liable to pay any compensation amount merely because inspire of best treatment the patient died. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

9. After filing of the counter and documents by the opposite parties, the case underwent nearly 11 adjournments. Except filing the xerox copies of the death certificate issued on 28.9.1993 after mentioning the correct age and death certificate dated 15.7.1993 in which some wrong particulars were mentioned in regard to the age and name and the letter dated 16.8.1993 from the Superintendent of Singareni Colleries to the Superintendent of Area Hospital in which, it was mentioned that the death certificate was issued as Gare Mudanaiah instead of Gare Madanaiah and to rectify the age also as 38 years, no other documents were filed and no oral evidence was adduced by the complainant.

10. On behalf of the opposite parties, case sheet of the hospital and the settlement arrived at between the management and workers were filed.

11. Before adverting to the main controversy i.e. whether there is any negligence on the part of the first opposite party in diagnosis or treatment, it may be stated that the age and the date of admission were wrongly mentioned by inadvertence and subsequently they were corrected. No motive can be attributed to the first opposite party as they are not at all relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy i.e. medical negligence on the part of the first opposite party.

12. As mentioned, the complainant did not adduce any oral evidence or no documents were filed to show that there was any negligence on the part of the opposite parties. A perusal of the case-sheet shows that Madanaiah was brought to the hospital on 25.4.1993 complaining of chest pain since some days burning in nature and no history of previous attacks and is a known smoker and alcoholic. He was examined immediately and in the remarks column there is a mark, whether it is Gastritis or Miocardial Infraction. He was administered with necessary treatment including tablet Sorbitrate for pain and on 26.4.1993 i.e. next day ECG was taken and the matter was referred to Intensive Care Physician for evaluation of the case with a mark Angine. On 26.4.1993 on examination it was found that Anetero Septal Wall infraction and necessary medicines were administered. On 27.4.1993 when he complained of chest pain, necessary medicines were administered and on 28.4.1993 it was noted that the patient is comfortable except for occasional chest pain lasting for less than five minutes and tests of serum cholestrol, random blood sugar and blood urea were done and medication was continued on 29.4.1993 also. On 30.4.1993 again ECG was taken and it was diagnosed as Ante-lateral infraction. On 1.5.1993 and 2.5.1993 it was noted that the patient was conscious and coherent and no history of pain in chest and no history of palpitations and same treatment was continued. The patient continued in the same condition on 2.5.1993 and on 3.5.1993 he complained of cough and chest pain and immediately medicines were administered and the first opposite party referred the case of the complainant who was suffering from Antero Septal Myocardial infraction to Osmania General Hospital and patient was conscious, coherent, responding to oral commands and same treatment was continued upto 2.30p.m. on the same day. At 9.50 a.m. the patient complained of breathlessness and cough and immediately medicines were given at mid-night and there was no complaint of cough and at 3 a.m. on 4.5.1993 there was sweating and the temperature became sub-normal and at about 3.30 a.m. the patient became breathlessness, restlessness and sweating and inspite of medication he expired after 4.30 a.m. as there is another heart attack.

13. From the case-sheet and the progress note and nurses notes it is clear that the opposite parties have been attending on the patient carefully and almost once in an hour or two. The disease was diagnosed as heart ailment and treatment was given for the same. But unfortunately due to second attack the patient died on 4.5.1993. We are, therefore, satisfied that in the absence of any other evidence by the complainant relying on the case sheet the opposite parties carefully diagnosed the disease and administered proper treatment and there is no negligence on the part of the opposite parties.

14. With regard to the allegation that the first complainant requested the opposite party No. I to shift the patient and they did not acceed to her request, and had they shifted earlier the patient to Osmania General Hospital he would have survived, they are mere allegations in the complaint which are denied by the opposite parties. The examples of two patients mentioned in the complaint who were referred to Osmania General Hospital are different, as they are suffering from other ailments and not an ailment relating to heart. The opposite parties specifically pleaded that the patient was not in a position to move 270 kms. to Osmania General Hospital and after his condition became stable on 3.5-1993 he was referred to Osmania General Hospital, but the attendants of the deceased did not shift him on that date.

15. With regard to providing employment also according to the settlement reached, it is only the male dependent member that is provided with employment and in other case, Rs. 50,000/- will be paid. We cannot go into the question whether they should provide employment to the first complainant or otherwise, as it is beyond the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.

16. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are satisfied that there is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

17. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case, without costs.

Complaint dismissed.