SHANTHI Vs. DEAN, GOVT GENERAL HOSPITAL, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant s case is as follows: She had headache and vomiting. She was treated in the hospital of the opposite party where she was an in -patient for 20 days. They failed to give proper treatment to the complainant. They stated that she was in a coma stage. They advised the complainant s husband to take her away from the hospital and arrange for her treatment elsewhere. Because of the negligence in giving timely treatment, she lost her eyesight and became paralytic. When the complainant consulted a Neurologist by name Dr. Baskar, he has advised her to go to Sankara Nethralaya where she is now taking treatment. The complainant has spent more than a lakh of rupees as a result of the negligence of the opposite party in treating her. They have failed to give her proper medical advice. They have not done proper diagnosis. She had thus suffered at the hands of the opposite party. She has lost her vision in her eyes on account of the act of the opposite party and, therefore, she claims a compensation of Rs. 20,00,000.

(2.) IN the version filed by the opposite party, it is stated as follows: The complainant was admitted in the hospital of the opposite party on 18.1.1998. She was referred from S.R.M.C. She was taken care of from the date of her admission to the date of her discharge. The discharge was against medical advice. She was properly investigated for her complaints of headache and vomiting and seizure L.P. Cerebrospinal fluid analysis was done twice on 21.1.1998 and 25.1.1998. Urgent C.T. Scan of brain was taken on 24.1.1998. Basal cistern was seen. X -ray of chest was taken. ECG was also taken. Blood investigation, Biochemical investigation were done. She was attended to by qualified Physician and Neurologist from the day of admission till discharge against medical advice. The complainant was also treated by Opthalmologist/Neurologist/Neurosurgeons/Physicians. The allegation that the opposite party failed to give proper treatment is false. The complainant was conscious throughout her stay in the hospital. The complainant was given best treatment for "Retro Balbar Neuritis" diagnosed at the hospital, with Inj. Methyl Prednisolone and natural history of Retro Balbar Neuritis blindness due to optic atrophy. It is not true to say that there was any negligence in giving treatment and that she lost her sight due to the negligence of the opposite party. The opposite party is not aware of the treatment said to have been taken by the complainant elsewhere. The complainant was treated in I.M.C.U. from 24.1.1998 to 3.2.1998. She got herself discharged against medical advice. She was carefully treated in I.M.C.U. by Physicians, Neurologist round -the -clock. The complainant and her husband were explained about the illness of complainant. The complainant s husband has signed consent for treatment and discharged her against medical advice. The loss of vision in both eyes is the sequlae of Retro Balbar Neuritis and it was treated very well with injection Methyl Prednisolone with help of Neurologist and Ophthalmologist while she was in the hospital of the opposite party. The complainant did not pay any fee for treatment. Hence the provisions of the Act will not apply. The claim for compensation in a sum of Rs. 20,00,000 is exaggerated. Hence the opposite party prays that the complaint be dismissed with cost.

(3.) THE points for consideration are