DEAN TIRUNELVELI MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL Vs. U. SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite party in C.P.O.P. No. 1/2002 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tirunelveli, is the appellant herein. The case of the complainant was as follows: (a) They were the parents of one Sundar. Sundar developed breathing trouble. They admitted him as an inpatient in Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital at 9.50 p.m. on 7.4.2001. Reference was made by Dr. Ramnath of Tirunelveli. On examination, it was found that Sundar was suffering from respiratory distress and ICD should be done immediately to save his life. ICD was not installed immediately and when enquired, it was reported that the ICD tube and bag were not available in the hospital. On 8.4.2001 the complainants themselves purchased ICD tubes and bags from outside and gave it to the doctors. But the ICD was installed only on 9.4.2001. Because of the delay in handling the ICD, air spread over the upper part of the body and due to the said incident Sundar developed cardio -respiratory arrest and died on 9.4.2001 at 10 p.m. The ICD tubes and bags were handed over even on 8.4.2001 but Sundar was admitted in ICU only on 9.4.2001. The death was solely due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party ought to have taken sufficient care to fix the ICD immediately and even when the ICD tube and bag were handed over, the opposite party did not take steps to fix them on 8.4.2001 itself and on 9.4.2001 prior to installing ICD tubes no precautionary measures were taken and monitored and the complainants had lost their only son at the age of 31. The complainants caused a notice to be issued to the opposite party claiming Rs. 5 lakh as compensation. A reply was sent on 27.8.2001 containing false allegations. In those circumstances, the complaint came to be filed.

(2.) THE opposite party resisted the complaint contending inter alia that Sundar was a case of pulmonary tuberculosis with pneumothorax on the right side with Diabetes Mellitus and he was not regularly treated for the said ailment and as he was a problematic case, the chance of survival was less even though best treatment was offered to him and the death was not due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complaint was liable to be dismissed.

(3.) ON the side of the complainants Exs. A1 to A5 were marked while on the side of the opposite party Exs. B1 to B5 were marked.