VIJAYAMMA Vs. APOLLO DIAGNOSTIC CENTRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st complainant is the wife, 2 to 5 complainants are sons and daughter while the 6th complainant is the mother of late M. S. Srinivas who died on the intervening night of 18/19.10.1993 at the 1st opposite party Diagnostic Centre due to the negligence of the third opposite party. If we go into the details, the case of the complainants is that late Srinivas, working as Physical Director in Alia Govt. Junior College, Hyderabad complained of breathlessness, following his complaint he was rushed to the 1st opposite party centre for treatment at about 12.30 a. m. on the intervening night of 18/19.10.1993 where the third opposite party was the duty doctor. The complainant No.1 requested the duty doctor to attend on the patient immediately and relieve him from breathlessness, but the latter did not evince any attention and asked them to wait. On further requests she merely checked the B. P. of the patient after 15 minutes and went away assuring that everything is normal. But as the deceased was suffering from severe breathlessness the first complainant again requested the third opposite party to provide oxygen and administer life saving medicines or other emergency medical care. Even then the third opposite party did not attend on the patient for more than 45 minutes. The deceased also requested her to relieve him from breathlessness. Not only the deceased but also other persons who were attending on the deceased made similar requests. After 45 minutes the third opposite party tried to fix a device to provide oxygen, but by about 1.30 a. m. the deceased breathed his last and the third opposite party declared the patient dead and ran away from the hospital. The complainants came under serious shock in view of the sudden and untimely demise of Srinivas, took the dead body from the hospital without insisting for discharge card and as such there is deficiency in service.

(2.) As the deceased was working as Physical Director drawing a salary of Rs.5,500/-, they claimed a compensation of Rs.10 lakhs. A legal notice dated 29.11.1993 was issued for which the opposite parties issued a contentious reply. Hence the complaint. In the version filed by the opposite party the fact that late Srinivas was brought to the second opposite party centre on the midnight of 18.10.1993 and he was admitted at 12.10 a. m. on 19.10.1993 with the complaint of acute breathlessness for half an hour before the patient was brought to the hospital was admitted. It is also not denied that the third opposite party was the duty doctor at that time. But it is stated that the patient was known diabetic, he was feeling uneasy since morning, and on examination it was found that the patient developed cold extremities (CYANOSIS) with the B. P. recording abnormally low at 90. The heart beat was feable and there was lot of fluid in the lungs due to irregular functioning of the heart. It is further stated that the condition of the patient was so serious that even an urgent ECG could not be taken. The third opposite party did her best to save the patient in such a condition by administering oxygen inhalation apart from certain essential injections and medicines. The duty doctor took certain emergency measures such as cardiac massage, providing Ambu Bag respiration apart from giving intra cardiac adrenaline and Decadron injection. Unfortunately none of these measures saved the patient and he was declared dead at 12.30 a. m. Therefore, there is no negligence on the part of the opposite parties.

(3.) The complainants examined 2 witnesses including the first complainant as P. W.1 besides marking Exs. A1 and A2. The opposite parties filed an affidavit of third opposite party in lieu of chief examination. They also filed the affidavit of one Dr. Krishnam Raju, Cardiologist of 22 years standing. But they were not tendered for cross - examination. Infact a memo was filed on 15.7.1999 stating that the opposite parties would examine the third opposite party as D. W.1 and Dr. Ananth Kumar as D. W.2. But finally none of them was made available for cross-examination. The effect of the affidavit evidence filed by the third opposite party in lieu of chief examination will be examined a little later.