APOLLO HOSPITALS Vs. M SATHYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two Branches of the Apollo Group of Hospitals; one the Apollo Hospital at Hyderguda and the other the Apollo Hospital at Jubilee Hills, both situated in the city of Hyderabad, have filed this revision petition challenging the order dated 06.04.2010 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (State Commission for short), by which the State Commission has set aside the dismissal order of the complaint by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, Hyderabad (District Forum for short) and held these hospitals accountable for medical negligence and has directed the petitioner/hospitals to pay to the complainants Rs.2,21,000/- towards pecuniary loss, Rs.15,000/- towards consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- towards mental agony and costs.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the filing of the complaint by the respondents, who were the parents of the deceased M. Ramakrishna, are that while operating a paddy harvesting machine their son suffered crush injury to his left arm on 19.12.2003 at 9.30 a.m. He was rushed to Apollo Hospital, Hyderguda and was admitted the same day. Dr. Sudhakar Prasad of the said hospital conducted an operation on the injured M. Ramakrishna on the next day i.e. 20.12.2003. The parents thereafter were told that everything was all right and even the mother who had offered some juice to the injured son found that he was OK. However, two days thereafter on the 23.12.2003 the parents were suddenly informed that condition of their son has become serious and that he needed to be shifted to their main hospital at Jubilee Hills for better management. The injured M. Ramakrishna thereafter remained under the treatment of the Apollo Hospital, Jubilee Hills from 23.12.2003 until his death on the 27.12.2003 due to cardiac arrest secondary to sepsis leading septicemia, respiratory failure, renal failure etc. Shocked at the rapid development and the death of their son within a few days of his sustaining a crush injury, which could not be properly handled by the hospitals, the parents wanted to get the medical records examined. They requested the Apollo Hospital, Hyderguda to provide the treatment records from the time of the admission of their son on 19.12.2003 until he was transferred to their Jubilee Hills Hospital on 23.12.2003. He even sent a DD of Rs.500/- to facilitate the supply of the said documents but the hospital failed to provide any such record. Alleging that their son was not properly treated by the doctors of Apollo Hospital, Hyderguda, as a result of which serious complications developed that could not be properly managed even by their main hospital at Jubilee Hills, the complainants approached the District Forum with a complaint seeking compensation in the sum of Rs.3,54,000/- on various counts as already stated. The District Forum, relying upon Exh. A-5, which is the death summary prepared by the Jubilee Hills Hospital narrating the details with regard to the treatment given to the deceased, did not find the missing treatment record of Hyderguda Hospital of great relevance and dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved thereupon, the complainants filed an appeal before the State Commission, who, as already stated, did not agree with the findings of the District Forum and set aside their order resulting in the impugned order.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case carefully. Mrs. K. Radha Rao, learned counsel arguing on behalf of the petitioners contends that the State Commission has failed to consider that the onus to prove medical negligence was squarely on the complainants which they have failed to discharge. They have produced no expert evidence showing that the line of treatment adopted by the doctors of the hospital was not in consonance with the procedure normally followed. The doctors concerned have filed their affidavits and the complainants have not cross-examined them and the State Commission, therefore, ought to have accepted the explanation offered by the doctors in their affidavits. She further contends that on the face of the detailed description of the treatment given to the deceased narrated in the death summary and in view of the affidavits of the doctors, the overriding importance given by the State Commission to the missing case sheets pertaining to the period 19.12.2003 to 23.12.2003, which were misplaced, was not warranted. The expert doctors have done their best to give the best treatment possible to save the life of the deceased and just because their efforts did not succeed, they should not be held negligent.