JANAK KANTIMATHI NATHAN Vs. MURLIDHAR EKNATH MASANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two separate appeals are by the hospital and the attending doctor against the order of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission(State Commission) holding them guilty of medical negligence for the death of 13 years old boy While the hospital was ordered to pay a compensation of Rs. 3.00 lakhs the doctor was ordered to pay Rs. 50.000/ - Each of the appellants were also directed to pay Rs. 5.000/ - as costs to the complainant father of the deceased.

(2.) Amit the deceased was the only son of Murlidhar the complainant. Amit was studying in 7th standard in a school in Bombay. In 1991 he was suspected of having developed epilepsy and was under the treatment of Dr. Pawar who had prescribed Gardenal tablets. Complaini1nt wanted to have second opinion about the illness of his son He therefore. consulted Dr. Nathan, appellant in First Appeal No. 739/94, who is a Neurophysician. Dr. Pawar also recommended consultation by Dr. Nathan. It was on 13 -12 -1991 that complainant consulted Dr. Nathan for the first time. After examining Amit Dr. Nathan prescribed Zeptol tablets instead of Gardenal tablets which were earlier being administered to Amit. After a few days Amit developed rashes and his body became redall over. Dr. Nathan therefore on 23 -12 -1991 stopped Zeptol tablets and instead prescribed Emption. Amit attended his school upto 3 -1 -1992. However, it appears that after the prescription of the medicine one after another by Dr. Nathan, condition of Amit worsened and he developed more convulsions. On the night of 4th -5th January, 1992 Amit developed severe convulsions. At the middle of the night Dr. Nathan was told about condition of Amit. He, however, expressed his inability to come and see Amit as he said he did not see patients on Saturdays and Sundays. Since Amit was having severe convulsions complainant took him to a nearby Nursing Home called Krishna Nursing Home. There he was attended by Dr. S.D. Vilankar who himself contacted Dr. Nathan who told him to continue treatment which Amit was having. On the advice of ' Dr. Nathan, Amit was admitted in Shushrusha Citizens Co -operative Hospital Ltd. appellant in First Appeal No. 740/94, on 6 -1 -1992 at 3.30 PM. Admission in the Hospital was made on the basis of note made by Dr. Nathan which read Admit under my care. On 8 -1 -1992 at 7.30 PM Amit died.

(3.) There is a great deal of controversy as to whether proper hospital services were rendered to Amit and was Dr. Nathan .negligent when Amit walked into the hospital on 6 -1 -1992 at 3.30 PM and came out dead at 7.30 PM on 8 -1 -1992? He was admitted for the treatment of epilepsy but mode of death is described as Terminal Cardio Respiratory Arrest' on account of septicemia preceded by viral encephalitis which is stated to be the cause. Complainant, father of Amit, mourns that on account of the negligence of the Hospital and Dr. Nathan he lost his only son. He made a claim of Rs. 9,22,390/ - as compensation against both. Hospital says it took all possible steps in rendering proper medical service to Amit and no negligence could be attributed to it. Dr. Nathan also says that he treated Amit with all reasonable care and he was not at all deficient in his treatment of Amit. The stark question is as to how a boy of 13 years of age who attended his school regularly upto 3 -1 -1992 and entered the Hospital on 6 -1 -1992 under the care of Dr. Nathan for treatment of epilepsy could die within 48 hours of his admission of septicemia. To us it appears here principles of res ipsa loquitur(things speak for themselves) may apply. State Commission has held both the Hospital and Dr. Nathan blameworthy and awarded compensation to the complainant, father of the deceased, as aforesaid.