KURIEN JOSEPH Vs. GOVINDARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal has been filed by Dr. Kurien Joseph & Another, Appellants herein and Opposite Parties before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) being aggrieved by the order of that Commission which had accepted the complaint of medical negligence filed against them by Govindarajan, Respondent herein and Original Complainant before the State Commission.

(2.) In his complaint before the State Commission, Respondent had submitted that his daughter G. Ushanandhini (hereinafter referred to as the Patient) was admitted in Appellant nursing home on 16.08.1992 with complaints of stomach pain and menstrual discharge although she was pregnant. Respondent came to know from one Dr. V.C. Balasubramanium, to whom Appellants had referred her case, on 23.11.1992 that the medical treatment of the Patient by the Appellants was not correct since she was given treatment for cancer although she was not suffering from the same, as a result of which the Patient died at a young age. Being aggrieved because of the medical negligence and lack of proper treatment resulting in the Patient's death, Respondent filed a complaint before the State Commission and stated that Appellants be directed to pay the Respondent a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs on account of untold agony and loss caused to the Respondent and also taking into account the young age of the Patient who was gainfully employed as a teacher.

(3.) Appellants on being served filed a written rejoinder challenging the veracity of the complaint as also the allegation of medical negligence. It was stated that the Patient was admitted in Appellant nursing home on 16.08.1992 with a history of 45 days amenorrhea, giddiness and severe abdominal pain. An ultrasound scan showed that she had ectopic pregnancy with internal bleeding. Therefore, on 17.08.1992 an emergency laparotomy was done, during which the ruptured corneal pregnancy was removed and sent for pathological test to Dr. V.C. Balasubramaniam, Chief Pathologist, Government Medical Hospital. Patient recovered and was discharged on 22.08.1992 with an advice to take iron and vitamin tablets and to come for a review check-up after 10 days. However, she failed to come for the same until 12.09.1992 when she again visited the Appellant nursing home with complaints of fever, vomiting and abdominal swelling for 5 days, during which period she had been treated by another Doctor, who had prescribed antibiotics. On examination in the Appellant nursing home it was found that the Patient had abdominal mass about 4 inches diameter above the uterus. Dilatation & Curettage (D&C) could not be done in this case as the mass was just adjoining the uterus and there were chances of perforating the uterus during this procedure. Taking this into account this fact and following receipt of the pathological report dated 24.08.1992 from Dr. V.C. Balasubramaniam that the specimens sent for test were suggestive of Choriocarcinoma i.e. cancer, the Patient was started with the course of chemotherapy. Following this, her condition improved and the mass also decreased in size. On 23.03.1992 Patient came back to the Appellant nursing home with complaints of difficulty in breathing and abdominal pain and an ultrasonography indicated that the uterus had further enlarged and both ovaries showed multiple cystic lesions. Therefore, a second round of chemotherapy was given from 23.09.1992 to 27.09.1992 when she was discharged with a detailed treatment chart indicating the course of action that she must continue. After discharge it was learnt that the Patient got admitted to the KMC Hospital where she received treatment but no details were made available to the Appellants. On 28.10.1992 another ultrasound was done on the Patient and although the cyst had reduced in size, the uterus was still enlarged and, therefore, she was advised for admission in the Appellant nursing home, which she did not heed. A repeat ultrasonography done on 16.11.1992 again confirmed the enlarged uterus and the cysts. On 23.11.1992 Patient was brought to the Appellant nursing home with difficulty in breathing, abdominal pain and vaginal bleeding. She had not continued the prescribed treatment and an ultrasound showed that the large mass in the abdomen above the uterus had increased in size. A firm diagnosis of Chronic Carcinoma (Trophoblast) was made and though the Patient was promptly advised to get admitted in the Appellant nursing home, she was taken home against medical advice and she passed away 2 days later. All these facts were suppressed in the complaint. Patient was given right treatment for carcinoma based on a clear medical diagnosis of the same, following pathological and other tests, which clearly indicated that there were strong markers indicating carcinoma. Chemotherapy being the accepted line of treatment in such cases was given and there was no medical negligence in the treatment and care of the Patient, which was done taking into account her health and safety.