SHIVAJI GENDEO CHAVAN Vs. CHIEF DIRECTOR WANLESS HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this complaint, the grievances are made as regards deficiency in the service of opposite parties, Miraj Medical Centre at Miraj is a Hospital and it is being managed by opposite parties No.1 and 2 as Director and Superintendent respectively. The complainant alleged that his son Ramesh aged 18 years suffering from kidney trouble and he was examined in Wanless Hospital at Miraj (hereinafter referred as "hospital") on 3.4.1992 and was admitted for treatment. The complainant also alleged that because the Hospital was reputated and known for treatment of patients for kidney, he wanted his son to be treated in nefrology department. After admission of Ramesh, the complainant was informed that kidney of Ramesh is required to be removed and another kidney is required to be transplanted. Ramesh was to be operated for his kidney on 14.6.1992. After the admission of Ramesh he was put on dialysis. In order to perform dialysis, Ramesh was given prick by a needle in the groin. The needle inserted in the groin of Ramesh was continued to be in his body with the application of adhesive tape. The complainant was informed that the needle is required to be kept there itself in the body since Ramesh required frequent dialysis. The complainant alleged that the same needle was continued in the groin of Ramesh and the dialysis was performed three-four times. However, blood and pus was coming out from the injury where the needle was inserted. Ramesh was uncomfortable because of insertion of the needle. When the adhesive tape was removed it was found that the injury caused due to insertion of needle was infected. However, the medical staff on duty tried to console the complainant by telling him that there is nothing wrong. Ultimately, the right leg of Ramesh was amputated on 16.7.1992 and thereafter Ramesh died on 5.8.1992. The complainant alleged that Ramesh was treated negligently by the Doctors attached to the hospital as a result of which Ramesh died. The complainant further alleged that no proper attention was given to cure the injuries of Ramesh. The complainant also further alleged that due care and caution was not observed while treating Ramesh by the Hospital. The complainant, therefore, claimed Rs.7,88,500/- towards compensation from the Hospital.

(2.) Notice dated 26.4.1994 under Sec.13 of the Consumer Protection Act was sent to the opposite parties with a direction to attend the hearing of this Commission on 10.6.94. However, the opposite party was represented by Mr. Jain, Advocate. The complaint was adjourned to 3.9.1994 for final hearing. On 3.9.1994 one Shri D. S. Kulkarni, appeared for opposite party but the complaint was again adjourned to 9.11.1994. On 9.11.94 none appeared for the opposite parties, we therefore heard the arguments on behalf of complainants. We find that the allegations made by the complainant in this complaint are duly supported by the documents and the sworn affidavit. On the contrary the allegations made by complainant are not controverted by the opposite parties. Along with his own affidavit dated 17.11.1994, complainant has also filed the affidavit of Dr. Prakash Tathed who is having experience of 19 years. The said Doctor has gone through the case papers and came to the conclusion that there was negligent on the part of opposite party. He has stated that the deceased was suffering from chronic renal failure and was advised the replacement of the kidney. The dialysis was done for which a vein flow or a venous catheter was introduced in the right thigh which was kept in Citu was clearly appeared to be lack of proper care as regards the frequent dressing and medical attention to the injury which has resulted in pus formation led to A. V. Fistula resulting into gangrene of the leg. In order to save the life of patient, the amputation of the leg was necessary. Thus, the chain of events which led to the amputation and consequently in the death of complainant's son is dearly arising out of the negligence in the treatment. We, therefore, have no reason to disbelieve the allegations made by complainant in this complaint, which are duly supported by the evidence on record. The complainant has stated that Ramesh was 18 years old and he was taking education in 12th standard in Science faculty. The complainant, therefore, claimed Rs.3 lacs towards compensation on account of death of Ramesh. The complainant has also claimed Rs.4 lacs for the loss of his son and Rs.80,000/- towards expenses of medical treatment and other expenses. However, considering the negligence while treating Ramesh in this case, we would like to quantify the compensation for payment to complainant at Rs. two lacs. Hence we pass the following order: order

(3.) Complaint is allowed. The opposite party, Wanless Hospital, Miraj Medical Centre, Miraj is directed to pay to complainant Rs.2 lacs towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs. The aforesaid amounts be paid to complainant within 30 days from the receipt of this letter, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum till realisation.