MOHAN LAXMAN MAVINAKATTI Vs. ANIL E KAGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed against the order passed in Appeal No. 521/1999 decided on 1st January, 2003 by Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissing the appeal of the legal representatives of the deceased (his widow and two sons). The petitioners are the complainants and are aggrieved by the dismissal of the complaint and appeal.

(2.) L.B. Mavinakatti, a draftsman was suffering from some weakness and vertigo problem. Later on, he found it uneasy, while climbing a slope. His younger brother, Dr. C.B. Mavinakatti advised him to consult a heart specialist. The deceased was taken to Dr. Shulbha Bhandurge Hospital accompanied by Dr. C.B. Mavinakatti and L.B. Mavinakatti. It is alleged by the complainant that Dr. Anil E. Kagal conducted a B.P. test, ECG test, blood test and urine test which were found to be normal. To find out the real problem the opposite party Dr. Anil Kagal had asked the deceased to undergo a test to strain his chest by "staircase climbing exercise" 20 times on the staircase inside the hospital comprising of about 20 steps. The deceased patient climbed the staircase 5 or 6 times. He got exhausted. The second ECG test was done, around 2.15 p.m. before the patient last breathed. While performing the said exercise L.B. Mavinakatti had severe heart attack and the opponent doctor made effort to save life of the patient but the patient died. According to the complainant/petitioner No. 1 objected the method of opponent's rude and unscientific method of exercise on the staircase but the opponent/respondent replied that it was a usual method and that he adopted such exercise tests or strain tests.

(3.) According to the complainant/petitioner the opponent Dr. Anil E. Kagal negligently subjected the patient to excess straining, that to by using the crude and unscientific and unreasonable method of exercising over the staircase and thereby caused death of the father of complainant No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 had no adequate equipment to tackle such emergencies and on account of negligence and deficiency in service, the deceased expired. The complainants/petitioners claimed a sum of Rs. 4 lakh as compensation from the opposite parties for rendering deficiency in service.