PALLY SRIKANTH & ANR. S/O LATE PALLY SWAMY, R/O H NO. 91 Vs. M/S. KRISHNA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES LTD. & ORS. 1

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant no. 2 Smt. Pally Rohitha, who is the wife of appellant no. 1, went to Sai Krishna Super Speciality Neuro Hospital, Hyderabad on 27.09.2006 with complaint of difficulty in walking and joint pains for one and a half months. She was admitted in the said hospital under the treatment of Dr. D. Shridhar, MD, DM (Neuro Physician). She was subjected to a number of investigations, including MRI of the whole spine and her ailment was diagnosed as Hyperthyroidism + MSD (Multi-symptom disease)/SMA (Spinal Muscular Atrophy). Her Thyroid profile in the aforesaid hospital showed her T4 to be 29.6 as against the normal range of 60-200 whereas her TSH was found to be 7.4 as against the normal range of 0.25 - 5. She was discharged with advice to take Physiotherapy and certain medicines including Thyronorm 50 mg were advised to her. She however, did not report back to the aforesaid hospital and on the advice of one Dr. D.P. Dhairyawan, she came to Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences Ltd. (Respondent No.1). She remained in the aforesaid hospital from 19.12.2006 to 21.12.2006 under the treatment of Dr. S. Mohandas, Dr. E.A. Vara Lakshmi and Dr. B. Chandrasekhar Reddy. When she came to the said hospital, she had complaint of pain in lower limbs, associated with weakness of limbs. On her physical examination, weakness of proximal muscles of all four limbs was found. She was discharged with advice to take Mecozen Plus tablets, Evion (Vitamin E) capsules and take physiotherapy. She was advised review after two months in Neurology OPD. Her ailment was diagnosed as Anterior Horn Cell Disease - Probable SMA-Type III. Doctor B. Chandrasekhar Reddy also certified that the said disease had no specific treatment. The appellant no. 1 thereafter, went to Medwin Hospital where she was admitted on 13.02.2007. It was diagnosed that she had primary Hyperthyroidism due to Parathyroid Adenoma and required surgical excision for the same. That surgery was later done in Medwin Hospital. Alleging negligence in her treatment by the doctors of Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences Ltd. (Respondent No.1), she approached the concerned State Commission by way of a consumer complaint. Her case in nutshell was that her ailment had been wrongly diagnosed without conducting adequate investigations and in fact, the Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) Type-III was not even possible at her age. According to her, she was wrongly advised that the aforesaid disease was incurable and no medicine for its treatment was available.

(2.) The complaint was resisted by the respondents. It was inter-alia stated in their written version that the assumption that appellant no. 2 was suffering from Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) was only a suspicion which was not confirmed. The respondents denied the claim of the complainants/appellants that Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) cannot be developed at her age. It was also stated in the reply that she having already taken treatment before coming to OP No.1 Hospital, the investigations were not repeated and only E &MG was done in their hospital. It was also alleged that the findings of the tests which the patient had already undergone were suggestive of Anterior Horn Cell Disease - Probable SMA-Type-III. It was further submitted in their reply that persons with weakness of limbs and lower motor neuron type without sensory symptoms or signs, without spinal cord involvement are considered to have either muscle or anterior horn cells disease. It was pointed out that in her case, E &MG findings were suggestive of Neuro Lesion and Muscle Denervation Atrophy without re-innervation.

(3.) The State Commission referred the matter for expert opinion of the Endocrinologist, Neurology Department of Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad which is a Government Hospital. The Associate Professor in Department of Neurology, after going through the entire record, opined as under: