T JOHN MATHEW Vs. APOLLO HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the order dated 19. 3. 2004 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant.

(2.) APPELLANT alleged that he admitted his daughter Mrs. Lulu Ebenezer who was suffering from high fever, in the opposite party-hospital on 30. 8. 1997 and there she remained under the treatment of Dr. Harnath, Consultant Physician. Appellant noticed swelling on her eyelids and jaw, eyes were also blood shot and she had severe headache and restlessness. On being informed about swelling etc. Dr. Harnath told that appellant's daughter would get well soon and the swelling was due to her posture. It was further alleged that on 4. 9. 1997, a lady doctor related to Mrs. Ebenezer asked the Ward Secretary to show her the case sheet but she refused. Lady doctor somehow found that the clinical test revealed ANA ++++ and ESR 124 as against normal 0-30mm/hr. The appellant was advised by the lady doctor that Mrs. Lulu Ebenezer be taken to C. M. C. , Vellore, the disease being rare. Despite appellant's insisting for discharge of her daughter on 4. 9. 1997 and onwards, she was discharged on 9. 9. 1997. Mrs. Lulu Ebenezer was taken to Vellore and admitted in C. M. C. , Vellore where she expired on 24. 9. 1997. Appellant filed complaint seeking refund of amount of Rs. 1,604 charged and Rs. 16,00,000 as compensation for mental torture alleging negligence/deficiency in service in treatment in the respondent-hospital. Mainly the grievance of the appellant was that there has been delay of 6 days in discharing her daughter; deceased was not given medicines on certain date (s); treatment given was not as per established medical norms and dialysis was done without there being any necessity for it. Respondent contested the complaint by filing written version. It was not disputed that Mrs. Lulu Ebenezer was admitted in hospital on 30. 8. 1997. However, it was pleaded that Dr. Harnath was not an employee of respondent-hospital but an independent consultant. Dr. Harnath is no more and the entire record of treatment given to Mrs. Lulu Ebenezer was maintained by Dr. Harnath and efforts made by the respondent to trace out that record were in vain. Mrs. Lulu Ebenezer was diagnosed Systemic Lupus Erythematosis (SLE) and hypothyroidism and suitable treatment was given to her. Along with letter dated 21. 10. 1997, the respondent had enclosed the break-up of the bill and the medicines used. It was denied that dialysis was not required. It was stated that it was not known on what basis the C. M. C. doctor had opined that Mrs. Lulu Ebenezer did not require dialysis. Explanation has been given regarding delay in discharge of Mrs. Lulu Ebenezer. It was denied that there was any negligence in the treatment and/or deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and respondent hospital is liable to pay the claimed amount.

(3.) APPELLANT filed his affidavit by way of evidence. However, despite opportunity being given, the respondent-hospital did not file any affidavit by way of evidence.