N VIMALAN Vs. REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE RCC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -AGGRIEVED and dissatisfied by the order of dismissal of his complaint by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram in O. P. No. 65 of 1998 by its order dated 7. 12. 2001 Mr. N. Vimalan, an Advocate by profession has filed this appeal before us. Brief facts of the case :

(2.) SON of the complainant-Nidheesh aged 8 years who was suffering from Acute Lumphatic Leukaemia (ALL) and Cardiomyopathy was undergoing treatment at Sree Chithira Thirunal Hospital (SCT ). SCT referred his case to Regional Cancer Centre (RCC), Trivandrum. Opposite party No. 3 - Dr. P. Kusumakumary started Chemotherapy on 21. 9. 1995. As the boy attained remission on 1. 12. 1995, he was discharged on that day and was followed up with maintenance Chemotherapy as per protocol. There was a relapse on 20. 2. 1997. It is alleged by the complainant that opposite parties namely RCC and the doctors functioning there did not take any precautionary measure or conduct bone marrow study to guard against the relapse. No proper advice was given to the complainant for taking the patient to a specialised hospital. After relapse, the child was again admitted on 1. 9. 1997. At that time, Dr. Kusumakumary, Incharge Pediatric Oncology Ward of RCC informed the complainant that Bone Marrow Test would not be successful after the relapse. He was simultaneously being treated for Cardiomyopathy. Chemotherapy was continued but the response was poor.

(3.) ON 1. 9. 1997 at about 7. 00 a. m. the boy was admitted again in the Pediatric Oncology Department with the complaint of loose motion for two days. He was given saline drip and oxygen and his condition improved and sufficient urine was passed and also he took liquid food. It is alleged by the complainants that at about 7. 00 p. m. Dr. Shanavas of RCC injected Mannitol and the boy complained of heart pain which was reported immediately to another doctor by which time portion of Mannitol had already gone into the system and the condition of the boy worsened. It is further alleged that no treatment was given to him and no revival steps were taken. When the boy was in this condition, the doctor prepared a letter to take him to the SCT but before the delivery of the letter the boy expired at 7. 50 p. m. on 2. 9. 1997. The complainant has also alleged that Mannitol injection was administered without conducting necessary electrolyte test and kidney function test. The complainant's case is that since the death was due to the negligence of the opposite parties, the complainant/father of the child is entitled to be compensated.