- (1.) THE complainants case is as follows : The complainants elder son namely Moorthy complained of pain in both the legs on the night of 13.11.1996. The second complainant immediately took him to the opposite party who is a Government Doctor and is also practising as a doctor privately. The opposite party assured them that he will become alright and administered an injection and collected a fee of Rs. 25/ -. On the next day of 14.11.1996 at about 3.30 a.m., Moorthy cried out in pain stating that he could not move his leg and that he is not able to urinate and that he has no sense of feeling of his legs. Immediately he was taken to the opposite party, who again administered some medicines and after giving an injection stated that nothing was wrong with Moorthy and that he is only feigning. He further advised that Moorthy be given plenty of water so that he will pass urine. He also told when asked that there was no necessity to take him to any specialist for treatment. On the advice of the opposite party, he was admitted in the private clinic of the opposite party as an inpatient and was treated there. Moorthy also took water continuously but still he could not pass urine and he could not move his legs. The opposite party did not pay heed to the request of the complainants to bring an Urilogist. On 14.11.1996 namely on the same day at about 7.30 a.m., they heard the cry of Moorthy and they went to the opposite party and informed him about the same. The opposite party then without making any tests, injected him with Pencilin whereupon Moorthy fell unconscious and his respiration also stopped. He died on the spot. Knowing fully well that he had died, the opposite party gave a letter to Dr. Ragunathan of Kulithalai and directed the complainants to take Moorthy to the clinic of Dr. Ragunathan for treatment. When Moorthy was taken to the clinic of Dr. Ragunathan, on examination Dr. Ragunathan told that Moorthy is already dead and that the opposite party has also written so in his referral. Moorthy was aged only about 30 years at the time of his death. He was running a Mat Manufacturing Unit and was earning Rs. 5,000/ - per month. On account of the deficiency in service of the opposite party, they have lost an affectionate son and also lost earnings upon which the complainants depended for their living. Therefore, the complaint has been laid for a direction to the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs. 4,95,000/ -.
(2.) THE opposite party filed his version stating as follows : The complaint has been filed to blackmail and intimidate the opposite party with a view to extort money from him. When the complainants son Moorthy was brought to him, he was examined by the opposite party, who found that neurologist should be consulted and gave a letter to the complainant to consult Dr. Sundararajan of Tiruchirapalli. To give him immediate relief from pain, he was injected and given a prescription of oral analgesics. The opposite party never said that he would cure him. The next day morning, the first complainant alone came. He said then that he could not take the patient to Dr. Sundararajan and that the patient is still complaining of pain and asked the opposite party to give treatment to him. The opposite party said that without investigation report and expert opinion, he could not give any prescription and asked the first complainant to do the test for patient and rush to Dr. Sundararajan so that the treatment can be started immediately. It is not true to say that he examined the patient and administered any injection on that day. Nor he said that the patient was feigning illness. The said Moorthy was not admitted as an inpatient nor he was given any pencilin injection. The complainants have not taken any steps to approach the doctor in Kulithalai or at Trichy. After sometime the patient was brought in a critical condition and on examination, the opposite party found the pulse rate, B.P. and respiratory rate were very low and, therefore, he suggested that he should be immediately taken to Dr. Ragunathan s Clinic at Kulithalai. Moorthy was never admitted as an inpatient in the clinic of the opposite party. The opposite party also did not reject the request to consult the expert. He was not injected with Pencilin. It is not true to say that the patient fell unconscious and died on the spot. He was alive when the patient left from the opposite party s clinic. It is not true to say that the opposite party was aware that Moorthy was dead and still he gave a letter to Dr. Ragunathan. It is also not correct to say that Dr. Ragunathan informed them that the patient had already died and that the opposite party had written so. The opposite party is not aware of the educational qualifications of the deceased or about his earning capacity. There was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party is not liable to make any payment. To the notice sent by the complainants, suitable reply has been given.
(3.) THE District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Trichy dismissed the complaint and aggrieved by the same the present appeal is preferred by the complainants. It being a claim made on the basis of medical negligence, the onus greater upon the complainant to establish the same. About certain facts, there is no dispute between the parties and, therefore, we can reiterate the same here so that in that backdrop the complaint can be considered. Moorthy, son of the first opposite party complained of pain in his legs and loss of sensation, on 13.11.1996. He was taken to the opposite party on that day in the night about 8.30 p.m. for treatment. Again the patient Moorthy was taken to the opposite party hospital on 14.11.1996. Then on the instructions or advice of the opposite party, he was taken from there to Doctor at Kulithalai by name Dr. Ragunathan. What happened in between is the area of dispute between the parties. On 13.11.1996, the opposite party, when the patient was brought to him had administered some analgesics. According to him, he advised the complainants to take the patient to one Dr. Sundararajan of Trichirapalli. It is stated that on 14.11.1996 at about 3.30 a.m., again he was taken to the opposite party and at that time, some treatment was given by the opposite party. This is not admitted by the opposite party. It is stated by the complainant also that on the same day namely 14.11.1996, again at 7.30 a.m. or some time in the morning, they took him to the opposite party. According to the complainant, at that time, the opposite party injected the complainant with pencilin and the patient fell unconscious. For the doctor, the opposite party, would say that when he was brought to the hospital at 7.30 a.m., the patient was in a critical condition, he stated that he cannot give him any treatment without having preliminary test done and, therefore, advised the complainants to take him immediately to the clinic of Dr. Raghunathan of Kulithalai. Ex. A1 is the prescription addressed to Dr. Ragunathan, in which he has stated referring this patient Moorthy has acute respiratory arrest and requested the doctor to do the needful. This letter is dated 14.11.1996. According to the opposite party, this is only the letter given by him. It is only pursuant to this letter given by the opposite party addressed to Dr. Ragunathan, they have taken him to Dr. Ragunathan at Kulithalai. Of course, in the letter the opposite party has referred to the fact that the patient was having acute respiratory arrest. What is respriatory arrest is not explained. Respiratory arrest cannot be connoted as a cardiac arrest. It may perhaps mean that there was a problem with respiratory system. This is a case where we find that there is an assertion by one party and denial by the other party. The allegations made in the complaint are met by the opposite party in his counter. We have no materials now to conclude the cause of death of Moorthy. The complainants are not consistent in their case in the sense at one stage they want to make it out that the doctor failed to advise them properly and did not do what is expected of him. In the same breath, they would also say that there is a wrong medication in the sense that pencilin was injected which brought about immediate death of patient. It is the complainants specific case that the patient was admitted in the clinic of the opposite party and at about 7.30 a.m., they heard the cry of the said Moorthy and immediately they rushed to the doctor informing him about the same and the opposite party then came and injected him with pencilin and Moorthy fell unconscious and saliva also dripped from his mouth and his respiration stopped. Therefore, accordingly the complainant, Moorthy died in the clinic of the opposite party. But they have not furnished such information to the Revenue Authority. On the other hand from the Death Certificate, Ex. B1, we find that Moorthy died in No. 4/74, Bazaar Street, Pettavaithalai, the residential address of the complainant. Therefore, it is seen from Ex. B1 that Moorthy died at the residence of the complainants, namely at No. 4/74, Main Road, Pettaivaithalai. If really, on account of administration of pencilin, he died in the clinic itself, one would expect the complainants to have mentioned so while intimating the death to the concerned officials. The opposite party has examined himself and Dr. Ragunathan. Dr. Ragunathan had stated in his evidence that on 14.11.1996, Moorthy was brought to his Nursing Home with a referral letter from the opposite party. On examination, he found him in a bad condition and the breathing was very low and the pulse rate was going down and it was not possible to record the same. He has further stated that since there were no facilities to treat such a patient, he directed them to take the patient immediately to the Doctor at Tirichirappalli and at that time, the patient was alive. In the course of cross -examination, he has stated further that he was brought to his hospital in a critical condition and that as there was no facilities for initiating intensive treatment to patient in such a condition in his clinic and as there was no time, he immediately asked them to take the patient to Trichy. He aslo stated that he felt the pulse of the patient going down and it was irregular and low and he could not detect the illness from which the patient was suffering. He would also state that since there was no time to make an entry in his office record noting his recording about the condition of the patient, he directed the parties to take the patient immediately and the words "acute respiratory arrest " in Ex. A1 would only mean that there was a temporary stopping of the breathing and for such persons, preliminary respiratory or artificial respriatory assistance has to be given and that as no Oxygen cylinder was available in the clinic of Dr. Ragunathan, he directed the complainants to take the patient to hospital at Trichy. Dr. Raghunathan has denied the allegation that since the opposite party is the doctor and they are Members of the Indian Medical Association, he is supporting the opposite party.;