- (1.) THE complainant's son was admitted in the hospital of the 1st opposite party and he died. According to the complainants, it is on account of the deficiency in service that the death had taken place. Therefore, the opposite parties are liable for payment of compensation.
(2.) THERE is no dispute about the admission of the complainant's son in the opposite party hospital. From the records produced, we find that the complainant's son was treated by the 1st opposite party from 24.8.1997 to 27.8.1997. It is the case of the 1st opposite party that he instructed the complainants to bring their son with the clinical reports. But we find that it is only on 27.8.1997 he was taken by the complainants to the 1st opposite party at 7 p.m. as seen from Ex. B -1. At that time, the complainants state that their son had fever and headache. Blood pressure was also normal. The patient was running fever at 1020F and it rose to 1030F at 8 p.m. The patient had developed fits at 8 p.m. Drips were administered. Fever rose up to 1040F., He was taken to some other hospital since fever did not subside. The contention of the complainants is that their son had only a mild fever and because of the prescription of wrong injection he became critical. In other words, according to the complainant, after the administration of injection the patient became restless and when it was brought to the notice of the 1st opposite party he did not listen to the same and later directed them to take their son to Dr. Navamani Prabhakaran and they took the boy to the hospital of the 2nd opposite party. From Ex. B -1 we find that the complainant's son was administered Ciprofloxacin and was given drips. Then, Paracetamol injection was also given. There is nothing to show that the injection given was the reason for the deterioration in the condition of the complainants' son. It is the admitted case that the complainants' family had been taking treatment with the 1st opposite party. It also appears that the son of the 1st opposite party and the deceased son of the complainants were classmates and, therefore, in such circumstances it cannot be stated that there would have been any negligence or deficiency in service. Considering the fact that the boy was friend of the 1st opposite party's son, the 1st opposite party would have definitely taken more interest and treated him with all care and caution. It is also the case of the 1st opposite party that because of the intimate relationship with the 1st opposite party he did not charge any fee from the complainants. The 2nd opposite party to whom the complainants' son was taken from the hospital of the 1st opposite party, examined the boy by the doctors there. They found the complainant's son in a state of shock. His blood pressure and pulse could not be ascertained. They diagnosed his case as meningo encephalitis. The boy died at 10.30 p.m. within half -an -hour or one hour of admission. Therefore, they did not have the time to conduct all the necessary tests and based upon the clinical indications and symptoms they have given the death certificate.
(3.) NOW , in the above context of facts, the lower Forum held that the complainant has failed to establish the negligence or deficiency in service. The Supreme Court has held that the burden is upon the party accusing a doctor of professional negligence or deficiency in service or prove the same. Therefore, it is necessary for the complainants to prove that the injection that was administered to their son ought not to have been administered in those circumstances and that it had brought about the death of their son. In that connection, the complainants have not examined any expert either a medical practitioner or a pharmacist to establish that the drug has any side effect or is likely to cause certain adverse effects in certain circumstances. In this case, the drug said to have been administered by the doctor had been administered on the presumption that the patient was suffering from typhoid. Of course, according to the 2nd opposite party the patient was suffering from meningo encephalitis. But when the patient was brought to the 1st opposite party there was no indication for the 1st opposite party to suggest that the complainants' son was suffering from the said disease. He was having high fever and, therefore, to control the fever, certain injections had been given by the 1st opposite party. The learned Counsel for the appellants/complainants would rely upon the fact that the 2nd opposite party took 45 days to send the case sheet of Rajkumar, the deceased son of the complainants and this would show that there is something wrong with the treatment and, therefore, it was that they tried to suppress the case sheet. This contention cannot also be accepted. Till the filing of the complaint there was cordial relationship between the complainants and the 1st opposite party. There cannot be any reason for the 1st opposite party to be inadvertent or indifferent to the patient when he was brought to him for treatment. Therefore, considering the materials produced, the lower Forum came to the conclusion that there are no materials to conclude that there was any lack of care and failure to exercise the standard of care in treating the complainant's son by the 1st opposite party. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the lower Forum. Consequently this appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances without any order as to costs.;