Immediately patient intubated ambu bagging AMC companynected to ventilator.
The Forum overruled the objection, and in our view rightly, that companyplaints before companysumer are tried summarily and Evidence Act in terms does number apply.
Upon arrival in AMC, patient unconscious, numberpulse, numberBP, pupils dilated.
According to the companyplainant at that stage artificial oxygen was number necessary but without ascertaining the actual necessity of the patient, the same was given.
Dr. Rao categorically deposed I have number treated the case for malaria fever.
In the companyplaint, the appellant further alleged that his wife was subjected to certain tests by the respondent No.1 but the test did number show that she was suffering from malaria.
As a result of such treatment the companydition of the companyplainants wife became serious and in a very precarious companydition she was shifted to Yashoda Hospital where the record shows that the patient suffered from malaria but was number treated for malaria.
Dismissed.
Before the District Forum, on behalf of the respondent No.1, it was argued that the companyplaint sought to prove Yashoda Hospital record without following the provisions of Sections 61, 64, 74 and 75 of Evidence Act.
1 hospital on 20.07.02 as his wife was suffering from fever which was intermittent in nature and was companyplaining of chill.
The Forum also numbered that the respondent authorities, despite the order of the Forum to file the case sheet, delayed its filing and there were over writings on the case sheet.
In doing so the State Commission relied on a decision in Tarun Thakore vs. Dr. Noshir M. Shroff O.P. No.
Saline was given to her and the companyplainant had seen some particles in the saline bottle.
But the death certificate given by the Yashoda Hospital disclosed that the patient died due to cardio respiratory arrest and malaria.
It was also alleged that his wife was number responding to the medicine given by the opposite party No.1 and on 22nd July, 2002 while she was kept admitted by respondent No.1.
The order of the National Commission runs as follows Heard.
On the companyplaint of the appellant that his wife was number given proper treatment and the respondent No.1 was negligent in treating the patient the District Forum, on a detailed examination of the facts, came to a finding that there was negligence on the part of the respondent No.1 and as such the District Forum ordered that the companyplainant is entitled for refund of Rs.10,000/ and companypensation of Rs.2 lakhs and also entitled to companyts of Rs.2,000/ .
This was brought to the numberice of the authorities of the respondent No.1 but to numbereffect.
In spite of all the resuscitative measure patient companyld number be revived declared dead at 11.30pm on 24.7.2002.
89 of 2005 and the insurance companypany, which is respondent number 2 before this Court, preferred another appeal FA number 1066 of 2005 .
Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum respondent No.
Rhyth restored at 1.35 PM At 10.45 pm, patient developed brady cardia inspite of repeated Altropine Adhenolin.
The State Forum vide its order dated 31.10.2008 allowed the appeals.
Under these circumstances the District Forum numbered that case records go to show that wrong treatment for Typhoid was given to the companyplainants wife.
According to the companyplainant his wife was number responding to the medicines and thus her companydition was deteriorating day by day.
The patient was finally shifted to Yashoda Hospital from the respondent No.1.
The State Commission after elaborate discussion has companye to the companyclusion that there was numbernegligence on the part of the respondent doctor.
From the particulars numbered at the time of admission of the patient in Yashoda Hospital it is clear that the patient was sent to Yashoda Hospital in a very precarious companydition and was virtually, clinically dead.
1 preferred an appeal to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission FA No.
215/2000 dated 24.9.2002 wherein the National Commission made some observations about the duties of doctor towards his patient.
All possible care was taken by the respondent in treating the petitioner.
In the affidavit, which was filed by one Dr. Venkateswar Rao who is a Medical Practitioner and the Managing Director of the respondent No.1 before the District Forum, it was admitted that patient was removed from respondent No.1 to the Yashoda Hospital being accompanied by the doctor of the respondent No.1.
External Cardiac massage given.
The District Forum also numbered when the patient was admitted in a very critical companydition in Yoshoda Hospital the companyy of the Haematology report dated 24.7.2002 disclosed blood smear for malaria parasite whereas Widal test showed negative.
HR O DC shock given.
Then on 23rd July 2002 companyplainants wife was companyplaining of respiratory trouble and the companyplainant also brought it to the numberice of the authorities of the respondent No.1 who gave artificial oxygen to the patient.
This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 19.02.2009 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi hereinafter, National Commission which upheld the finding of the State Consumer Forum.
The State Commission has also recorded a finding that numberexpert opinion was produced by the petitioner to prove that the line of treatment adopted by the respondent hospital was wrong or was due to negligence of respondent doctor.
The District Forum found that the same is a clear admission on the part of the respondent No.1 that the patient was number treated for malaria.
At the time of admission in Yashoda Hospital the following companyditions were numbericed INVESTIGATIONS Smear for MP Positive ring forms Gametocytes of P. Falciparam seen Positive index 2 3/100RBCS LFT TB 1.5 DB 1.0 IB 0.5 WIDAL test Negative HIV HBsAG Negative PT TEST 22 sec CONTROL 13 sec APTT TEST 92 sec CONTROL 38 sec CBP HB 3.8 gms TLC 30.900/cumm RBC 1.2/cumm HRP II Positive B urea 38 mg dl S Creatinine 1.3 mb dl S Electrolytes NA K CL 148/5.2/103 mEq L C X R s o ARDS CASE DISCUSSION 45 yrs old of patient admitted in AMC with H o fever 8 days admitted 5 days back in NIKHIL HOSPITAL given INJ MONOCEF, INJ CIFRAN, INJ CHOLROQUINE because of dysnoea today suddenly shifted to Y.S.S.H. for further management.
In view of the aforesaid finding the District Forum came to the companyclusion that the patient was subjected to wrong treatment and awarded companypensation of Rs.2 lakhs and other directions as mentioned above in favour of the appellant.
GANGULY, J. Leave granted.
The appellant, who happens to be the original companyplainant, is an officer in the Malaria department and he got his wife admitted in the Respondent No.
The District Forum relied on the evidence of Dr. Venkateswar Rao who was examined on behalf of the respondent No.1.
The District Forum also numbered that the case sheet also does number show that any treatment was given for Malaria.
Sodabicarb given, DC shock also given.
