ORDER
P.D. Shenoy, Member
1. This is a case of alleged medical negligence against Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai and its Doctors in treating terminally ill 15 years young boy suffering from blood cancer who died within a few days after his admission in the Hospital.
Facts of the Case:
2. The undisputed facts of the case are as follows:
Complainants, Smt. Sukumari Sahu and Shri Harihara Sahu are residents of village-Begunia, Distt. Khurda, Orissa and are parents of Subhasis Sahu (patient), the deceased. Complainant’s son developed high fever and could not be cured in their native village. He was shifted to Bhu veshvar Hospital on 28.3.1996 and theblood report revealed thathis neutrophil counts had gone down. Accordingly he was shifted to SEB Medical College Hospital, Cuttack on 30.3.1996 and was admitted as an indoor patient. As the doctors of SEB Hospital could not cure him they referred the case to Dr. S.H. Adwani, Head, Department of Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai. He was under treatment of Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai from 3.4.1996 under the guidance of Dr. S.H. Adwani and the team of Doctors, namely, Dr. S.K. Sahu and Dr. Suresh Pai who were assisting him. Unfortunately the patient died on 7.5.1996.
3. The case came up for hearing on 20.4.2005 on which date learned Counsel for complainant and opposite parties were heard.
4. (a) Case of the complainant: The complainants took their son to Dr. H.S. Adwani on 3.4.1996 at 11.00 a.m. In the Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai he was given Registration No. PK- 6 566. The complainants deposited advance amount with the hospital authorities for the purpose of conducting bio-chemical investigation and other required tests. They were also asked to arrange for fresh blood. The learned Counsel for the complainant alleged that the patient was not admitted for the next 10 days. They were put to great risk and harassment. On 11.4.1996 the complainant deposited 8 units of blood with the Blood Bank of the Hospital. On 11.4.1996 when the patient was running high fever. Dr. H.S. Adwani, opposite party No. 2 was contacted who recommended the admission of the patient in the hospital. The hospital authorities referred the case of patient to Doctors Suresh Pai and S.K. Sahu, opposite party Nos. 3 and 4. On the pretext of no vacancy, opposite party No. 3 did not admit the patient in the hospital and referred to another hospital, namely. “Sushrusa Hospital”. From 13.4.1996 to 22.4.1996, the patient was treated in Tata Memorial Hospital as an in-patient and the complainant had to purchase medicine from hospital medical stores worth more than Rs. 10,000.
(b) The learned Counsel for the complainants submitted that the patient was discharged on the 22nd night when the complainant No. 2 was away and the complainant No. 1 was asked to collect the discharge certificate on the next day. Patient was again taken to the hospital on 25.4.1996 when leunase injection with two other injections were administered to the patient. At 4 p.m. Dr. Aestha visited patient and seeing the blood count (CBC report) told that condition of the patient was alarming. Again the patient was not admitted to the hospital on 30.4.2005 and opposite party No. 3 prescribed the same injections. The complainant was immediately asked to arrange for platelet donors. It was only at 9.00 a.m. on 7.5.1996 the patient was admitted again in the hospital.
(c) Subsequently X-rays were taken and the patient was subjected to repeated exposures and radiation hazards unnecessarily. Ithasbeen stated that on 13.5.1996 with the help of another doctor venesection and cardiac-by-pass infusion was done but it was too late for the patient. On 14.5.1996 the patient developed rigour, hurried respiration and suffocation. Despite repeated requests, oxygen was not made available and the Doctor did not come to attend the patient and around 6.45 p.m. the patient died.
(d) The learned Counsel for the complainants contended that on account of sheer negligence, carelessness and casual treatment the son of the complainants met an unfortunate and unscheduled death. Mal administration of cytotoic drug without proper C.B.C. verification; unnecessary detrimental exposure to radiation by way of repeated X-rays; negligence in treatment, rejection of approved “B” negative platelet donors, non-submission of reports, deliberate utterances of shocking words before the patient, dilly dallying tactics adopted in admitting the patient at the crucial stage, even refusal to admit him at the emergent moment, on the part of the opposite parties and mostly for lack of proper supervision of the patient and his condition, while he was admitted as an indoor patient or treated as an outdoor patient right from 3.4.1996 to 14.5.1996 are the real, direct and proximate causes for the untimely and unscheduled demise of the complainant’s son.
(e) Complainants also claimed Rs. 40 lacs as compensation along with cost.
Tlie case of the Hospital:
5. (a) Learned Counsel for Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai stated that on 3.4.1996 when the patient was brought to the Hospital it was necessary to conduct clinical tests and accordingly money wascollected for conducting various tests but he was treated as outdoor patient as no bed was available. This is proved by the record of the hospital. Hospital has only 544 beds whereas thousands of patients visit the hospital everyday. It is true that Dr. Adwani had advised admission of the patient on 11.4.1996 and as soon as the bed was available on 13.4.1996 he was admitted and when his condition improved he was discharged on 24.4.1996. A large number of leukemia patients visit the hospital and get treatment in the outdoor patient category. On 26.4.1996 Dr. Sahu had prescribed injection leunase which can be seen from hospital records and further the patient was also advised to take two units of blood in day care which means blood can be given to the day care patient also. CBC report is mentioned on every sheet of the case diary and leunase injection was withheld due to headache.
(b) Learned Counsel for the hospital further submitted that blood was supplied by the donors. The father of the patient was not allowed to bleed because he was suffering from hypertension. Nowhere it is stated by the complainant that blood was not given to the patient when required. He vehemently denied that oxygen was not made available or there were no doctors when urgently required. Bald statements on affidavits by way of evidence made without being supported by medical science or any expert witness do not have evidentiary value. The patient was suffering from blood cancer and he was in the terminal stage and accordingly he died within a month despite best medical treatment by a team of competent doctors.
Our Findings:
6. (a) Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai is an institution of international repute and is controlled and funded by the Department of Atomic Energy of the Government of India. It is well known for its dedicated and responsible care of its patients. However, as the number of beds available in the Hospital is less in comparison to the number of patients who are referred to it from throughout the country, a patient is hospitalized only when a necessity is so felt by the attending doctors and the vacancy is available in the hospital. The complainants have failed to prove that the patient was not admitted in the hospital despite there being a vacant bed. Accordingly, mere non-admission of a patient as an indoor patient in the hospital when there was no vacant bed available does not tantamount to medical negligence or deficiency in service.
(b) The second issue raised is about the blood bank. Complainants were asked to collect required quantity of blood and deposit the same in the Blood Bank. When the hospital authorities found that the complainant No. 2 was suffering from hypertension and is not fit enough to bleed at the relevant point of time, they did not permit him to donate blood. There is no proof to show that at any point of time, during the treatment of the patient, the patient was not given required quantity of blood by the Hospital authorities.
(c) The third issue relates to the treatment of the patient and administration of various medicines and the injections. The complainants have not produced extracts from any standard medical text to prove the contention that the patient was given wrong treatment which is not authorized by the medical science.
(d) The complainants have also alleged deficiency in service and negligence by the doctors of the hospital. They have not produced any evidence from any expert in Oncology to support their contention that their son died on account of sheer negligence, carelessness and casual treatment etc. as alleged by them.
7. In our opinion, complainants have failed to prove their case. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.