State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
B.P. Saha, vs Dr. Vineet Suri (Neurologist), on 12 October, 2006
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: Appeal No.A-182/2001 (Arising from the order dated 03-08-2000 passed by District Forum-II, Udyog Sadan, Institutional Area, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.1379/95) Shri B.P. Saha, Appellant K-2038, Chittaranjan Park, Through New Delhi-110019. Ms. Gunita Pahwa, Advocate Versus 1. Dr. Vineet Suri (Neurologist), Respondent No.1 Indraprastha Apolo Hospital, Mathura Road, New Delhi. 2. Ms. Beena Respondent No.2 D/o Sh. K.R. Matukutty, Mool Chand Kharaiti Ram Hospital, Lajpat Nagar III, New Delhi. 3. Mool Chand Khairati Ram Hospital, Respondent No.3 Lajpat Nagar III, New Delhi. CORAM : Justice J.D. Kapoor- President Ms. Rumnita Mittal - Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT (ORAL) A young girl who was abruptly died when she was injected a dye without consulting C.T. Scan Doctor. She cried loudly after she was injected the dye and became senseless and taken to ICCU ward where she died on third day. It was alleged that respondent No.1 Dr. Vineet Suri directed the Nurse/respondent No.2 Ms. Beena for injecting the dye and as such she has also been arrayed as one of the opposite parties besides the Hospital where the deceased was taken for the treatment. Consequently a complaint was filed by the father of the deceased before the District Forum seeking compensation on account of negligence on the part of Respondent No.1 and the hospital.
2. Vide impugned order dated 03-08-2000 the District Forum dismissed the complaint while returning the finding that medical negligence was not proved against the respondents. Dr. Yash Pal Dahiya appeared before the District Forum and gave statement that the dye was injected by him after seeing the C.T. Scan.
3. It is pertinent to mention at this stage that a complaint was lodged with the police for criminal negligence against respondent No.1/Dr. Vineet Suri which were inspected by the police. When no chalan was filed by the police, the appellant filed a criminal complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate. The Metropolitan Magistrate also dismissed the complaint. Besides relying upon the judgment of the Metropolitan Magistrate acquitting the respondent from the charge of criminal negligence as contemplated u/s 304 A of the IPC the District Forum also relied upon the statement of Dr. Yash Pal Dahiya who was incharge of Allied Diagnostics Limited which was functioning in the premises of the respondent/Hospital and was outsourced by it. The statement of Dr. Dahiya in brief was that before telling his technician Mr. Koshy to subject the patient to C.T. Scan he had instructed the Nurse Ms. Beena to give injection Urograffin. According to him there is no test to find out the reaction of this injection and therefore the possibility of reaction to this medicine is always there and this medicine was the direct result of death of the deceased.
4. As is apparent from the aforesaid facts, the admission of the deceased in the Hospital of the OP and her having been examined by OP No.1 and the direction of Dr. Yash Pal Dahiya to give the injection before she was subjected to C.T. Scan and the death of the deceased being the direct result of the reaction of the above said medicine are not in dispute.
jj
6. F.D.R./Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith after completion of due formalities.
7. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
8. Announced on 12th October, 2006.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member jj