State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Yogesh vs Deep Hospital & Research Center on 14 July, 2011
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION(STATE COMMISSION) RAJASTHAN JAIPUR Appeal No.66/2004 Yogesh S/o Kanhaiya Lal, age 13 years through Guardian father Shri Kanhaiya Lal Kumawat, r/o plot no.S.55 Kumawat Colony,Jhotwara,Jaipur. Complainant/appellant V. Deep Hospital & Research Center, Near Tempo Stand, Khatipura Road,Jhotwara,Jaipur through Owner & Proprietor Dr.Anil Gupta, Government under & Registered Practice no.81611. Opposite party/respondent Date of Order : 14.07.2011 Before: Mr.Justice Ashok Parihar-President Mr.Sikander Punjabi-Member
Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Member Mr.Umesh Saraswat and Mr.Sanjay Khatri,counsel for the appellant 2 Shri S.N.Bohra,counsel for the respondent BY JUSTICE ASHOK PARIHAR,PRESIDENT:
As has come on record the complainant appellant fell down from a tree on 11.02.1997. He was immediately taken to the respondent hospital on the same day within 2-3 hours. The version of the respondent hospital has been that the complainant patient was examined by the Orthopedic Specialist. Some x-rays were done and thereafter the patient was admitted in the respondent hospital on 11.02.1997. It has been submitted that bones of the right hand below the palm had come out and there was also a wound covered by mud. The wound was cleaned by the concerned doctor. Since the condition of the patient was not stable and the bones could not be adjusted immediately a temporary plaster was put on the right hand after giving some medicines.
It has further been submitted that on the next day ie. 12.02.1997 the same doctor examined the patient. The wound was again cleaned and bones were adjusted accordingly with assistance of Anesthetic. The temporary plaster was put on the right hand. The patient was further examined on 13.02.1997. Since there was no complaint by the patient the temporary plaster was put on the right hand after cleaning the wound. It was only on 14.02.1997 when the temporary plaster was removed the concerned doctor detected foul smell and the wound had become dark. As per opinion of the concerned doctor the gangrene had developed and father of the patient was told that the hand has to be amputed. As per the insistence of father of the patient he was discharged from the respondent hospital. It has further come on record that on the same day i.e 14.02.1997 the patient was taken 3 to SMS Hospital,Jaipur. There also the Orthopedic Surgeon opined that the right hand of the patient has to be amputed immediately because of gangrene which might endanger the life of the patient. On 15.02.1997 the operation was done and right hand was amputed from above the elbow.
Subsequently a complaint was filed before the District Forum,Jaipur on 9.5.1997 by the appellant. The complaint was dismissed by the District Forum vide order dated 22.11.2003 holding that there was no negligence or any deficiency in service on the part of the respondent hospital. Hence the present appeal.
After hearing the counsel for the parties we have carefully gone through the material on record.
The facts stated above more or less are not disputed. On behalf of the respondent hospital an affidavit of Dr.Anil Gupta who was the owner Director of the hospital has been filed. Though the contents of the affidavit have been verified on the basis of the personal knowledge, however nowhere in the affidavit there is a wisper of word that he was actually present during the examination and treatment of the patient. The affidavit of Dr.Satyendra Sharma,the Orthopedic Surgeon who intially examined the patient and subsequently with the assistance of the Anesthetic Dr.Ashish Shah operated on the right hand of the patient have not been filed so far. Even the affidavit of Dr.Ashish Shah the Anesthetic has not been submitted. We also fail to understand as to why even the affidavit of any other nursing staff present on the spot had been filed.
Admittedly the patient was admitted in the hospital within 2-3 hours of the incident on 11.02 1997 itself. For 3 days the 4 patient was regularly examined by the concerned doctors and as per the version of the hospital after cleaning the wound on each occasion the temporary plaster had been put. However at no point of time till 14.02.1997 the concerned doctors were of the opinion that even the gangrene could have developed otherwise further proper care could have been taken by the hospital and the concerned doctors. As per the medical books the gangrene develops only when the blood circulation in the affected area is totally stopped or otherwise proper care is not taken on the injury. In the present case right from the beginning patient was in total care and custody of the hospital, it cannot be said that because of some negligence of the patient the gangrene had developed. It is only on 14.02.1997 when the temporary plaster was opened the doctor detected foul smell and the gravity of the wound inside. There can be a valid inference that either temporary plaster was not put properly or even the wound was not cleaned properly resulting in gangrene on the affected area. There is no explanation whatsoever on behalf of the respondent hospital as to how the gangrene had developed within 2-3 days.
The medical profession is termed as a nobel profession and doctors are treated as God. In legal parlance the diety is a perpetual minor but the doctors cannot be put on the same pedestal. The are just human beings having some sansitivity.They are bound by the oath of the service to the needy and the poor to the best of their ability. In the present case on the basis of the material on record we find that there had been serious lapses on the part of the concerned doctors of the respondent hospital and present case is a clear case of deficiency in service.
The patient was of 13 years of age at the time of incident and was studying in 6th standard. His right hand, the main 5 working hand, had to be amputed under the unfortunate circumstances. It was his sheer will, ambition and courage to study further after the incident and he has also passed 12th standard in Commerce. Only because of poor financial condition of his father who had already undergone mental torture and financial loss caused in treatment of his son, the appellant could not persue his studies further. The appellant is present before the Commission and on spontaneous query made by the Bench he submitted that before the incident he wanted to join the Army and since his right hand had been amputed he aspired for joining the Central Services by appearing in competetive exminations. Be that as may be the incident occurred in February,1997. The complaint was filed before the District Forum,Jaipur in May,1997 and the same was dismissed by the District Forum in November,2003. More than 14 years have elapsed. The appellant is now 27 years of age. The mental agony and financial loss suffered by the appellant and his family cannot be adequately compensated. However considering overall circumstances in the present case we deem it proper to direct the respondent hospital to pay a compensation of Rs.50 lacs to the appellant alongwith Rs.50,000/- for the mental agony and other expenses incurred by him in last 14 years. Accordingly the appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the District Forum is set aside. The appellant shall be entitled to the amount as referred above. The payment be made to the appellant within 2 months.
Member Member President a/g