State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kiran Verma vs Nidhi Aggarwal on 28 April, 2008
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: 28-04-2008 Complaint Case No. 336 of 1999 Mrs. Kiran Verma, W/o. Shri Rajendra Verma, R/o. 29-B, Shastri Park, DDA Flats, Seelampur, Delhi 110053. .Complainant Versus 1. Dr. Nidhi Aggarwal, W/o. Dr. Vishal Aggarwal, R/o. 1/E/2/7-A, East Babarpur, Shahdara, Delhi 110032. . . . Opposite Party No.1 2. Sugandha Nursing Home & Maternity Centre, Babarpur Road, Shahdara, Delhi 110032 Through Its Managing Director/ Owner: Dr. Vishal Aggarwal. Opposite Party No.2 CORAM Justice J.D. Kapoor, President Ms. Rumnita Mittal,Member
(i) Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the Judgment?
(ii) To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice J.D.Kapoor (Oral)
1. Complainant has alleged gross negligence in her treatment by Opposite Party (in short O.P) No.1 at O.P.2-Nursing Home, on account of which her pregnancy was aborted and she also suffered damage to her left arm which had become almost dead. On these allegations, the complainant has claimed a compensation of Rs. 9.00 Lac from the O.Ps for their deficiency and negligence.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant, who is working in Delhi Jal Board, is that on 11-06-1999 she felt pain in the abdomen and was also having vaginal bleeding. As she was one month pregnant at that time, she went to O.P-2 - Nursing Home where O.P-1 examined her and deposited Rs. 1,000/- with O.P.1 Dr. Nidhi Aggarwal.
O.P-1 gave her one injection on right upper arm and another I/V injection on her left after which she became unconscious. Half an hour thereafter her left arm lost sensation and became swollen. As per the complainant her pregnancy was also aborted due to the negligence in treatment on the part of O.P-1 Doctor. However, O.P.1 in order to conceal her gross negligence and incompetence consoled her that these were natural symptoms and discharged her without issuing any treatment/discharge slip. Again on 12-06-1999 as her condition worsened, the complainant visited O.P.1-doctor who gave another injection. By the evening of 12-6-1999 the left arm of the complainant became completely without any sensation, cold, swollen and discoloured. The complainant rushed to St. Stephens Hospital where doctors told her that her condition had worsened due to negligent treatment and injections and that the degree of negligence was such that her hand would have to be amputated to save her life. On this the complainant visited Apollo Hospital where intensive treatment was given to save the hand of the complainant. However, she suffered permanent disability in her left hand and fingers.
3. On the other hand, the O.P while denying the allegations of the complainant of any negligence, contended in its defence that before visiting them the complainant had got treatment from some unqualified doctor in the locality of her residence and even the injection was administered to her by the said unqualified doctor. The O.P further contended that since the hand of the complainant has been cured, at this stage the complaint does not lie. The O.P. also contended that she had prescribed some medicines for emergency and advised that she could approach some other hospital. Further that she was never examined by O.P1-doctor in relation to her pregnancy and as a matter of fact the need did not arise as the complainant had approached O.P.1 doctor for MTP (medical termination of pregnancy) which the O.P doctor had refused to perform. O.P also denied having received a sum of Rs. 1,000/- or having administered any injection to the complainant as alleged or that the complainant had become unconscious in the nursing home O.P 2. O.P. further stated that the complainant had approached the O.P. in bleeding condition after a botched abortion attempted by a Jhola Chap (quack) accompanied by a private nurse. The O.P. also denied having administered any injection again on 12-06-1999 as the complainant was under treatment of LNJP Hospital.
4. In support of the allegation of O.P having administered a wrong injection, the complainant has relied upon the following documents:-
i) MLC of St. Stephens Hospital dated 13-06-1999 ( 1.30 AM) that the patient started developing Gangrene of left hand and also oedema.
ii) The Discharge summary of Apollo Hospital which is dated 05-07-1999 where she was admitted in the intervening night of 11/12-06-1999. The case summary is as under:-
Mrs. Verma, a 31 years old lady presented with swelling of left hand and forearm which started half an hour following injection of drug in the left deltoid and left antecubutal fossa which progressively worse. Gradually the hand became cold and finger started getting discoloured. On examination forearm and hand was swollen with fingers cold. The limb was warm upto M.P. joints (re distal palmer crease).
Doppler study revealed high resistant low flow in the arteries of left palm and dorsum of left hand. There was no flow in digital arteries. There was deep vein thrombosis in veins right till the distal 2/3 of (L) arm.
Patient was put on conservative treatment with NTG drip IV Heparin, Inj. Trental, IV Dentran and Inj. Epoprostenol (Flolan) with PT/PTT monitoring and blood transfusion. She responded to this treatment as the digital arteries of left thumb, index and middle fingers opened up with gangrene of tips.
The digital arteries of left ring and little fingers opened up till the proximal phalanx with resultant gangrene of these fingers till the middle phalanx.
On the seventh day after admission she developed bleeding P/V and USG examination of pelvis revealed product of conception. Dilatation and evacuation was done on 21-6-999. Post- operatively she devel9oped high grade fever on 6th post-0p day which responded to anti-malarial treatment. Condition on discharge is satisfactory.
5. It is contended by the counsel for the complainant that it was on the advice of the St. Stephens hospital that her left arm would have to be amputated that she went to Apollo Hospital where she was given intensive treatment and two of her fingers had to be amputated.
6. The plea of the O.P. that injection might have been given by some quack is falsified from the reply to the legal notice that there was no swollen hand or nothing of that kind when she came to the hospital.
7. While refuting the above contention of the complainant, the counsel for the O.P. has referred to the allegations made by the complainant in the FIR with the police that the complainant requested the doctor to carry out MTP (abortion) and paid Rs. 1,000/- as fees and as and when any abortion is to be undertaken the patient is always subjected to Ultra Sound and the complainant refused to pay for the Ultra Sound examination and since thereafter she had never come to the Nursing Home. In order to falsely implicate the O.P, the complainant struck off the earlier written name Aggarwal Nursing Home and wrote the name Sugandha Nursing Home, Navin Shahdara, East Babarpur, Delhi.
8. We have accorded careful consideration to the rival contentions and heard the counsel for the parties.
9. To ascertain the medical negligence, cumulative conclusions drawn from various decisions can be summed up in the form of following queries? Decision will depend upon the answers:-
(i) Whether the treating doctor had the ordinary skill and not the skill of the highest degree that he professed and exercised as everybody is not supposed to possess the highest or perfect level of expertise or skills in the branch he practices?
(ii) Whether the guilty doctor had done something or failed to do something which in the given facts and circumstances no medical professional would do when in ordinary senses and prudence?
(iii) Whether the risk involved in the procedure or line of treatment was such that injury or death was imminent or risk involved was upto the percentage of failures?
(iv) Whether there was error of judgment in adopting a particular line of treatment? If so what was the level of error? Was it so overboard that result could have been fatal or near fatal or at lowest mortality rate?
(v) Whether the negligence was so manifest and demonstrative that no professional or skilled person in his ordinary senses and prudence could have indulged in?
(vi) Everything being in place, what was the main cause of injury or death? Whether the cause was the direct result of the deficiency in the treatment and medication?
(vii) Whether the injury or death was the result of administrative deficiency or post-operative or condition environment-oriented deficiency?
10. The MLC shows that the complainant gave the information to the Apollo hospital of having been injected in the left arm on 11-6-1999 at 12.00 Noon and she went to St. Stephens Hospital on 13-6-1999 at. 1.30 AM. Complainant was given an injection by the O.P. on the left hand and the other on the right hand as she was having abdominal pain and bleeding and she became unconscious and when she gained consciousness she was brought back from the clinic of O.P.1 -Dr. Nidhi Aggarwal but the condition of the complainant worsened and she again visited Sugandha Nursing Home -O.P-2 on 12-06-1999 where she was given two more injections but the condition did not improve. It was only thereafter that she was taken to St. Stephens Hospital where she was diagnosed to have developed gangrene in the left hand and advised that her arm would have to be amputated.
11. Luckily she was shifted to Apollo Hospital and saved her arm and only two fingers were amputated. The sequence of events and dates show the utter negligence of O.P.1 who happens to be the wife of owner of O.P.2 Nursing Home. Right from day one the treatment was given by O.P.1 at O.P.2 Sugandha Nursing Home and Maternity Centre. There was no other hospital or doctor during the intervening period the complainant visited. She went to St. Stephens Hospital because of her worsening condition.
Thus negligence, if any, in giving wrong injection or medication or treatment, happened at O.P.2 Hospital owned by the husband of O.P.1-doctor. There is no other inference than that of gross medical negligence on the part of the O.Ps in administering injection that ultimately resulted in gangrene in the left hand and her fingers had to be amputated.
12. In the given facts and circumstances, we deem that a lump sum compensation of Rs. 1.00 Lac shall meet the ends of justice which shall also include the cost of litigation. O.P.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable for making the aforesaid payment of compensation.
13. The complaint is allowed in aforesaid terms.
14. Payment shall be made within one month from the receipt of a copy of this order.
15. Copy of orders as per statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties and thereafter the file be consigned to record.
(JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR) PRESIDENT (RUMNITA MITTAL) MEMBER HK