State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Roshan Lal Jagga vs Max Super Specialty Hospital on 4 June, 2018
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
Consumer Complaint No. 41 of 2017
Date of Institution : 27.01.2017
Date of Reserve : 21.05.2018
Date of Decision : 04.06.2018
1. Roshan Lal Jagga son of Sh. Gopi Ram, Correspondence
Address; Mithan Lal Street, Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab
2. Sunil Jagga (son of the deceased) son of Sh. Roshan Lal
Jagga, resident of Mithan Lal Street, Sri Muktsar Sahib
3. Raman Jagga (daughter) now wife of Sh. Sandeep Bhateja
resident of Jain Nagri, Abohar, District Fazilka
4. Rajni (daughter) now wife of Sh. Gagan Goklaney, resident of
Opposite Central Jail, Ferozepur
5. Sunita (daughter) now wife of Sh. Amit Gakhar resident of
Guruharsahai, District Ferozepur.
6. Nishu (daughter) now wife of Sh. Jatinder Sachdeva, resident
of House No. 10/108, Punjab Agriculture Campus, Ludhiana.
....Complainants
Versus
Max Super Specialty Hospital, Bathinda, NH-64, Near District Civil
Hospital, Mansa Road, Bathinda, Punjab - 151001 through its
Director/ Manager/Authorized Representative
....Opposite party
Consumer Complaint under Section 17 of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member
Consumer Complaint No. 41 of 2017 2
Present:-
For the complainants : Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate
For the opposite party : Sh. K.P. Singh, Advocate
GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
ORDER
Complainants have filed this complaint against the opposite party (hereinafter referred as Op) under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) on the averments that Smt. Raj Kumari wife of the complainant No. 1 was admitted in the Op Hospital on 31.12.2014 under the care of Sharad Gupta, Medical Officer having ailment pertaining to Kidney and Lungs. On 31.12.2014, she was not having any heart ailment as per the record of the Doctors, who examined her. The patient remained admitted in the Op Hospital from 31.12.2014 to 12.1.2015 and on that day she was discharged at the request of the complainant as the condition of the patient had deteriorated. The Op was not having any specialist to give the treatment of kidney or lungs. The Laboratory examination report shows that the Ops have not given any treatment of kidney and lungs. The body of the patient was retaining the water to a great extent for which no treatment was given to the patient, which ultimately led to death of the patient on 7.2.2015. The cause of death has been mentioned as under:-
"Septicaemic Shock Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Multi Organ Dysfunction Syndrome Consumer Complaint No. 41 of 2017 3 Acute Kidney Injury Lower Respiratory Tract Infection (Cause H1N1) Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease"
The deceased was a pensioner and her death has also caused loss to the pension. Alleging deficiency in services and medical negligence against the Ops, this complaint has been filed by the complainants against the Ops seeking following directions:-
(i) To direct opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs. 2,57,066/- incurred towards the treatment of the wife of the complainant paid to the opposite party along with 18% interest from 31.12.2014 to 12.1.2015 till realization.
(ii) To direct the opposite parties to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- for the precious loss of a family member of the complainant.
(iii) To direct the opposite parties to pay compensation in the sum of Rs. 15 Lacs on account of mental agony, physical harassment, deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and medical negligence caused to the complainant.
(iv) To direct the opposite parties to pay cost of litigation to the tune of Rs. 1 Lac to the complainants.
Consumer Complaint No. 41 of 2017 4
(v) Or any other directions which this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed their written reply taking preliminary objections that the complainant is not covered under the definition of the consumer, therefore, he has no locus standi to file this complaint; there are no specific allegations with regard to any medical negligence on the part of Ops; the complaint is abuse of process of this Commission and has given a distorted version in order to pressurize and harass the Op; it is on the record that the patient left LAMA on 12.1.2015 and expired on 7.2.2015, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of the CP Act with special costs; the complaint is barred by limitation as the complainant was discharged LAMA on 12.1.2015; the complaint, if any, was to be filed within a period of 2 years but it was filed after that, therefore, it is barred by limitation; the Op has a professional endowment policy from New India Assurance Co. Ltd., therefore, Insurance Company is a necessary party.
In Preliminary submissions, it was stated that deceased Raj Kumari was admitted in their hospital on 31.12.2014 and was discharged LAMA on 12.1.2015. There is no specific evidence with regard to any medical negligence on the part of Op. The Op is a Super Speciality Hospital at Bathinda, Unit of Hometrail Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. It is 200 bedded healthcare facility offer services in medial disciplines like Neurosciences, Orthopedics, Cardiac Sciences, Cancer Care, Medical Care, Diabetic Unit, Obstetrics and Consumer Complaint No. 41 of 2017 5 Gynecology, Minimal Access and Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery. The patient aged about 69 years was admitted in Emergency condition with Op Hospital suffering from Bradycardia, Dyspnoea. At the time of admission, her pulse was feeble, BP was not recordable, the patient was feeling drowsiness, breathlessness, complaint of C/o D.O.E. - 5 days. The patient was seen by the critical care team Dr. Parag Kumar, Anesthesia, Dr. Vitual Gupta, Internal Medicine, Dr. Sharad Gupta, Cardio and various other Doctors. ECHO of the patient was done on 31.12.2014, which revealed right heart failure with moderate tricuspid regurgitation. Every day condition of the patient was explained and treatment was discussed with patient's attendant. All efforts were made to improve Urine Output and manage the patient according to the complications the patient had. The patient was extubated from ventilator from August, 2015, therefore, every/best efforts was made to save the patient, who had landed in a very critical condition in the hospital. Attendants were very well aware about the medical management and hospitalization but wanted the patient to be discharged against medical advice. In parawise reply, preliminary objections and preliminary submissions were reiterated. It was again reiterated that every effort was made to improve the condition of the patient and it had improved. On 11.12.2014, the complainant made a request that the patient is suffering from kidney and lungs problem and that the Op was not having any Specialist and then Ops called Dr. Jagdeep from outside. Other facts of the complaint were denied. Op do not know the condition of Consumer Complaint No. 41 of 2017 6 the patient after 12.1.2015 to 7.2.2015 and what type of treatment was given to the patient. The burden to prove the medical negligence is upon the complainant. The complainant has failed to prove any medical negligence or any deficiency in services on the part of Op, therefore, the compensation as demanded by the complainant is not payable. Complaint is without merit, it be dismissed.
3. The parties were allowed to lead their respective evidence in support of his complaint. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit of Roshan Lal Jagga Ex. CW-1/A and documents Exs. C-1 to C-5. On the other hand, Op had tendered into evidence affidavit of Sunil Mehta Ex. OP-A and documents Ex. Op-1 to Op-16.
4. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents on the record with the assistance of the counsel for the complainant.
5. An objection has been taken by the Op that the complainant is not consumer being not legal heirs of deceased Raj Kumari but during the pendency of the complaint, the son and daughter of the deceased have been impleaded as complainants and treatment expenses were incurred by the husband, therefore, now the Op cannot take such an objection that the complainants are not the consumer qua the Op.
6. An objection has been taken that the complaint is barred by limitation because the deceased left the Op hospital in Consumer Complaint No. 41 of 2017 7 LAMA on 12.1.2015 whereas the complaint was filed by the complainant on 27.1.2017 beyond the period of two years, therefore, the complaint is barred by limitation. Whereas the complainant has stated that proper treatment was not given to the patient, therefore, the patient was got discharged from Op Hospital in LAMA and shifted to another hospital where the patient died on 7.2.2015. The cause of action will arise only when the complainants came to know that the treatment given by the Op was not upto mark and there was negligence and deficiency in service on their part. To support this preposition, the counsel for the complainant has referred to the judgment III (2010) CPJ 435 (NC) "Shailesh A. Shah (Dr.) versus Khodabhai Ganeshdas Patel". In that judgment, the Op took the objection that the period of limitation is to start when the patient was lastly treated and in case that date is taken then the complaint is barred by limitation. However, as indoor patient in the said hospital till 18.9.1995, in case the period is counted from the said date then the complaint filed by the complainant is within limitation and moreover, the cause of action was continue one, therefore, the complaint instituted on 11.8.1997 was held to be within limitation. A reference has been made to another judgment I (2006) CPJ 16 (NC) "Dr. Shyam Kumar versus Rameshbhai Harmanbhai Kachhiya". In that judgment, it was observed by the Hon'ble National Commission that cause of action arose only when the complainant came to know about actual failure of operation and complaint was held to be within limitation. He has referred to another judgment Consumer Complaint No. 41 of 2017 8 reported in IV (2009) CPJ 129 (NC) "G.K. Rao versus Dr. Bollineni Bhaskar Rao & Ors." In that case, the patient was suffering from complications arising out of heart operation and excision of cyst by the Doctor of Op No. 1. It was observed that if complications are due to medical treatment, the cause of action has to be treated as continued cause of action. Therefore, the complaint cannot be said to be barred by limitation. Another judgment has been referred from the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna reported in III (2006) CPJ 452 "P.B. Lal (Dr.) versus Suresh Chandra Roy". In that case, operation was conducted in 1990. Complaint was filed in 1997. It was stated that the patient was under treatment in various hospitals and Doctors and cause of action was continuous one. Whereas counsel for the Op has referred to the judgment 2013(2) CLT 534 "P. Balaram versus Dr. J. Lakshmana Rao & Others". In that case, the deficiency in service was allowed due to cut of the nerve due to the operation. It was observed that the limitation starts from the date of knowledge about the deficiency, which is undeniably can be taken to be 29.8.2015 and limitation of 2 years will be continued from the said date. Therefore, it emerges from these judgments that the cause of action will accrue from the date of knowledge of alleged deficiency/medical negligence. No doubt that the patient was got discharged in LAMA on 12.1.2015 from Op Hospital and after that she was taken to different hospitals and she expired on 7.2.2015, in which acute kidney injury and lungs problem was one of the reason, which came to the knowledge of Consumer Complaint No. 41 of 2017 9 the complainant on 7.2.2015 when the cause of death was explained to them. Therefore, date of knowledge in this case is recurring upto 7.2.2015 and in case cause of action is taken from this date then the complaint filed by the complainant on 27.1.2017 is within limitation period of 2 years.
7. Another objection has been taken with regard to the insurance of the hospital that complaint is bad for want of non- joinder of necessary party that is the Insurance Company but no detail of any insurance policy was given in the written statement and no separate application was filed by the Op to implead the Insurance Company as one of the party, therefore, objection with regard to non-joinder of necessary parties is hereby decided against the Op.
8. As per the pleadings and evidence on the record, the patient was admitted with the Op Hospital on 31.12.2014 as is clear from the investigation report Ex. C-1. Ex. C-1 is the Doppler report and its analysis is as under-
"Doppler Analysis:
Pulmonic Regurgitation : Nil Mitral Regurgitation : Nil Aortic Regurgitation : Nil Tricuspid Regurgitation : Moderate, TR-V=2.5, PG-25 mmHg, RVSP-35 mmHg Diastolic Parameters: Abnormal mitral inflow pattern, Mitral E: 0.9, A: 0.7, E/A:≥1 Consumer Complaint No. 41 of 2017 10 and in the final interpretation, it has been referred as under:-
1. No regional wall motion abnormality.
2. Global LVEF-62%.
3. Moderate TR, Mild PAH (PASP 35 mmHg).
4. Diastolic dysfunction type II.
5. Normal LA, LV, RA and RV chamber dimensions.
6. No intracardiac clot/mass/pericardial pathology."
Then alongwith it, there are laboratory investigation reports of the patient and some of the investigations date-wise are as under:-
Report Date : 31.12.2014 Parameter Result Unit Reference Range Sodium, Serum, 122.1* Mmol/L 136.0 - 146.0 Urea, Serum, (Urease, UV Method) 86.0* Mg/dL 17.0 - 43.0 Creatinine, Serum (Alkaline Picrate 1.82* Mg/dl 0.51 - 0.95 Method) Report Date : 1.1.2015 Sodium, Serum 123.5* Mmol/L 136.0 - 146.0 Urea, Serum (Urease, UV Method) 94.0 Mg/dl 17.0 - 43.0 Creatinine, Serum (Alkaline Picrate 2.21* Mg/dl 0.51 - 0.95 Method) Total Leucocyte Count (TLC) 13.6* 10-9/L 4.0 - 10.0 Total Protein 6.1 g/dl 6.6 - 8.3 Albumin 2.8* g/dl 3.5 - 5.2 Report Date : 2.1.2015 Creatinine, Serum (Alkaline Picrate 2.31* Mg/dl 0.51 - 0.95 Method) Report Date : 3.1.2015 Creatinine, Serum (Alkaline Picrate 2.14* Mg/dl 0.51 - 0.95 Method) Report Date : 4.1.2015 Creatinine, Serum (Alkaline Picrate 1.50* Mg/dl 0.51 - 0.95 Method) Report Date : 5.1.2015 Creatinine, Serum (Alkaline Picrate 1.43* Mg/dl 0.51 - 0.95 Method) Report Date : 6.1.2015 Urea, Serum (Urease, UV Method) 88.0 Mg/dl 17.0 - 43.0 Creatinine, Serum (Alkaline Picrate 1.51* Mg/dl 0.51 - 0.95 Method) Report Date : 7.1.2015 Urea, Serum (Urease, UV Method) 89.0 Mg/dl 17.0 - 43.0 Creatinine, Serum (Alkaline Picrate 1.42* Mg/dl 0.51 - 0.95 Method) Report Date : 10.1.2015 Urea, Serum (Urease, UV Method) 155.0 Mg/dl 17.0 - 43.0 Creatinine, Serum (Alkaline Picrate 1.99* Mg/dl 0.51 - 0.95 Consumer Complaint No. 41 of 2017 11 Method) Report Date : 11.1.2015 Urea, Serum (Urease, UV Method) 162.0 Mg/dl 17.0 - 43.0 Creatinine, Serum (Alkaline Picrate 2.46* Mg/dl 0.51 - 0.95 Method) Report Date : 11.1.2015 Creatinine, Serum (Alkaline Picrate 2.79* Mg/dl 0.51 - 0.95 Method) Ultrasound was got conducted on 1.1.2015 and its investigation report is as under:-
"Results:
The liver is enlarged measuring 19.2 cm in cranio-caudal span with subtle irregularity of hepatic margins. Mild diffuse increase in echogencity seen. No intrn hepatic biliary radicals dilatation seen.
Portal vein is prominent and measures 14.4mm in diameter. Gall bladder is & shows multiple calculi in its lumen, largest 16mm. Its wall is slightly thickened. Pancreas is normal in size, shape and echogenicity Spleen is normal size, shape and echogenicity. Bilateral kidneys are normal in size, shape and echogenicity. No calculus seen. Bilateral pelvicalyceal systems are normal. Corticomedullary differentiation is maintained bilaterally. Urinary bladder is normal in shape, outline and distension. Lumen is anechoic and no wall thickening seen. Moderate free fluid is seen in the abdomen/pelvis."
On 5.1.2015, CT Whole Thorax (Plain) was conducted and its result is as under:-
Consumer Complaint No. 41 of 2017 12
"Volumetric scanning for the chest was obtained on a MDCT (16slices) scanner.
Small amount of fluid is seen in right pleural cavity with partial passive segmental atelectasis and basal consolidation. Crowding of bronchovascular markings with patchy air space shadows seen in bilateral hilar/ perihilar regions. Atelectatic bands are also seen in posterior basal and posterior segments of bilateral upper lobes. Multiple subcentimeter and upto centimeter size mediastinal nodes are seen in pre/paratracheal, pre/subcarinal locations. Few sizeable nodes are also seen in left axilla with larger measuring app. 1.4cms. Small nodes are also seen in right axilla.
The trachea is central.
The pleura / chest wall are normal. Cardiac size is enlarged."
According to this report, pleural / chest part was normal but cardiac size is enlarged. Again ultrasound was conducted on 10.1.2015 and its investigation report is as under;-
"Results:
Urinary bladder is normal in shape, outline and distension. Lumen is anechoic and no bladder wall thickening seen. No mass lesion seen.
Minimal free fluid is seen in the pelvis seen."
X-ray PA/AP was also taken on 1.1.2015 and its report is as under:-
Consumer Complaint No. 41 of 2017 13
"Investigation : X-Ray - Chest AP (Portable) View Results:
Catchy opacity seen in left perihilar region? Etiology Pangles and domes of the diaphragm are normal. Both hila are normal. Pulmonary vasculature is prominent. Cardiac size and configuration is normal. Trachea is central; no mediastinal shift is seen. Bony thorax and soft tissues of the chest wall are normal."
Again on 5.1.2015, X-ray Chest PA/AP was conducted and its investigation report is as under:-
"Investigation : X-Ray - Chest AP (Portable) View Results:
Homogeneous opacity seen in the right lower zone and right paracardiac region (? Pneumonitis with effusion) OP angles and domes of the diaphragm are obscured on both sides.
Cardiac size is enlarged.
Trachea is central; no mediastinal shift is seen. Bony thorax and soft tissues of the chest wall are normal."
In another X-ray of 5.1.2015, it was observed as under:-
"Investigation : X-Ray - Chest AP (Portable) View Results:
Defined opacities seen in the right perihilar region and right paracardiac region (? etiology) OP angles and domes of the diaphragm are out of view. Cardiac size and configuration is normal. Trachea is central; no mediastinal shift is seen. Bony thorax and soft tissues of the chest wall are normal." Consumer Complaint No. 41 of 2017 14
Again on 10.1.2015, X-ray Chest PA/AP was conducted and its investigation report is as under:-
"Investigation : X-Ray - Chest AP (Portable) View Results:
Defined opacities seen in bilateral upper zones (? etiology) OP angles and domes of the diaphragm are normal. Both hila are normal. Pulmonary vasculature is normal. Cardiac size and configuration is normal. Trachea is central; no mediastinal shift is seen. Bony thorax and soft tissues of the chest wall are normal."
9. In the discharge summary Ex. C-4, the diagnose was as under:-
"DM II HTN Normal LVEF Moderate to Severe TR CO2 Narcosis ARF Recovered"
and the Hospital Course is as under:-
Pt presented to emergency with complaints of DOE from 5 Days, Bradycardia, Drowsiness and BP unrecordable managed with IV Fluids, EPI infusion, CA Gluconate given (Stat) and other conservative measures. Pt. admitted to CCU.
Pt. put on Niv. Treatment started. Pt. had low output dialysis done output = 40-50 ML/HR. Pt. intubated and put on ventilator support next day for CO2 retain and low Saturation. Pt. continue on treatment. Pt. Extubated Later on haematuria Consumer Complaint No. 41 of 2017 15 was there. Irrigation started and continued for that. USG revealed normal study. Urine output decreased later. Inf Lasix started output increased to 30 ML/HR. Pt. need further Hospitilisation. Bt relatives refused. Pt going leave against medical advice."
Op in its evidence has also placed on the record the discharge summary alongwith documents Ex. Op-1 to Ex. Op-1/16.
10. It has been argued by the counsel for the complainant that mainly the Op had given treatment with regard to the heart treatment but alongwith heart problem the complainant was facing problem with regard to the kidney and lungs for which no proper treatment has been given, which is clear from the test report of Urea Serum and Creatinine Serum referred above in the investigation report. The creatinine test and ultrasound abdomen as referred above and the discharge summary showing the hospital course shows mainly the treatment given with regard to the heart problem. The patient was incubated and on improving the condition of the heart, he was extubated. With regard to the Creatinine, blood test is done to check the function of the kidney and high level creatinine may indicate that your kidney is damaged and not working properly and ultrasound abdomen shows fluid in the abdomen/pelvis. In case it is not properly treated, it may further aggravate the disease in the patient, which amounts to deficiency in service/medical negligence. In this regard, the counsel for the complainant has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2010(5) SCC 513 "V. Kishan Rao versus Nikhil Consumer Complaint No. 41 of 2017 16 Super Speciality Hospital & Another". In this case, the patient was admitted subject to certain tests but Malaria was not diagnosed. The patient was treated for Typhoid although typhoid was also found negative. The patient did not respond to medicines given by the Doctor and in a critical condition shifted to other hospital and in the test conducted there, Malaria was diagnosed but patient died. The Doctor was held negligent and was awarded compensation of Rs. 2 Lacs alongwith cost of litigation.
11. The cause of death as referred above has not been denied by the counsel for the Op shows that apart from respiratory distress, it was case of multiple organ dysfunction, kidney injury and lower respiratory tract infection. Although the record of the other hospital to which the patient was taken lateron has not been placed on the record but prima-facie on the basis of investigation conducted by the Op hospital, no treatment was given with regard to any kidney problem or problem to the lungs (pulmonary disease), which was there as per investigation report of the patient as referred above. Moreover, no expert with regard to the kidney problem was available with the Op. Op in their written statement has specifically stated that they offered services in medial disciplines like Neurosciences, Orthopedics, Cardiac Sciences, Cancer Care, Medical Care, Diabetic Unit, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Minimal Access and Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery but kidney specialty is not there with the Op Hospital. Instead of giving proper management to the patient, the Op continued with the treatment of their own without calling for any Specialist in kidney Consumer Complaint No. 41 of 2017 17 treatment. Mere dialysis is not the treatment of kidney disease. They called Dr. Jagdeep from outside but no date is mentioned on which date the said Doctor was called and what treatment he had given is not reflected in the discharge summary and counsel for the Op has also not referred to any other treatment document during the course of arguments. Once the proper treatment was not given at the initial stage, the problem aggravated and ultimately the patient died.
12. Counsel for the Op stated that the patient left the hospital in LAMA on 12.1.2015 and they do not know what treatment was given to the patient upto 7.2.2015 and moreover there is no expert opinion placed on the record by the complainant that the death of the patient was due to wrong treatment given by the Op. With regard to the expert evidence, the counsel for the complainant has again referred to the judgment "V. Kishan Rao versus Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital & Another" (supra) wherein it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that claim of the petitioner cannot be rejected only on the ground that expert witness was not examined to prove the negligence of the Doctor. The general directions given in D'Souze case reported in 2009 (2) RCR (Civil) 1 "Martin F. D'souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq", to have expert evidence in all cases of medical negligence cannot be treated as a binding precedent and those directions must be confined to the particular facts of that case. All the directions given in D'souza's case are also contrary to the law laid down in the case of "Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha", (1995) 6 SCC Consumer Complaint No. 41 of 2017 18 651 and "Dr. J.J. Merchant v. Shrinath Chaturvedi", (2002) 6 SCC 635. In most of the cases, the question whether a medical practitioner or the hospital is negligent or not, is a mixed question of fact and law and the Fora is not bound in every case to accept the opinion of the expert witness. It was also observed that in case where negligence is evident the principle of res ipsa loquitur operates and the complainant does not have to prove anything as the thing (res) prove itself.
13. No other point was argued.
14. Sequel to the above, we are of the opinion that the patient was admitted in Op Hospital. Apart from heart problem the patient was also suffering with kidney and lungs problem but no specific treatment was given to the patient for its kidney and lungs problem and they did not have any Specialists in that Branch in their hospital. In case they have given the heart treatment but did not give any treatment to the kidney and lungs, the problem aggravated, therefore, the patient could not improve in the hospital of the Op and under the compelling circumstances the patient was got discharged LAMA on 12.1.2015. The patient was taken to some other hospital including DMC & H, Ludhiana but the patient did not respond to the treatment and died on 7.2.2015. For not giving treatment to kidney and lungs problem, had deteriorated the condition of the patient, which ultimately led to her death, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there is medical negligence or deficiency in service on the part of Op for not giving the treatment to kidney and lungs problem of the patient which Consumer Complaint No. 41 of 2017 19 deteriorated the condition of the patient and ultimate death of the patient. For medical negligence or deficiency in service on the part of Op, Op is directed to pay Rs. 10 Lacs as lumpsum amount to the complainant, which include compensation and litigation expenses.
15. The amount is ordered to be paid within 45 days of the receipt of the copy of the order, failing which it will carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till payment. In case the Op fails to comply with the above directions, the complainants will be at liberty to execute the order by filing application under Sections 25 & 27 of the CP Act against the Op.
16. The consumer complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
17. Order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
(GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) MEMBER June 04, 2018.
as