National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Basant Seth & Anr. vs Regency Hospital Ltd on 22 January, 2002
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 99 OF 1994 Basant Seth & Anr. Complainants Vs. Regency Hospital Ltd. Opposite Party BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA, PRESIDENT HONBLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MEHRA, MEMBER. MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER. MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER (i) Vicarious liability - Hospital cannot be held vicariously liable on account of negligence on the part of doctors unless the doctors impleaded and get opportunity to defend. (ii) Consultants - Hospital will be liable for negligence of consultants. (iii) Deficiency in service - primary liability - Hospital liable for breach of its own duty. For the complainant : Mr. Lalit Bhasin, Ms. Shipra Mathur and Ms. Sonia Mehta, Advocates for M/s. Bhasin & Co., Advocates. For the opposite party : Mr. Joseph Vellapally, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Vikas Mehta, Advocate with him for Ms. Indu Malhotra, Advocate. ORDER
Dated the 22nd January, 2002 PER JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA, (PRESIDENT).
Complainant is the son of Mrs. Krishna Seth who died on 31.10.93 in the opposite partys hospital. Complaint is that the death was due to gross negligence on the part of the Regency Hospital Ltd. (for short Hospital). This complaint was filed on 28.4.1994. Admittedly when the complaint was filed father of the complainant (husband of the deceased) was alive and the deceased was also survived by her other son. Neither his father nor his other brother are parties to this complaint. During pendency of the complaint it is stated that the father expired. During the course of arguments when this flaw in the complaint was pointed out, an application was filed on 16.10.2001 to bring on record Mr. Amar Seth, brother of the complainant also as an complainant. Since no objection was raised by the opposite party-Hospital, memo of parties was allowed to be amended and Amar Seth was added as second complainant.
Complainant is claiming damages on two counts. Rs.40.00 lakhs towards causing untimely death of Krishna Seth due to gross negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the Hospital including the doctors and nurses and for the mental agony undergone during the treatment by the family and refund of expenses of Rs.35,166/- incurred by the complainant on the treatment of his mother at the Hospital where she died. Out of compensation of Rs.40.00 lakhs, Rs.30.00 lakhs are on account of negligence and deficiency of service and Rs.10.00 lakhs on account of mental agony and torture suffered by the complainant and his relations during the treatment of his mother. As far as claim for refund of expenses is concerned we find there are particulars given in the complaint. But as to how complainant has arrived at the amount of Rs.30.00 lakhs and Rs.10.00 lakhs on account of alleged negligence and mental agony suffered by him and other family members, no where it has been spelt out in the complaint. Though father of the complainant is not alive today but he did not prefer any claim for loss of consortium of his wife on the alleged negligence of the Hospital. We are not made known what income, if any, Krishna Seth was having and what was loss to her estate on account of her death. Complainant himself was of 41 years of age at the time of death of Krishna Seth. He does not say if he was dependant on his mother. His grievance is that he suffered loss of his mother due to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Hospital, doctors and nurses. His claim is thus of the loss of company of his mother. How long he would have that company he does not spell out in the complaint. One can not question the love of the child for his parent. But then the parent also do not live for all times. This is the fact of life where everything is weighed in terms of money. To arrive at a compensation for loss of company of mother we have to see the age of the child and that of the mother. Under Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 a suit for compensation for death by negligence is maintainable. Such action shall, however, be for the benefit of the wife, husband, parent, and child, if any, of the person whose death has been so caused. We will take the child here to be son or daughter of any age. Present complaint by the complainant is certainly maintainable.
But to how much compensation he will be entitled to, if we hold in his favour , we will be left groping in dark and complainant would be entitled only to be a token compensation on account of the loss of his mother, considering his age and that of his deceased mother and the ailment she was suffering from.
In the first paragraph of the complaint, complainant has alleged that death of his mother took place due to the negligence on the part of the Hospital. In the body of the complaint and the prayer he attributes negligence and deficiency of service not only on the part of the Hospital but to the doctors and Hospital staff. Doctors against whom negligence is alleged are not parties to this complaint. To hold the Hospital vicariously liable on account of negligence of the doctors it was imperative for the complainant that doctors are impleaded as opposite parties and they get opportunities to defend themselves. That not having been done, Hospital cannot be held vicariously liable for alleged negligence on the part of the doctors. As a matter of fact as we see the sequence of events and the record of treatment rendered by the doctors that itself would show how uncharitable complainant has been in attributing negligence to the attending doctors who did their best in attending on Krishna Seth. Apart from those doctors there are three doctors namely Dr. K.M. Seth, Dr. Sharad Seth and Dr. K.K. Kapoor who are closely related to the complainant and all of them, according to the complainant himself, used to visit Hospital almost everyday to see Krishna Seth. Affidavit of none of these three doctors has been filed by the complainant as in our view they would have been the best persons to tell us if there was any negligence on the part of the attending doctors or the Hospitals staff in treating Krishna Seth. No sufficient cause had been given as to why these three doctors who are relatives of the complainant have not been produced by the complainant and on this score alone we would draw an adverse presumption against the complainant that had they been produced they would not have supported the case of the complainant.
We are conscious of the fact that vicarious liability however, cannot be mixed up with the primary liability of the Hospital when there is breach of its own duty. Primary liability of the Hospital remains if it is deficient in service like failure to supply the equipment necessary for the treatment of the patient. Therefore is no difficulty in holding that Hospital would be vicariously liable when doctors or the Hospitals staff on its role is negligent or deficient in providing services. In our view, however, Hospital would be even liable when negligence is alleged against consultants. Patient would not know the arrangement between the doctor and the hospital when he is being treated in the Hospital by the doctor concerned. Mother of the complainant Krishna Seth was admitted in the Hospital on 24.10.93 where she died on 31.10.1993. At the time of her death, Krishna Seth was 63 years of age.
She was a chronic patient of cirrhosis of liver since November, 1991. At Kanpur where she was residing doctors could not diagnose her ailment properly and were of the view that she was suffering from cancer. Krishna Seth was taken to Bombay where she was diagnosed as suffering from cirrhosis of liver. She was admitted in the Bombay Hospital and was under treatment of a Gastroentrologist. She remained in the Hospital for about ten days. At that time it was the brother of the complainant who attended on his mother in Bombay. Krishna Seth remained under constant check up and once or twice she was again taken to Bombay.
At about 10.30 AM on 24.10.93 Krishna Seth passed black stools. She lost her speech and became semi-conscious.. Within 10 minutes complainant contacted Dr. Sharad Seth, nephew of complainant. Dr. Seth is MS , a Surgeon and resident of Kanpur. Dr. Sharad Seths father Dr. K.M. Seth is also a doctor. There is another relative of the complainant Dr. K.K. Kapoor, MD, a Physician who is his maternal uncle. Dr. Sharad Seth in turn got in touch with Dr. V.K. Mishra, a Gastroentrologist on whose advice he instructed the complainant to take his mother to the Hospital. Krishna Seth was taken in an ambulance to the Hospital. Complainant was with her. No other person was with him. His father followed the ambulance in a car. In the Hospital, Krishna Seth was admitted in causality and was attended by Dr. G.S. Grover, MD who at the instance of the complainant recorded the following in the clinical sheet:
Chronic Active Hepatitis with Cirrhosis Liver with P.U.O. presented with h/o ? Passage of stool mixed with blood following which she became drowsy and finally unconscious for which she was taken to our hospital at about 1.00 PM for further management.
Along with the complaint, complainant filed a certificate from the Hospital dated 1.11.1993 with his complaint which states:
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN This is to certify that Mrs. Krishna Seth, aged 63 years, W/O Mr. KN Seth, R/o 7/93A, Tilak Nagar, Kanpur was admitted here as a case of Coma with Right Hemiplegi cause Intracerebral Haemorrhage with Chronic Active Hepatitis with Cirrhosis Liver on 24.10.93 and expired on 31.10.93.
Complainant in his statement admits that disease of liver cirrhosis is irreversible and life long ailment. Alleging deficiency in service complainant filed this complaint on 28.4.1994. His father who was alive at that time and also his brother Amar Seth did not join him in filing the complaint. It was not that complainant was not aware of the necessity to join his father and brother in the complaint as best legal counseling was available to him and moreover the question was specifically raised in the proceedings. Yet complainant chose not to bring his father and brother on record. As noted above, it is only at the fag end of the case, an application was filed in October, 2001 seeking to implead Amar Seth as Complainant No.2 Hospital did not oppose this application. It was, therefore, allowed. Father of the complainant died in the meanwhile.
Hospital in its written version denied any negligence on its part. It stated that best possible treatment was given to the deceased Krishna Seth who was attended by specialists. It was unfortunate that Krishna Seth died. In support of his case complaint appeared as his own witness. He also produced one Dr. J.P. Saxena, MBBS, MD (Forensic Science), LL.B, who is Medico-legal Consultant. He has the experience of appearing as witness in many cases. Dr. Saxena was produced only after three opportunities were given to the complainant to produce his expert evidence, if any. By this time affidavits of three doctors who attended on Krishna Seth had been filed. They are Dr. V.K. Mishra, MBBS, MD, DM Gastroentrologist, Dr. Mukul Verma, MBBS, MD, DM, a Neuro-physician, and Dr. Mohit Kacker, MS, MCH, Neoro-surgeon. These three doctors appeared in support of the case of the Hospital that there was no negligence whatsoever and best possible treatment was given to Krishna Seth. Hospital also produced Dr. D.K. Chhabra, a renowned Neuro-surgeon as its independent expert witness. He is professor of Neuro-surgery in Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Medical Institute Lucknow since 1986. Earlier he was professor of Neuro-surgery in K.G. Medical College, Lucknow. None of the three relative doctors of the complainant or his brother came to support him. No other family member or relative also came to support him.
Coming back to sequence of events after Krishna Seth was admitted in the Hospital, Dr. Grover examined her and wrote on the clinical case sheet. Thereafter she was examined by Dr. Mishra, Gastroentrologist and then after two hours Krishna Seth developed convulsions on the right side which was diagnosed by Dr. Mishra as case of Cerebro Vascular Accident (CVA). Krishna Seth was administered immediately intravenous mannitol, dexona and epsolin injection for the treatment of CVA. It was not disputed these were not the proper medicines. Yet the complainant said that mannitol was not administered in proper doses without there being any authority for him to say so.
CAT Scan in the Hospital was not available for use on 24.10.93 as it was under repairs. It was done on the following day on 25.10.93 which confirmed that patient was suffering from CVA. CAT Scan report showed that patient had developed a large frontoparietal haemorrhage. Krishna Seth was also examined by Dr. Mohit Kacker, a Neuro-surgeon on 24.10.93 at about 6.00 PM , who agreed with the diagnosis that patient was suffering from CVA. He approved the medicines which had already been prescribed and administered to Krishna Seth. He advised CAT Scan. On the following day at about 12.20 PM Dr. Mukul Verma, a Neuro-physician examined Krishna Seth. CAT Scan was taken on 25.10.93 which confirmed the diagnosis. Dr. Mukul Verma was of the opinion that patient should continue with the same medicines and he also sought opinion of Dr. Mohit Kacker, if patient be operated upon. Dr. Mohit Kacker was of the view, after he had examined the conditions of the patient, that she be not subjected to any surgery and that the treatment already being administered be continued. In the treatment of Intracerebral Haemorrhage there is a choice between medical and surgical therapy. Considering that the patient had developed a large frontoparietal haemorrhage, her age and her suffering from acute liver cirrhosis, Dr. Kacker was of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served by surgery. As a matter of fact second CAT Scan taken on 27.10.93 showed that size of the haemorrhage had reduced. In spite of the treatment Krishna Seth died on 31.10.1993, It has been the contention of the complainant that if Cat Scan was not available immediately and surgery could not be performed that lumbar puncture ought to have been done to save the patient. In this he gets support from Dr. J.P. Saxena who, as noted above, is neither a Gastroenterlogist nor Neuro-physician or Neuro-surgeon. In his statement complainant admits that he had also consulted Dr. D.K. Chhbra, a brain Surgeon and he admits he is a good doctor of repute. Dr. Chhbra, who was produced by the Hospital, in his affidavit which was filed by way of evidence stated as under:
1. That I have no connection or dealing with Regency Hospital. I have been asked to independently go through the clinical records of Regency Hospital in regard to Smt. Krishna Seth, a photocopy of which has been annexed herewith, and I have signed each page for the purpose of identification. Smt. Krishna Seth was admitted at 1 PM on 24.10.93 and was in the hospital until her death on 31.10.93
2. Based on my knowledge and experience, I affirm and state that in my opinion the diagnosis and treatment given to the patient and the management of her case was proper and adequate in every way. I affirm and state that in my opinion, having regrd to her condition, it was not a proper case for a surgery and the choice for medical treatment as against surgical therapy in this case in respect of Intra Cerebral Haemorrhage was a reasonable and proper choice in the best interest of the patient.
Dr. Chhabra was subjected to cross-examination. He did not support the stand of the complainant or Dr. Saxena that lumbar puncture should have been done. Dr. Saxena was referred to para 2 of the affidavit of Dr. Chhabra and was asked what he had to say about the opinion of Dr. Chhabra. Dr. Saxena said he had not to comment on that. He said that was the opinion of Dr. Chhabra. Dr. Saxena knew Dr. Chhabra who was the Professor of Neuro-surgery in SGPIMS and earlier in K.G. Medical College Lucknow.
At this stage we reproduce the following statement of Dr. Chhabra in the cross-examination when he appeared before this Commission:
Q: What is the present post occupied by you?
A: I am Chief Neuro Surgery here in the academic position.
Q: During the course of your work do you come across many cases of brain haemorrhage?
A. It is true. It is a common entity that we come across.
Q. You do many brain surgeries from time to time? A: Myself and my team perform on an average 4 to 5 cases per day - 5 days a week.
Q: Doctor, very roughly speaking, out of every 100 cass of brain haemorrhage - very roughly speaking, what proportion is treated surgically, what proporation is treated medically? A. We treat as Neuro-Surgeons selected cases identified by us which require surgical intervention- predominantly because of bleeding is such that they need to be treated - hyper tensive or intra cerebral surgical bleeds - majority are not treated by us - they are looked after by our Neurologist colleagues. Where it is proved on angiograph that the cause of bleeding is such which needs intervention for the prevention of rebleeding are looked after by us as Neuro Surgeons. In exceptional cases we have operated where we do not know the cause of bleeding and the clot was so large that it needed intervention that we have operated as a life-saving procedure.
Q: Dr. J.P. Saxena has given evidence in this Commission on 7.2.97. He made a statement that immediate surgery is necessary in all cases of brain haemorrhage.
Can you offer any comments on this statement? A: I would say that it is not true. No text book, no international literature says that all cases of brain haemorrhage should be operated. Nowhere. Nowhere in the world all cases of brain haemorrhage are operated. It is only that a selective number of cases are operated - those predominantly to prevent rebleeding, a very small number, considering the size of the clot and the location of the clot and the clinical settings and the age of the patient and various other factors. Q: Doctor, regarding this diagnosis, a statement was made by Dr. J.P. Saxena that a lumbar puncture should be done as a matter of routine even in the absence of CT scan to diagnose brain haemorrhage. Can you offer your comments on that statement?
A: Lumbar puncture is done to find out the nature of the circulating CSF. It was a routine primary test performed, may be 15-20 years back, for primary diagnosis of meningitis. Today in advanced countries, in any developed countries, much before a lumbar puncture is done, if facilities are available, a CAT Scan is done and it is followed by a lumbar puncture. Unless the clinical setting is so strong that it is a straightforward case suggestive of meningitis, then it is done or subarachnoid haemorrhage in which the sudden rupture of blood vessel in the supra territorial space takes place - that means haemorrhage due to a particular cause, to confirm the CSF bleeding because of the presentation of a sudden and severe head-ache, then it is done; otherwise, it is not done as a routine in all case"
All the three doctors namely Dr. V.K. Mishra, Dr. Mohit Kacker, and Dr. Mukul Verma who attended on Krishna Seth filed their affidavits by way of examination-in-chief and were subjected to extensive cross-examination. They have stated that proper treatment was given to the patient and in the circumstances there was proper management in treating her in the Hospital. Nothing worth has come in the cross-examination from which it could even remotely be suggested that any of these doctors faulted in their mission to treat the patient. Dr. Chharba who is undisputedly the authority on the subject of brain operation surgery has given his opinion that treatment was proper. It was not suggested to him that his opinion could have been different if he had not seen any particular report. In the face of statements of these four doctors it is difficult to accept the opinion of Dr. Saxena who is not at all versed in the subject of gastroenteritis or neurology. Even he admits that otherwise proper medicines were administered to the patient. Dr. Saxena is a Texicologist. We do not think he is competent enough to give opinion on the subject of Neuro-surgery when he himself has no experience of surgery. We attach no value to the statement and it is unnecessary to refer to that in any detail. Rather Dr. Saxena has been contradicted by Dr. D.K. Chhabra, a Neuro-surgeon of eminence.
Complainant had been attributing negligence to the Hospital because CAT Scan of the patient could not be taken on 24.10.93 as CAT Scan was inoperative on that day. He said that he was not allowed to remove his mother to any other place for getting Cat Scan as he was prevented from doing so. It is difficult for us to believe the statement of complainant that his mother was not allowed to be taken out. As noted above, no one supports his statement. Approach to the treatment of the patient could not have been different if CAT Scan was taken on 24.10.93. Further grievance of the complainant had been that there was no proper management in treating the patient. We cannot give credence to any of these issues raised by the complainant.
He had three doctors who are his relative and had been visiting Hospital everyday. They were the best possible persons to support the stand of the complainant.
No other family member of the complainant had come forward to support him. Complainant was specifically asked if he would produce any of his relatives - doctors as witness and his answer was negative, though he stated that Dr. Sharad Seth could come to substantiate his certificate. This certificate we find had been filed with the affidavit dated 10.10.96 of the complainant where he merely tried to contradict the affidavit of Dr. Atul Kapoor, Managing Director of the Hospital stating that Krishna Seth was not under his supervision or care either in the past or either at the time of admission/treatment at the Hospital; that he diagnosed her as suffering from G.I. bleeding at the time of admission; that the prognosis/treatment was ever explained/discussed with him by the attending doctors; or that he was visiting the patient from time to time in the ICU. This certificate is given with the heading TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN. This certificate, as it is, has no meaning. We must draw a presumption against the complainant that if any of three doctors had appeared as witness, he would not have supported the case of the complainant. Stand of Dr. J.P. Saxena that in his opinion lumbar puncture should have been done immediately also does not find any support from any authority. In fact he had been contradicted by the expert evidence. We have been referred Harrisons Principles of Internal Medicine 2 (11th edition) page 1953 on lumbar puncture as under:
lumbar puncture in a patient with Intra Cerebral Hemorrhage involves considerable risk, because it may aggravate temporal lobe herniation if the hematoma is large and located in a supratentorial area. Grievance of the complainant had been that patient was not shifted to ICU on 26.10.93 and instead she was shifted only on 28.10.93. Dr. Chharba was cross-examined on this aspect as well. It seems Dr. Chhabra, an expert, was visibly annoyed at the question put by the complainant exhibiting his ignorance of the subject of ICU. We may quote some excerpts from the cross-examination of Dr. Chhabra: Q. I am asking you because you have made a statement in your affidavit that the management of the patient and everything is all right. Therefore, I am asking you that this statement in the affidavit has been made by you without having a look at the doctors visit charts and the nursing charts. A. I would answer it before the Commission. It is not necessary for me to see how many times the ward boy attended, how many times the nurses came and signed the papers. I go by the advice offered by the doctors from time to time. If that was the line of management and the basic principle, it is all right. If somebody required a hot water bottle at a particular time, I am not worried about that. As long as the basic management, the fundamental principles are concerned, if those have been ordered and carried out, I can only say ordered, whether carried or not, I cannot say. Hon. President: Whether the papers furnished to you contained certain information regarding the basic management? Witness: Yes, that I have certified that the basic principles and the line of management is OK.
Questions were being put to the witness as to what he understood by ICU and what was his perception about it:
Counsel Bhasin: I am asking him what is his perception. The general perception is that it should be a totally well-equipped environment where emergencies of any nature involved in that particular disease or malady of the patient can be taken care of. That is my perception of an ICU. Witness: There are ICUs with different descriptions available. There is a coronary ICU. There is a surgical ICU. There is a medical ICU. All kinds of ICUs for different perceptions available.
Hon President: Is there any neuro-surgical or neurological ICU?
A. It is separate.
Hon President: Separate ICU for both neurological and neuro-surgical.
A. That is what I am saying. This is a separate neurosurgical department which has its own ICU.
Hon President: Where the equipment may be different.
A: Yes.
Q: Are you familiar that in the Regency Hospital there are different types of ICUs?
A: There is one ICU there. We have an ICU. The first question is - what is the perception of ICU? Who qualifies to be in an ICU? Your first question raised was: should every patient of brain haemorrhage be sent to an ICU? A case of brain haemorrhage may just walk into the hospital, fully conscious, alert but with a slight change in mentation. Should he be sent to ICU? I would not agree.
Q: You have seen the records of this particular case?
A: This patient went to the hospital not as a neuro-surgical or neurological patient but with a hepatic problem, suspected cirrhosis, chronic hepatic failure and that too, acute one.
Q. Not as a case of cerebral haemorrhage?
A. No This was the presentation when the patient entered the hospital. Subsequently, it took a different turn and suspicion came that it could have been a brain haemorrhage and was investigated and found to be a brain haemorrhage and treatment was instituted as was desired for a case of brain haemorrhage. Dr. Chhabra is quite categorical in his stand that in the circumstances there was proper management in treating the deceased and it was not a fit case for surgery. We do not find any reason whatsoever not to accept the evidence of Dr. Chhabra. In this view of the matter we do not think it is necessary for ourselves to refer to the Hospital records and to examine the same minutely as we do not find that any useful purpose will be served by that.
A grievance was made by the complainant that Dr. Atul Kapoor, Managing Director of the Hospital though filed his affidavit did not appear for his cross-examination. We do not think any advantage can be taken by the complainant in that situation. It is not clear to us on what aspect complainant wanted to cross-examine him. If according to him that was important he could have made a request for his production for cross-examination. It was not done.
No inference, therefore, can be drawn against Dr. Kapoor for not appearing before this Commission for his cross-examination.
Mr. Joseph Vellapally, learned Senior Advocate for the Hospital severely commented on the conduct of the complainant in having stolen the Hospital record of the treatment of his mother. He said even a First Information Report was lodged with the Police that there was a theft of the record of the patient. It is not necessary for us to go into that question but we note that the original record was in fact produced in these proceedings by the complainant. When he was having the records it is not clear to us why he did not produce the same while he filed the complaint as at that time he annexed only two documents with the complaint, that being brief resume of the Hospital as to what services were available in various medical fields, payments to the Hospital regarding the treatment of Krishna Seth and lastly the certificate dated 1.11.93 of the Hospital about the death of Krishna Seth. It was only with his affidavit filed subsequently that the complainant annexed as many as 65 pages of the hospital records which made Mr. Vellapally to comment that there had been tampering in the records as well.
To put it more candidly complainant has sought compensation for causing the untimely death of his mother due to gross negligence and the deficiency of service on the part of the Hospital authorities including the doctors and nurses and for mental agony undergone by the complainant and his family during the treatment. Complainant is a bachelor. We do not know which family members he is referring to. His father was alive at the time of filing of this complaint. His father or even his brother did not join the complainant in making allegations of negligence etc. against the Hospital, the doctors and the Hospital staff and seeking compensation as claimed by the complainant, though brother of the complainant was permitted to join at the fag end of the proceedings by order dated 3.12.2001 when arguments heard and orders reserved in the complaint. It is not that that he had signed the pleadings or even appeared to support the complainant. Other close relatives of the complainant whose names have come in the proceedings are three doctors namely Dr. Sharad Seth, Dr. K.M. Seth and Dr. K.K. Kapoor. They also do not support the complainant that there were any failings or faults on the part of the Hospital, its staff or the doctors in providing proper medical management services and treatment to the deceased. A team of competent doctors namely Dr. V.K. Mishra, Dr. Mohit Kacker, and Dr. Mukul Verma treated the deceased. As a matter of fact any allegation of incompetence or negligence against a doctor cannot be permitted or looked into without making the doctor party in the proceedings. An independent witness Dr. D.K. Chhabra, a reputed Nuero-surgeon whose competence could not even be doubted by the complainant or his witness Dr. Saxena, appeared in the proceedings and testified that the treatment given to the deceased was proper and nothing more could have been done. He also stated that case of Krishna Seth was not a fit and proper case for surgery. There was no warrant whatsoever for the complainant to file this complaint making allegations of negligence and incompetence against the Hospital, its staff and the doctors.
Complainant has failed to prove any negligence on the part of the Hospital. This complainant has no merit and its dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-. .J. (D.P. WADHWA) PRESIDENT ..J. (J.K. MEHRA) MEMBER ..
( RAJYALAKSHMI RAO) MEMBER ..
( B.K. TAIMNI) MEMBER