National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Dr. Shrikant V. Mukewar vs Vimal & 2 Ors. on 20 September, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 781 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 04/12/2015 in Appeal No. 107/2008 of the State Commission Maharastra) 1. DR. SHRIKANT V. MUKEWAR MIDAS HOSPITAL CENTRAL BAZAR ROAD, RAMDSPETH NAGPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. VIMAL & 2 ORS. WD/O MADHAVRAO YEOLE, R/O C/O RATNAKAR YEOLE, PLOT NO. 20, ADHYAPAK LAYOUT NEW TRIMURTI NAGAR, NAGPUR MAHARASHTRA 2. CIVIL SURGAON, INDIRA GANDHI MEDICAL COLLEGE CENTRAL AVENUE ROAD, NAGPUR MAHARASHTRA 3. ARIF NURSING HOME AND CRITICAL CARE UNIT, 3RD FLOOR, PUSPAGANJ CENTRAL BAZAR ROAD, RAMDASPETH NAGPUR MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Manish Gupta, Advocate For the Respondent : For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. S. B. Solat, Advocate For other Respondents : NEMO Dated : 20 Sep 2016 ORDER DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER
1. Brief facts relevant to dispose of this revision petition are that on 12-09-2002, Mr. Mahadeo Yeole, a 69 years old person (herein referred as patient) was suffering from abdominal pain. He consulted the local doctor, Dr. Sawarkar at Katol, as per his advise, the complainant, Smt.Vimal admitted her husband (patient) in the Midas Hospital at Nagpur which is run by Dr. Shrikant V. Mukewar (opposite party herein). The patient was known case of COPD i.e. chronic obstruction pulmonary disease, i.e. difficulty in breathing and there was obstruction to the air flow. The OP 1 administered injection Clavam at 8 P.M. On 13-09-02002 the OP 1 examined the patient at 10 A.M. and advised x-ray chest and some blood tests. In the evening Dr. Anand Prasad examined him and advised further line of treatment. The complainant alleged that the OP 1 was sitting in his chamber and was not paying any attention to the patient. Even the staff also neglected the patient. The patient was anemic. The patient's condition was deteriorating, the difficulty in breathing which became serious. The OP/Hospital did not have any emergency facilities. On 14-09-2002 the OP took a decision to perform gastrointestinal endoscopy, but the patient was shifted to ICU. The patient was treated in OP hospital till 19-09-2002 and thereafter the OP advised to shift the patient to other hospital for life supporting system as it was not available in his hospital. Therefore, the complainant shifted her husband to opposite party No.2 hospital i.e. Arif Nursing Home for critical care management. Therefore, overall, she incurred heavy treatment expenditure due to negligent attitude of OP 1 & 2. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP1 and 2 the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Nagpur claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.
2. The District forum dismissed the complaint. Thereafter, the complainant preferred first appeal before Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench, Nagpur. The State Commission allowed the appeal and directed the OP1 to pay Rs.72,371/- towards hospital expenses and Rs.1,00,000/- towards physical and mental agony along with cost of Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, aggrieved by the impugned order of the State Commission, the complainant filed this revision petition.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties, perused the medical record available on the file. The counsel for the complainant argued that the OP has not taken proper care during treatment of the patient. He neglected the patient and not treated as per standard norms. Therefore, in the instant case, the State Commission has awarded proper compensation.
4. On perusal of medical record it revealed us that after admission to OP1's hospital, the patient was given injection Clavam 1.2 gm at 7 P.M. and necessary blood investigations were advised by the OP1. On the next day x-ray and some other blood tests were performed. The other medicine like Pantocid and Deriphylin was also used. Then OP1 called for opinion of Dr. S.N. Deshmukh, who diagnosed the patient as Metabolic Encyphalopathy due to hypernatremia (low sodium) and advised for oxygen supplement continuously. After shifting to ICU the patient's vitals were normal, patient was under care and monitoring of Dr. Pandey and Ranjan Borakr. On 16-09-2002 the patient was conscious, oriented. There was signs of hypokalamia (low potassium). Till 19-09-2002 the condition of the patient was vexing and vaning but, at 6 P.M. on 19-09-2002 the patient condition started deteriorating. Therefore, due to paucity of ventilators which were already occupied by other patients, the OP 1 shifted the patient to Dr. Arif Hussan at Arif Nursing Home i.e. OP 3 in the midnight.
5. On perusal of medical record, it clearly goes to show that the patient was treated with proper antibiotics alongwith proper blood investigations and ultrasound abdomen. The patient was also examined by different doctors, Dr. S.N. Deshmukh examined the patient and recorded that patient had sepsis, coagulopathy, PT, PTT, Thrombocytopenia, bilateral pleural effusion, ascites. The pleural tapping was also done. The patient was also given blood transfusion on 18-09-2002 without any complications. Patient was advised CT scan for the next day and same treatment was continued. It was also suspected the chemical peritonitis.
6. Thus, it is clear that the OP 1 advised for calcium and potassium correction, gave IV albumin. He was regularly investigated by PT and APTT. Patient was put on CV line to the CVP and blood oxygen level monitoring was done.
7. Counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the expert opinion from Dr. Vijay M. Gedam, Civil Surgeon at Nagpur has supported the case. We have perused the expert opinion and the concluding part revealed us as below:-
"After going to the record I have come to the opinion that the treatment given to Mr. Madukar Yewale from 12-09-2002 to 14-09-2002 was not proper thereafter the treatment given by the consultants seems to be proper."
8. After considering the medical record and the expert opinion, we are of considered view that the patient was suffering from COAD with Pneumonia and Sepsis. The doctors, who treated him from 12.9.2002 till his death, were qualified. The treatment given was with proper antibiotics and medicines. The patient was under close monitoring by the different doctors in the OP 1/hospital. Therefore, expert opinion of Civil Surgeon has no significance. Therefore, we do not find any negligence in the treatment given by OP 1 or OP 2. In the context of medical negligence, we relied upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Achutrao Hari Bhavu Khodwa Vs. State of Maharashtra 1996 (2) SCC 634 has held:-
"The skill of medical practitioners differs from Doctor to Doctor. The very nature of the profession is such that there may be more than one course of treatment which may be advisable for treating a patient. Courts would indeed be slow in attributing Negligence on the part of a doctor if he has performed his duties to the best of his ability and with due care and caution. Medical opinion may differ with regard to the course of action to be taken by a Doctor treating a patient, but as long as a Doctor acts in a manner which is acceptable to the Medical Profession, that has attended on the patient with due care, skill and diligence and if the patient still does not survive or suffers a permanent ailment, it would be difficult to hold the Doctor to be guilty of Negligence."
9. Therefore, on the basis of foregoing discussion, we do not find any negligence on the part of OPs. Therefore, we allow the revision petition and set aside the impugned order passed by the State Commission. Consequently, the complaint is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
......................J AJIT BHARIHOKE PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER