State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Arvind Kumar Sharma vs M/S Bbc Heart Care & Pruthi ... on 21 September, 2015
1
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
Consumer Complaint No.28 of 2012
Date of Institution: 17.04.2012
Date of Decision: 21.09.2015
Arvind Kumar Sharma son of Late Sh. Raj Kumar Sharma resident of
Model Central Jail Campus, Kanda, Shimla- 171011- HP.
.......Complainant
Versus
1. M/s BBC Heart Care & Pruthi Hospital, 301, Lajpat Nagar,
Jalandhar City- 144001 through its Chairman (H.P. Government
Notified Institution vide No.HFW-B(F) 1-1/2008 dated
21.08.2008.
2. Dr. C.S.Pruthi, Pruthi Hospital, 301, Lajpat Nagar, Jalandhar
City- 144001
3. Dr. Anil Kumar, Pruthi Hospital, 301, Lajpat Nagar, Jalandhar
City-144001
4. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through its Branch Manager,
BO-1,32,G.T. Road, Jalandhar (Insurer of Opposite Party No.1
vide cover-note No. CHD-C 443187).
5. Oriental Insurance Company through its Branch Manager,
BO-1,32,G.T. Road, Jalandhar (Insurer of Opposite Party No.2 &
3 vide cover-note No. CHD-C 443188).
........Opposite Parties
Consumer Compliant U/s 17 of the
Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member Present:-
For the complainant :
Sh. Arvind Kumar Sharma, in person alongwith Sh.R.K.Sharma, Advocate For opposite party Nos.1-3 : Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate For opposite party Nos.4-5 : Sh. Vinod Chaudhary, Advocate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . ... ..... 2 CC No. 28 of 2012 BALDEV SINGH SEKHON, MEMBER This complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite parties (in short 'OPs') alleging medical negligence on their part due to which he became a patient of Hepatitis-C.
2. As per the averments made in the complaint, the complainant, who is serving as Superintendent of Jail/Prisons at Model Central Jail, Shimla (HP), was a healthy person and enjoying good health. During his visit to Jalandhar on 8th January, 2010 and on 9th January, 2010, while taking the bath in the Bathroom, where LPG Water Gas Geyser was installed, he became unconscious due to inhaling of Carbon Monoxide Gas discharged from the said geyser. He was taken to the OP-hospital for emergent treatment on 9.01.2010 at 2.40 PM, thinking that he might have suffered some Cardiovascular Problem. During the treatment in the OP-hospital, he was attended by OP No.3 who negligently injected him with virus infected Syringe/Needle containing Hepatitis-C virus (in short 'HCV'). There was negligence on the part of doctors and nursing staff, who attended him for providing medical treatment. He remained in the hospital from 09.01.2010 to 10.01.2010 till 1.15 PM and after discharge, he went to his place. On 17.03.2010, he felt some problem of low energy and ill feeling and on the advice of the doctor, he got his pathological tests done, whereupon, he came to know that he was suffering from Jaundice; for which he took treatment, but, he did not recover up to 25.03.2010. In order to find the real cause of his disease, he was advised by the doctor to undergo further investigation. So, he went to Delhi Hospital & Maternity Home at Jind 3 CC No. 28 of 2012 (Haryana), where Dr. Parveen Gupta attended him and advised him investigation for Hepatitis-B and C. He got checked his Hepatitis B and Jaundice position and got other Liver Tests done; which showed that Hepatitis-B was negative. But, his position of Jaundice and Liver functions was abnormally high. Thereafter, his blood sample was sent to Dr. Lal Pathlabs, New Delhi on 27.03.2010; results of which showed Hepatitis-C as positive. This report was further confirmed by the another investigation, done on 30.03.2010, to see the load of HCV in his body. It confirmed that HCV load was sizably high and there was no doubt that he was suffering from Genotype-1, Hepatitis-C. Further, as per advice of Dr. Praveen Gupta, he went to renowned Liver Research Institute of India i.e. M/s Pushpawati Singhania Research Institute for Liver, Renal and Digestive Diseases at New Delhi, where, Dr. J.C.Vij attended him, prescribed medicines and advised him to keep watch on the disease, as there were chances of its self- elimination. He sought second advice from Dr. Rajesh Upadhyaya of M/s Jaipur Golden Hospital, New Delhi, who also advised treatment on similar lines. He continuously took the treatment and, accordingly, some improvement was noticed and the viral load, which was 30,68,567 IU/ml in the report dated 15.6.2010, was reduced to 8,747 IU/ml in the report dated 17.6.2010. It showed that the disease was acute in nature and indicated that he was definitely infected in the month of January,2010, during his treatment at OP No.1-Hospital on 9/10th January, 2010. This was also evident from the fact that he suffered from Jaundice for the first time in his life in the mid of March, 2010, which is exactly the expected period, as the disease of HCV 4 CC No. 28 of 2012 become active i.e. in 2 to 3 months. Subsequent tests done from Dr. Lal Pathlabs, New Delhi showed that disease of HCV had badly affected his body and he became the chronic patient of Hepatitis-C, as the virus load again raised to 1,00,954 IU/ml in the report dated 22/26.7.2010. This deadly disease made him personally horrible to live and badly affected performance of his official and social duties. His life span might also have been restricted only to about 10-12 years. He may also suffer financial burden for Liver Transplantation, as and when required. Even that may not cure his disease because HCV, being the blood disease, ultimately result to painful and Cancer-born death. He alleged that he went to OP No.1 hospital for getting a better treatment, but, he was surprised to know its attitude and behavior towards clients, which cannot be accepted at all. Due to the sheer negligence on the part of the staff and doctor of the OP No.1, he suffered a lot. It was further alleged that he was passing through a great mental agony and harassment due to said negligence. He got served a legal notice upon the OPs through his counsel Sh. Vipin Kanwar, Advocate, calling upon them to pay him a sum of Rs.1 crore as damages, being a loss in financial terms, mental tension, harassment, mental agony, survival and maintaining charges of his family, but, OPs failed to pay the same to him. In this present complaint also, he has prayed that OPs be directed to pay him a sum of Rs.1 crore as damages for the said reasons with costs.
3. Upon notice, OPs filed their joint written reply pleading therein that the present complaint is an abuse of process of law and has been filed on totally misconceived perceptions and on absolutely false and 5 CC No. 28 of 2012 baseless allegations and same is liable to be dismissed summarily in the very face of the allegations. There was no deficiency in service, whatsoever, in rendering service to the complainant. It was admitted that the complainant was admitted in their hospital on 9.1.2010. At the time of admission, it was reported that the complainant, while taking bath, fell unconscious and was brought to the OP No.1 hospital in an unconscious state. He was suffering from gas poisoning because of the use of LPG Gas Geyser. He was examined and was given first aid in the form of Oxygen, Steroids and antibiotics. Consequently, he survived and his condition gradually improved over the next twelve hours. It was further pleaded that OP No.1 hospital is a premier hospital and is a National Accredition Board of Hospitals and Healthcare Providers (NABH) certified hospital. Such certificate is issued to hospital of distinction and is given after taking into account all the aspects, including its integrity, good record keeping, proper documentation and sincerity towards the patients. Management and the staff of OP No.1 maintains proper protocol alongwith full sterilization methods and that it never uses glass syringes, needless or other measures which could harm the patient in any way. It invariably uses disposable injections and syringes and there is no record of any iatrogenic infection introduced in the patient in the past. The allegations of the complainant that he was negligently injected with infected syringe containing HCV virus is totally false, baseless and defamatory. He has tried to build up his entire case on this false, baseless, wicked and malicious statement. His total stay in the hospital was of less than 24 hours and he was discharged fully recovered. 6 CC No. 28 of 2012 During his stay, he was subjected to investigations which were absolutely essential for the management of his problem. His claim that he fell ill on 17.03.2010 is not well understood as he did not visit OP No.1 hospital before or after 9.1.2010. He might have got treatment from other hospitals in his native place or at Jalandhar or from some other place before his current admission on 9.1.2010. It was vehemently denied that he contracted HCV on 9.1.2010. He might be suffering from said disease, but by no stretch of imagination it can be said that they were responsible for the alleged infection. The allegations have been made to defame them and to claim financial benefits on the basis of false, frivolous, vague and scandalous allegations. It was further pleaded that Hepatitis-C can be contracted from parents, drug injection, blood transfusion and sexual contacts. It was also denied that he was liable to be compensated by them; as they were in no way responsible for his alleged disease. Receipt of legal notice was also denied. Denying all other allegations, dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
4. In support of his contentions, the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit dated 7.9.2011 as Ex.C-A, alongwith documents, laboratory report dated 12.1.2008 Ex.C-1, photocopy of the discharge summary Ex.C-2, prescription of Delhi Hospital dated 25.3.2010 Ex.C-3, laboratory test reports dated 26.3.2010, 27.3.2010 & 31.3.2010 Ex.C-4, Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7 respectively, copy of consideration dated 1.4.2010 Ex.C-8, laboratory test reports dated 17.3.2010 and 26.7.2010 Ex.C-9 & Ex.C-10 respectively, legal notice 7 CC No. 28 of 2012 dated 28.7.2011 Ex.C-11 & copy of notification of Himachal Pradesh Government dated 06.01.2009 Ex.C-12.
5. OPs No.1 to 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Dr. C.S.Pruthi, BBC Heart Care and Pruthi Hospital dated 26.10.2012 OP-1/A and affidavit of Dr. Anil Kumar, BBC Heart Care and Pruthi Hospital dated 22.7.2013 Ex.OP-1/B, alongwith documents; copy of discharge summary dated 10.1.2010 and hospital record Ex.OP-1/1, copy of text book Harrisons Principles of internal medicine Ex.OP-1/2, copy of NABH Certificate Ex.OP-1/3.
6. OPs No.4 & 5 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh. Ram Avtar, Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ex.OP-4/A.
7. We have thoroughly gone through the pleadings of the parties and have carefully perused the evidence on the record and heard the complainant in person alongwith his counsel and the learned counsel for the OPs.
8. As per the averments made by the complainant, he was taken to OP No.1-hospital on 9.1.2010 in an unconscious state, after he fell in the bathroom, where LPG Gas Geyser was installed. It is further his case that he fell unconscious due to inhalation of Carbon Monoxide Gas discharged from the said geyser as bye-product. It is proved from the discharge summary of OP No.1-hospital (Ex.C-2) that he remained admitted in the said hospital from 2.40 PM on 9.1.2010 to 1.15 PM of 10.01.2010. In the said summary, it is mentioned that "Mr. Arvind Sharma was admitted in the state of altered sansosium. History of loss of consciousness at home (Methane Exposure) and Hypertension since last 3-4 years. No history of DM/CVA. Patient stabilized with 8 CC No. 28 of 2012 medication and is fit to be discharged." The allegations of the complainant against OPs is that during his stay in the OP No.1- hospital, he was attended by OP No.3, who, negligently injected him with the virus infected syringe/needle containing HCV. It is further alleged that there was negligence on the part of doctors and nursing staff who attended him for providing the medical support/treatment. He further alleged that after his discharge on 10.01.2010, he felt problem of low energy and ill feeling on 17.3.2010 and when on the advise of the doctor, he got his pathological test done, he came to know that he was suffering from Jaundice; from which he did not recover up to 25.3.2010, inspite of treatment. Thereafter, on the advise of the doctor, he went to Delhi Hospital and Maternity Home at Jind, where upon the advise of Dr. Parveen Gupta, he got checked his Hepatitis-B, and same was found negative. However, when his blood sample was sent for checking the position of HCV on 27.3.2010, it came to his notice that Hepatitis-C was positive. This report was further confirmed during investigation on 30.03.2010.
9. It is not disputed that the complainant was found suffering from HCV on 27.03.2010 as is evident from report of Dr. Lal Path Labs Ex.C-7. The only question to be decided by this Commission is whether the complainant contracted the HCV during his stay in OP No.1-hospital or not ? Though, it has been alleged by complainant that he was injected with virus infected syringe/needle containing HCV by OP No.3, but, there is no documentary evidence to support this allegation. He is relying upon only his own oral statement. He has deposed to that effect in his affidavit, Ex.CA. This allegation has been 9 CC No. 28 of 2012 vehemently denied by OPs. OP No.3, in his affidavit Ex.OP-1/B deposed that OP No.1-hospital maintains proper protocol alongwith full sterilisation methods and that it never uses glass syringe, needles or other equipment, which could harm the patient in any way and invariably uses disposable injections and syringes. Similarly, Dr. C.S. Pruthi (OP No.2) has deposed in his affidavit Ex.OP-1/A that OP No.1-hospital never uses glass syringes or needles which could be harmful to patient in any way and that only disposable syringes are used as per the standard protocol. To support their contentions, OPs have also placed on record Certificate of Accreditation, issued by NABH, to show that OP No.1-Hospital follows the higher quality of care and patient/customer safety. In such like cases, oral evidence is not sufficient and same cannot be relied to establish a fact which is totally refuted by counter oral evidence. Such wild allegations must be supported by some cogent and reliable documentary evidence. It is not understood as to how the complainant came to know that the injection used by the OP No.3 or the staff of OP No.1-hospital was infected with HCV. Had it been the case, he would not have remained silent and must have brought it to the notice of the concerned authorities by lodging a specific protest. Moreover, it is the case of the complainant himself that he was taken to OP No.1-hospital in unconscious state. In that eventuality, he could, in no way, have come to know about the use of infected injection, if any. It is also not explained how he was so sure that said injection was infected with HCV. Further more, the complainant remained in the hospital just for one day. Therefore, in the absence of any reliable documentary evidence, it cannot be held that 10 CC No. 28 of 2012 he was injected with virus infected syringe. Can it be assumed that the complainant contracted said virus during his treatment in this hospital, as he has successfully proved on record that he was found to be injected with Hepatitis-C on 27.3.2010.
10. OPs have placed on record a copy of the 'Text Book of Hepatology' authored by Juan Roder, MD and four other doctors as Ex. OP-2 in which the risk factors, roots of transmission for the contractions of the Hepatitis-C virus is mentioned as under :
"Risk factors, routes of transmission and diagnosis :
Currently, intravenous drug use, unprotected sex with multiple partners, and viral exposure during medical procedures, such as surgery, dialysis and dental treatment, are factors associated with the highest degree of risk for HCV infections. Health care employees are at risk of acute hepatitis C through accidental exposure, such as needlestick injury; however, recent reports indicate that the risk for HCV transmission after needle-stick injury is lower than that previously believed (mean value 0.76%; in Europe 0.42%; in Eastern Asia 1.5%).
Although guidelines exist for the management of chronic hepatitis C, they do not specifically address acute hepatitis C. Table 1 summarizes recommendations for persons who are at risk and should be tested for HCV infection. After exposure to HCV, there is a window of 1-3 weeks before serum HCV RNA can be detected. In patients in whom symptoms are developing, the incubation period between exposure and appearance of symptoms can range from 2 to 12 11 CC No. 28 of 2012 weeks. The most common symptoms are fatigue and jaundice, with dyspepsia and abdominal pain often reported. Given that most symptoms are non-specific, many patients do not consult a physician and do not receive a diagnosis during the acute phase. The first indication of hepatic injury is an elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT) level, which can occur 4-12 weeks after viral exposure. Fulminant liver injury is rare and occurs in less than 1% of patients.
Table 1 Relative risk of hepatitis C transmission and recommendations for testing At-risk population Recommendations for testing High risk All persons who have injected illicit drugs in the recent or remote Injection drug users past, including those who have injected only once and do not consider themselves to be drug users Blood transfusion All patients who were notified that they received blood from a recipients or donor who later tested positive for HCV transplantation before 1992 Persons who received transfused blood or blood products or transplanted organs before July 1992, including patients who received clotting factor concentrates before 1987 Hemodialysis patients All patients with current or previous history of haemodialysis Moderate risk All sexual partners of HCV-infected patients High risk sexual activity Vertical transmission All children born to mothers infected with HCV from mother to child Low risk All health care, emergency medical, and public safety workers Occupational exposure after a needlestick injury or mucosal exposure to HCV-positive blood Sexual activity with All sexual partners of HCV-infected patients long-term partners Very low risk/no risk Routine testing not required Casual contact Routine testing not required Household contact 12 CC No. 28 of 2012
11. Careful perusal of the above medical literature shows that HCV can be contracted from various sources listed above and that the patients, in whom symptoms are developing, the incubation period can range from 2 weeks to 12 weeks after exposure to HCV. If the contentions of complainant are to be believed, the initial symptoms of Jaundice appeared in complainant after about 9 weeks from his discharge from OP No.1 hospital and HCV was confirmed only on 27.03.2010 i.e. after about 11 weeks of his discharge. Thus, the possibility of exposure of the complainant to any of above said risk factors after his discharge from OP No.1 hospital cannot be ruled out. The complainant has not deposed in his affidavit that he never indulged in any activity involving the risk of contracting the HCV or that he was not exposed to any such a risk prior to or after his stay in the OP-1 hospital. The contention of the complainant that he contracted HCV virus only during his stay in OP No.1 hospital cannot be accepted only on the ground that the incubation period for the HCV overlaps his stay in the said hospital. If the incubation of 2 to 12 weeks is taken into consideration, then the complainant could possibly have contracted HCV during the period ranging from one week prior and upto 10 weeks after his discharge from the said hospital. In these circumstances there is every possibility of his having contracted HCV after his discharge from OP-1 hospital, as there is not even an indication, much less the evidence; to support the wild allegation of complainant against OPs. Therefore, it cannot be said that he was infected with HCV only during his stay in said hospital.
13CC No. 28 of 2012
12. In view of the above, it is to be held that the complainant has miserably failed to make out even prima-facie case of any medical negligence against the OPs. It appears that complaint is an after thought and a figmentation of his imagination only. Thus, the complaint filed by him is found to be false and frivolous as same is filed without any iota of evidence to support his averments. Still, he had the audacity to claim highly exaggerated compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/-, without any justification, rhyme or reason. Accordingly, the same is dismissed with Rs.10,000/- as costs as provided under Section 26 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This amount be paid to him to OP No.1 within one month of receipt of the copy of this order.
13. The arguments in this complaint were heard on 09.09.2015 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
14. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA) MEMBER September 21, 2015 KK 14 CC No. 28 of 2012 15 CC No. 28 of 2012 16 CC No. 28 of 2012