State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
New India Assurance Company Ltd. ... vs 1. Veena Rani Wife Of Late Sh. Suresh ... on 5 December, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, HARYANA,
PANCHKULA
First
Appeal No.955 & 768 of 2012
Date
of Institution: 18.7.2012 & 14.6.12 Date
of Decision: 05.12.2012
First appeal No.955 of 2012
New India Assurance Company Ltd. Through its authorized officer Sh. A L.
Madaan, Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, SCO No.36-37,
Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.
Appellant / OP No.2
VERSUS
1.
Veena Rani wife of late Sh.
Suresh Mongra son of Shri Shri Chaudhary Ram.
2.
Komal Monga, daughter
3.
Deepti Monga, Minor Daughter
4.
Pankaj Monga, Minor Son
All residents of Ram Colony, House No.14/66, Street
No.4, Sirsa, Minor thorugh its mother and natural guardian Smt. Veena Rani.
Respondents-Complainants
5.
Dr. Vipul Ray Monika Hospital,
Rania Gate, Sirsa.
Respondent-OP No.1
For the
Parties: Sh. R.K. Sharma, Advocate for
appellant-Insurance Co.
Sh.. P.M. Goyal, Advocate
for respondents No.1 to 4 Complainants).
Shri P.K. Ganga, Advocate
for respondent No.5 Dr. Vipul Ray.
First appeal N. 768 of 2012
Dr. Vipul Ray Monika Hospital, Rania Gate,
Sirsa.
Appellant
/ OP No.1
VERSUS
Veena Rani wife of late Sh. Suresh
Mongra son of Shri Shri Chaudhary Ram.
Komal Monga, daughter
Deepti Monga, Minor Daughter
Pankaj Monga, Minor Son
All residents of Ram Colony, House No.14/66, Street No.4, Sirsa,
Minor through its mother and natural guardian Smt. Veena Rani.
Respondents (Complainants)
New India Assurance Company
Ltd. Through its authorized officer
Sh. A L. Madaan, Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office,
SCO No.36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.
Respondent
(OP-2)
BEFORE:-
Honble Mr.
Justice R.S. Madan, President.
Sh. B.M.
Bedi, Judicial Member.
For the Parties: Sh. P.K. Ganga, Advocate for appellant- Dr. Vipul Ray.
Sh. P.M. Goyal, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4 Complainants).
Shri R.K. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.5 Insurance Co.
O R D E R B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member:
Both the above-mentioned appeals have arisen out of the order dated 18.5.2012. Therefore, we proceed to decide both the aforesaid appeals vide this common order to avoid any conflicting order.
The admitted facts of the present case are that Suresh Kumar Monga husband of the complainant No.1 and father of complainants No.2 to 4, aged about 47 years was an employee of Punjab National Bank and posted as Cashier. He was suffering from Piles (Hemorrhoids). He alongwith his wife Smt.Veena Rani visited Dr. Vipul Ray opposite party No.1 Monika Hospital, Rania Gate, Sirsa. On the assurance given by the opposite party No.1, Suresh Kumar was admitted in the hospital of OP No.1 by his wife on 15.10.2006. As per the version of the complainants Dr. Vipul Ray tied a thread to hemorrhoids and performed surgery, made a cut with an instrument due to which there was severe bleeding. Complainant was not aware of competency of OP No.1. After surgery complainant inquired about the condition of her husband and about severe bleeding, from the OP No.1 but OP No.1 left the hospital with an excuse. It was further averred by the complainant that after surgery, the condition of her husband was deteriorated, and resultantly her husband started vomiting and feeling difficulty in breathing. Thereafter, on the request of the complainant Suresh Kumar was discharged by the OP No.1 on 22.10.2006 after charging an amount of Rs.2597/- as fees from the complainant. Due to critical condition of the patient he was shifted to Talwar Nursing Home, Sirsa with the help of the relative namely Pardeep Sachdeva. The doctor of Talwar Nursing Home, Sirsa found the condition of the patient critical due to operation by an unqualified doctor and immediately referred the patient to Tertiary Care Centre for ventilator support and further management at about 11.00 P.M on 22.10.2006 after charging an amount of Rs.3000/- as fee.
Thereafter, patient was shifted to CMC Hisar and thereafter to Inderprastha Apollo Hospital, New Delhi on 23.10.2006. Unfortunately the patient died on 02.11.2006 due to Portal Pyaemia with Septicemia and multiple organ failure. Alleging it a case of deficiency in service and medical negligence, complaint was filed by the complainant seeking compensation from the Ops.
Upon notice the opposite parties No.1 appeared and contested the complaint. In his written statement he pleaded that OP-1 is a qualified B.A. M.S. and registered with Ayurvadic and Unani Medicine Council, Haryana under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act and a experienced doctor. It was admitted by the OP No.1 that deceased Suresh Kumar remained admitted in his clinic from 15.10.2006 to 22.10.2006 and a surgery was conducted upon the patient because he was suffering from piles in anus. It was admitted by the OP No.1 that doctor fees and hospital charges were charged from the complainant. It was further pleaded by the OP No.1 that he maintained a standard hospital, with all required medicine and apparatus as per specifications. OP-1 further averred that the condition of the patient was good during the period he remained in hospital. While denying any medical negligence and deficiency in service, OP-1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Opposite parties No.2- Insurance Company filed its separate written without admitting the treatment and operation leading to complications, if any, pleaded that Vipul Ray OP No.1 was registered with the State Ayurvadic Unani Medicine Council, Haryana, Panchkula under Unani India Medicine Council Act, 1970 as a HAKIM, VAIDH / Physician and not a SURGEON. It was further pleaded by the OP No.1 that Dr. Vipul Ray is not a Medical Practitioner under the Indian Pharmacy Act, 1948. As per version of the OP No.1 Dr. Vipul Ray- OP No.1 was not authorized to practice in Surgery without a degree under the Medical Degrees Act. Opposite party no.2- Insurance Company denied the liability for compensation and further denying other allegations prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective claims. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced on record, the District Forum accepted the complaint and granted following relief:-
The complaint, therefore, succeeds and is partly allowed. Both Dr. Vipul Ray and his indemnity insured i.e. New India Assurance Company, Sirsa, Ops are directed to make payment of compensation amount of Rs.6,22,000/- with interest on the award amount @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 22.1.2007 till realization. The complainants shall also be entitled to Rs.15,000/- for harassment, mental tension, agony etc. and Rs.3000/- costs of proceedings. We direct both the Ops to implement the present order within a period of two months failing which the complainants shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum under section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Dr. Vipul Ray and his indemnity insurer New India Assurance Co. Ltd., both the parties shall be jointly and severally liable to implement the order.. We may hasten to add that the liability of the New India Assurance Company shall however is limited to the extent of Rs.3,00,000/-.
Aggrieved against the order of the District Forum appellant-opposite parties No. 2 has filed appeal No.955 of 2012 and appellant-opposite party No.1 filed appeal No.768 of 2012 for setting aside the impugned order.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
It is admitted case of the parties that Dr. Vipul Ray had conducted operation of Suresh Monga (since deceased)-husband of the complainant by using a thread for treating the disease of piles. It has come on the record that after surgery, the patient suffered heavy bleeding. The condition of the patient deteriorated and he started vomiting and felt difficulty in breathing due to the local treatment given by the opposite party and thereafter the opposite party left the clinic when the patient was in critical condition. The attendants of the patient shifted him to TALWAR NURSING HOME Sirsa, where the treating Doctor treating the patient for about five hours concluded that due to local treatment given by Dr. Vipul Ray, the condition of the patient had become critical and he was under severe septic soak. Then Dr. Talwar referred the patient for further treatment. Thereafter, the patient was admitted to C.M.C. Hisar and thereafter to Inderprasth Apollo Hospital, New Delhi where he remained admitted w.e.f. 23.10.2006 to 02.11.2006 and died at 9.50 A.M. on 02.11.2006. The cause of death of the deceased was opined by Doctor as portal pyaemia with Septicemia with multiple organ failure.
Discharge Card issued from TALWAR NURSING HOME is as under:-
Patient was admitted with the history of operation for piles (by unqualified doctor a few days back followed by patient bleeding. .
The relevant part of the DEATH SUMMARY of the deceased is as under:-
CASE SUMMARY:-
Mr. Suresh Kumar Monga, 50 years old male, known case of Hemorrhoids (6 years) developed bleeding PR x 10 days prior to admission (23/10/06). Banding was done at some private hospital outside. On 22/10/06, he felt some mass perrectal and was reoperated. With in 6 hrs of this he developed hypotension and breathing difficulty. He was intubated and put on ventilatory support. He also had an episode of hypoglycemia. Patient was then referred to Indraprastha Apollo Hospital on 23/10/06 for further management.
Patient was received in critical state with ET tube and C line in situ. He had cold peripheries which were severely cyanosed and was on bag and mask ventilation. He was admitted in ICU..
In this case the complainant had moved an application for cross-examination of Dr. Vipul Ray, for answering in the opposite party. Question No.2 and 3 are as under:-
2. Whether it is correct or not that the pathy of BAMS in Ayurvadic and Unani medicine you can only advise medicines and not there is no scope/provision of any kind surgery in this pathy?
3. It is also against the ethics of BAMS pathy that you are conducting operation of Bawasir/removal of piles at your clinic;
The answers to the aforesaid questions are as under:-
2.
That in the pathy of BAMS in Aurvedic and Unani, no surgery of any kind is undertaken. Being a BAMS Ayurvedic Medicines, the deponent is trained and qualified medical practitioner and treat all type of illness by administering medicines.
3. That the deponent does not undertake or conduct any type of surgical operations, but he treats the patients suffering with piles by using/applying thread.
The above answers given by Dr. Vipul Ray shows that he had conducted operation of piles by applying thread. The opposite party is not a qualified surgeon and therefore could not operate the patient (since deceased) for piles disease but Dr. Ray by using thread, operated the patient, due to which bleeding started and could not be controlled which resulted in deterioration of patients health and ultimately the patient died due to Portal Pyaemia with Septicemia and multiple organ failure. The complainants in their evidence tendered affidavit of Dr. M.M. Talwar of Talwar Nursing Home as Ex.PW3 who proved the Discharge Certificate Ex.C-7. In the Death Summary Ex.C-8, the cause of death of the patient was portal pyaemia with septicemia with multiple organ failure.
The evidence produced on the record establishes the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party while treating patient Suresh Monga who (Dr. Monga) had acted in such a careless manner which is not expected of a medical practitioner as observed by Honble Supreme Court cited as Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa & Ors. V. State of Maharashtra & Ors, I(1996) CLT 532 (SC). The notification produced on behalf of the opposite party that he could perform operation is hardly significant because negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party has been established against the opposite party as Opposite Party No.1 has conducted operation by adopting a crude method without caring for surgical hygiene.
Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence produced by the parties, there is hardly any ground to interfere with the order passed by the District Forum. Hence, these appeals are dismissed being devoid of any merit.
The statutory amount of Rs.25, 000/-
deposited at the time of filing Appeal No.955 of 2012 and Rs.2,75,000/- deposited on 31.08.2012 as per order of State Commission & Rs.25,000/- deposited in appeal No.768/2012 be disbursed to the complainants against proper receipt, verification and identification as per rules on the subject, after the expiry of period of appeal and revision, if any.
The original judgment/order be attached with appeal No.955/2012 and certified copy be attached with appeal No.768/2012.
Announced Justice R.S. Madan 05.12.2012. President B.M. Bedi Judicial Member