State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Vandna vs Sukhda Hospital on 9 October, 2017
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA PANCHKULA First appeal No.851 of 2016 Date of the Institution: 19.09.2016 Date of Decision: 09.10.2017 Vandna D/o Sh.Satyawan Jain, R/o H.NO.194/12, Behind Kundan Cinema, Krishna Colony, Jind. .....Appellant Versus 1. Sukhda Hospital, Delhi road, Hisar through its Proprietor. 2. Dr.Sachin Lamba, (M.S.), Medical Officer, Sukhda Hospital, Delhi Road, Hisar. 3. Dr.Sushil, Medical Officer, Sukhda Hospital, Delhi road, Hisar. 4. Incharge, Maharaja Aggarsain Hospital, Pubjab Bagh, New Delhi. 5. United India Insurance Company Limited, Hisar through its Branch Manager (vide Doctor, Policy bearing No.041281/46/10/35/00000299). 6. United India Insurance Company Limited, Hisar through its Branch Manager (Vide Doctor Policy Bearing No.041281/46/10/35/00000951). .....Respondents CORAM: Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member Present:- Mr.R.K.Hooda, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Ashish Chaudhary, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. R.K. Trivedi, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr.P.S.Saini, Advocate for respondent Nos.5 and 6. O R D E R
R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
It was alleged by the complainant that she went to Sukhda Hospital on 18.12.2010 i.e. opposite party (O.P.) No.1. O.P.No.2 Dr. Sachin Laura (M.S.) told that her condition was serious and she was to be operated upon. They did not tell about disease. Without consent and informing about consequences O.P.Nos.2 and 3 conducted operation on 19.12.2010. O.P.No.3 i.e. Dr. Sushil gave mis-branded injection due to which her condition deteriorated. When complaint was lodged with O.P.No.3 he made cutting in the bed-head ticket to conceal his fault. On 26.12.2010 O.P.Nos.2 and 3 again conducted operation. When there was no improvement they were asked to discharge her on 31.12.2010. Just to extract money O.P.Nos.1 to 3 kept her in the hospital from 17.12.2010 to 31.12.2010 and charged Rs.3,50,000/-. She was forced to purchase medicines from the shop situated in the hospital at high price. Ultimately she was shifted to Maharaja Agarsen Hospital, New Delhi i.e. O.P.No.4 where she remained admitted from 01.01.2011 to 17.01.2011 and spent Rs.2,50,000/- on the treatment. O.Ps. be directed to give compensation to the tune of Rs.9,99,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum as prayed for.
2. In reply, it was alleged by O.P. Nos.1 and 2 that there was no negligence on their part as far as question of treatment is concerned. No mis-branded injection was given on 19.12.2010. Cutting on the file was showing a prescription of injection 25% Dextrose one Vial i.v. stat that injection was not deemed to be necessary as blood sugar by that time had risen to 123 and there was no requirement for dextrose. Due to this reason that prescription was cancelled. Even after cutting that prescription can be clearly seen. As she was a case of entric perforation septicemic shock and A.R.D.S. the operation was necessary. Her father was clearly told that it was high risk case and with their consent the operation was conducted by Dr. B.B.Banga, renowned surgeon Hisar. On 19.12.2010 she developed breathing difficulty and that is why put on ventilator. On 26.12.2010 ventilator was removed and she was taken to I.C.U. On 29.12.2010 her condition again deteriorated and on 30.12.2010 she developed burst abdomen. All the complications were informed to her father and with his consent operation was conducted by O.P.No.2. As per request of her parents she was discharged on 01.01.2011. The following medicines were given during her treatment:-
Inj Imipenem/ cilastatin InjAmikacin Inj Metronidazole InjCeftriaxone/Sulbactam Inj Ofloxacin Inj Noradrenalin Inj Dopamine Inj Methylprednisolone (1 mg/kg/day infusion) Inj depriphyllin Neb Ipratropium Neb Levosalbutamol Neb Ambroxol Inj Pheniramine Inj Lorazepam Inj Pentazocin Inj Paracetamol Inj Pantoprazole No unnecessary amount was charged from her. Averments raised to this effect were altogether wrong. Objections about non-jointer of necessary parties, maintainability of complaint, locus standi, accruing cause of action, were also raised and requested to dismiss complaint.
3. Though O.P.No.3 filed separate reply, but, he raised the plea similar to O.P.Nos.1 and 2.
4. It was alleged by O.P.No.4 in reply that no allegation was leveled against it, so complaint was not maintainable. Objections about jurisdiction etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss complaint.
5. O.P.Nos.5 and 6 alleged that there was no negligence on the part of the concerned doctors, so they were not liable to pay any compensation.
6. After hearing both parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (In short "District Forum") dismissed complaint vide impugned order dated 01.08.2016
7. Aggrieved therefrom complainant has preferred this appeal.
8. Arguments heard. File perused.
9. Learned counsel for complainant vehemently argued that from the perusal of treatment chart Ex.C-8 it is clear that there is cutting on the prescription pertaining to 19.12.2010. Actually misbranded injection was given on that day due to which condition of complainant deteriorated. No reliance can be placed upon the report dated 12.04.2016 given by the Board of Doctors of PGIMS Rohtak because she was not examined by them and it is not mentioned therein that on what basis they come to that conclusion. As it was a case of clear negligence on the part of the O.P.Nos.1 to 3, she was entitled for compensation. He placed his reliance upon the opinion of Hon'ble National Commission Dr. Sutapa Dasgupt & Anr. Vs. Tapan Kar & Anr. 2017(4) Andh LD 24 and opinon of PUnducherry State Commission in G.Subramanian Vs. Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences & others 2015(1) CLT 599.
10. This argument is of no avail. The board of directors is not supposed to give detailed reasons about their conclusion. The board of doctors is to go through the record supplied to them. It is mentioned in report dated 12.04.2016 that they examined entire record and thereafter came to conclusion that there was no fault with the treatment. For ready reference the relevant part of that report is reproduced as under:-
"The Board comprising of 3 members namely Dr. M.G.Vashist, Dr.Rajesh Godara & Dr. Manish Verma examined the patient record provided and after going through the record, board is of the opinion that the patient was operated with valid consent by qualified surgeon. The treatment has been done as per standard guidelines. There is no evidence of medical negligence from the records provided. This is for your kind information and further necessary action."
It is not necessary that the patient should always be called by Board of doctors before giving the report. It is for them to decide what document is required and what not. If the complainant was not satisfied with this report then the doctors could have summoned for the cross examination. The Board of doctors has clearly opined that there was no negligence on the part of O.P.Nos.1 to 3 so, it cannot be presumed that proper treatment was not given. There is no reason to disagree with the report of the Board of doctors. The complainant cannot derive any benefit from the cited case laws because they are based on altogether different facts. In Dr. Sutapa Dasgupt & Anr. (supra) proper treatment was not given and there was delay in referring patient to neurosurgeon, whereas it is not so in the present case. In G Subramanian (supra) it was opined that expert evidence is not required in every case. The findings given by learned District Forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed.
11. As a sequel to above discussion, impugned order dated 01.08.2016 cannot be set aside. Resultantly appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
October 09th, 2017 Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench S.K.