National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S Pragma Hospital & Ors. vs Manjit Kaur & Ors. on 13 January, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2288 OF 2014 (From order dated 28.01.2014 in First Appeal No. 1154 of 2010 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh) 1. M/s Pragma Hospital Through its Manager, Bhatti Road, Bathinda (Punjab) 2.Dr. Surinder Kansal C/o M/s Pragma Hospital Bhatti Road, Bathinda (Punjab) 3.United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through its Divisional Manager, 54, Janpath, Connaught Place, New Delhi Petitioners Versus 1. Manjit Kaur W/o Late Darshan Singh Kainth 2.Sh. Harjinder Singh S/o Late Darshan Singh Kainth 3. Kulvinder Singh, S/o Late Darshan Singh Kainth All three residents of House No. 15527, Street No. 1, Hazura Kapura Colony, Bathinda (Punjab) 4.Dr. Akhilesh R.M.O. Pragma Hospital Bhatti Road, Bathinda (Punjab) 5.Sh. Sanjeev Pragma Hospital Bhatti Road, Bathinda (Punjab) Respondents BEFORE: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner s : Mr. K. G. Sharma, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Mr. Shekhar Prit Jha, Advocate For Proforma Respondents- 4 & 5 : NEMO Pronounced on 13th January, 2015 O R D E R
DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER
1. The relevant facts in brief are that Shri Darshan Singh was admitted in OP-1/hospital on 14.11.2008 and diagnosed as Dengue fever by OP-2/Dr.Surinder Kansal. On 15.11.2008, the patients condition deteriorated. Patient was transfused two units of Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) which was brought from Civil Hospital, Bathinda. The patient developed shivering, writhing in pain and suffered gasping of breath, which was intimated to the OPs 3 and 4 by Dr. Akhilesh and Sri Sanjeev but no proper care received. The OP-2 was called but he came after 1 hours and told that the reaction was due to blood transfusion. The patient was shifted to ICU.
CT scan was performed, but the patient was declared dead at M/s Pragma Hospital. The complainants allegation was that due to negligence by OPs, the patient died. The Deputy Commissioner (DC) investigated this case through Civil Surgeon, Bathinda and it was reported as negligence on the part of OPs 2 and 3. The OP-3 was trained in Ayurveda System of Medicine and not registered with MCI. Also, the OP-4 was not competent to be employed in the hospital. Therefore, alleging negligence and relying on the report of DC, the complainants filed a complaint before the District Forum, Bathinda for proper compensation.
2. The District Forum vide its order dated 18.3.2010 allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. Being aggrieved from the order, the OP approached the State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal No. 1154 of 2010 was dismissed, on the basis of civil surgeons report, vide impugned order dated 28.01.2014. Hence, this revision petition.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that there was no negligence. The diagnosis was correct as the patient suffered from dengue fever.
OP gave option to the patient/attendants for referral to higher medical centre (DMC) Ludhiana/PGI Chandigarh). Thereafter, patient was admitted in the General Ward and was monitored for bleeding tendency by regular Platelet counts. Platelet count progressively decreased on 14.08.2008.
4. It is important to note that the Board of Civil Hospital, Bhatinda gave its inquiry report that the treating doctors/petitioners were negligent and also recommended action against petitioner No. 2, whereas, another board constituted by Indian Medical Association(IMA), Bathinda Branch with a panel of four Senior doctors considered all the relevant documents, scientific literature and the opinion/recommendations of the Inquiry Report of the Board of the Civil Hospital, Bathinda, and opined that OPs followed medical protocol in such cases. It was concluded that there was no medical negligence on the part of the treating doctors/petitioners and the death of the patient was due to the nature and seriousness of the disease and related complications (Acute Febrile illness, thrombocytopenia and anaphylaxis reaction to blood PRP).
5. To decide medical negligence, it is important to ascertain, whether the OP acted with due diligence during treatment and after occurrence of reaction? We are of the considered view that the patient was diagnosed of dengue fever, also the investigation revealed low platelet count. The OP transfused PRP, which resulted into anaphylactic reaction. It was not negligence. On the other hand, both the reports (Civil Surgeon and the IMA) reveal that the cause of death was blood transfusion. Unfortunately, the complainant has not made the blood bank, as a necessary party in this case. We have perused the qualifications and credential certificates of Dr. Surinder Kumar and Dr. Gurusewak Singh Gill, who attended the patient. Both were qualified to treat such patient.
It should be borne in mind that Blood Bank will issue blood and its products only after proper matching and compatibility tests. Therefore, there is no need to recheck or re-test compatibility at the hospitals end, again. After transfusing the blood, the patient got severe reaction, which was under
supervision of opposite party No. 3. The OP 2 stated that he reached the hospital, within 15 minutes, but the inquiry report of civil hospital revealed that OP 2 reached the hospital in 40 minutes. It is stated that the OP 2 gave the instructions to OP 3 to give injections, but, we are unable to locate relevant entry in case sheet about the injections which OP 3 administered. Thus, it proves the act of OP as omission, in duty of care. The same record was withheld by the petitioners/OPs, hence it is difficult to infer whether, the OP 2 was present during the said emergency and whether blood was transfused in his absence? As per record, the OP 3 was present during reaction, but the vital question is that whether, he was competent to manage the anaphylactic reaction of blood? Therefore, the petitioner was deficient in managing the post transfusion emergency.
6. In this context, we would like to rely upon the celebrated authority of Honble Supreme Court in Dr. Laxman Balkrishna Joshi Vs. Dr. Triambak Babu Godbole and Anr. (1969) 1 SCR 206.
The Court observed that a person who held himself out ready to give medical advice and treatment impliedly undertook that he was possessed of the skill and knowledge for the purpose. Such a person owed to his patient certain duties, viz., a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case, a duty of care in deciding what treatment to give or (and - sic) a duty of care in the administration of that treatment. A breach of any of this duty gave a right of action for negligence to the patient. The medical practitioner must bring to his task, a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence, judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case was, what the law required:
(cf. Halsbury's Law of England, 3rd ed. vol. 26 p.
17). A doctor, no doubt, had discretion in choosing the treatment that be proposed to give to the patient and such discretion was relatively ampler in cases of emergency. Thus, in this case, on hand, the OP-2 failed to perform his duty as discussed supra.
7. On the basis of foregoing discussion, the revision petition is dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their own cost.
...
(J. M. MALIK, J) PRESIDING MEMBER ...
(DR.S. M. KANTIKAR) MEMBER Naresh/16