State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Yogesh Kumar Sahu vs Manager Vinayak Hospital & Anr. on 10 July, 2018
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).
Appeal No.FA/2018/234
Instituted on : 16.04.2018
Yogesh Kumar Sahu, Aged 44 years,
S/o Late Loknath Sahu,
R/o : Akansha, Plot No.03, Ashish Nagar (West),
Risali, Bhilai, Tahsil & District Durg (C.G.) ... Appellant (Complainant)
Vs.
01. Manager, Vinayak Hospital,
Krishna Talkies Road, Phase - 06, Maitri Nagar,
Risali, Bhilai, Tahsil & District Durg (C.G.)
02. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Through : Branch Manager, 16, Power House,
Branch Office, Power House,
Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) .... Respondents (OPs)
PRESENT :
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER
HON'BLE SMT. RUCHI GOEL, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
None for the appellant (complainant).
Shri Anurag Thaker, Advocate for the respondent No.1 (O.P. No.1).
Shri Yogendra Chandrakar, Advocate for the respondent No.2 (O.P. No.2).
ORDER
DATED : 10/JULY/2018 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 9th February, 2018, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.C.C./2016/69. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has dismissed the complaint of the complainant. 2 Briefly stated the facts of the complaint of the complainant are that on 15.01.2015 at about 10.00 A.M. the complainant went to the O.P. No.1 Hospital // 2 // along with his four years daughter Kumari Saumya Sahu for her treatment at that time Kumari Saumya Sahu was having complaint of light diarrhea. Due to diarrhea her body became weak. In the O.P. No.1 Hospital for the first time treatment and tests in the O.P.D./ was conducted by Dr. Gyanesh Mishra, thereafter O.P. No.1 admitted the daughter of the complainant, in the Hospital for treatment. During the admission of daughter of the complainant in the O.P. No.1 Hospital, the complainant was taking information regarding health of his daughter in every 30 minutes/one hour. The O.P. No.1 gave general information that the health of his daughter his normal and do not worry. The O.P. No.1 was assuring the complainant that his daughter will become healthy. The drop of glucose given to the daughter of complainant was irregular, therefore, her condition became deteriorated and she became unconscious . In the body of the daughter of the complainant, there was tremor. In the evening, the O.P. No.1 refused to treat the patient. The O.P. advised the complainant to take his daughter in another hospital and to get tests. Thus, the O;P. committed negligent while treating his daughter. Looking to the above circumstances when his daughter became unconscious and she was having shock in her body, then for proper treatment, she was immediately got admitted in Jawahar Lal Nehru Medical and Research Centre, Sector 9 Hospital, Bhilai, District Durg where looking to the condition of the daughter of the complainant, the complainant was asked to got admit her in I.C.U. Ward Ventilator immediately and thereafter started treatment. The complainant spent a sum of 75,000/- to Rs.80,000/- in treatment of his daughter. If the complainant would not have got admitted his daughter in the above Hospital, then her life was in danger, // 3 // and her death was possible. The complainant and his family members suffer physical and mental agony as well as financial loss. The O.P. committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant also made complaint against the O.P. before Chief Medical and Health Officer, Durg (C.G.). Hence, the complainant has filed the instant complaint before the District Forum and prayed for granting reliefs as mentioned in the relief clause of the complaint.
3. The O.P. No.1 filed his written statement and averred that on 15.01.2015, at about 12 A.M., the complainant brought his daughter to the O.P. No.1 Hospital for treatment. Dr. Gyanesh Mishra, Child Specialist (Pediatrician), who was present in the O.P.D. of O.P. No.1 Hospital examined the daughter of the complainant and found that she was having problem of vomiting and diarrhea since 3-4 days, therefore, there was acute shortage of water in her body. The daughter of the complainant was suffering from high fever therefore, she was in need of immediate treatment. As per advice of Dr. Gyanesh Mishra, at 12.20 P.M., the daughter of the complainant was got admitted in the O.P. No.1 Hospital. The complainant was informed regarding the condition of his daughter and it was made clear that if the condition of the patient is not improved, then she is required to be taken to higher centre for treatment. In this regard the complainant gave his written consent. Dr. Gyanesh Mishra, Child Specialist (Pediatrician) had immediately gave treatment to the daughter of the complainant particulars of which are mentioned in the admission sheet and treatment sheet. At 12.20 P.M., the daughter of the complainant was admitted in the O.P. No.1 Hospital and treatment was started. Dr. Gyanesh // 4 // Mishra, Child Specialist again saw the daughter of the complainant at 3.00 P.M. and thereafter at 6.30 P.M. again the condition of patient was examined by Dr. Gyanesh Mishra and he tried to convince the complainant and his family members that time will be taken in becoming the patient healthy, they became angry and express their desire to take the patient in a higher centre. Keeping in mind the desire of the complainant and his family members, Dr. Gyanesh Mishra, immediately referred the patient to Sector 9 Hospital, Bhilai. Total bill amount for treatment of the patient was Rs.1,900/- and the O.P. No.1 demanded the same from the complainant but the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.500/- only with the O.P. No.1 Hospital and had taken his daughter. From 12 A.M. to 6 P.M. the treatment of the daughter of the complainant was done as per the prescribed procedure / principle of the Medical Science and her treatment was properly done. The O.P. No.1 did not commit any negligence in her treatment. The daughter of the complainant was given proper treatment in the O.P. No.1 Hospital and the treatment which was given to her was necessary and immediately required for improving her health. The O.P. No.1 hospital did not give wrong treatment to the daughter of the complainant and did not given wrong medicines. The complainant has filed the instant complaint against the O.P. with malafide intention to extract the money. The complainant also got discharged his daughter from Jawaharlal Nehru Hospital, Sector 9, Bhilai without permission and consent (LAMA) of the Doctor. From the above, it is clear that the complainant has no faith on treatment of any doctor. The complaint is liable to be dismissed against the O.P. No.1.
// 5 //
4. The O.P. No.2 filed its written statement and averred that from perusal of the documents filed in the case, it is clear that the O.P. No.1 had treated the daughter of the complainant according to the medical standard and prescribed procedure. The complainant has not filed any document to show the medical negligence on the part of the O.P. No.2. The complainant is not entitled to get a sum of Rs.75,000/- spent by him in treatment of his daughter and Rs.2,00,000/- toward compensation for mental and physical agony. The O.P. No.2 did not commit any deficiency in service against the complainant, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from the O.P. No.2. The complainant has unnecessarily made the O.P. No.2 as party in the complainant, therefore, a sum of Rs.15,000/- be awarded to the complainant as compensation. The complainant has not made party Ku. Saumya Sahu, in the complaint and she is patient and necessary party. For want of necessary party, the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant did not file expert report of any expert doctor or medical board to prove the medical negligence on the part of the O.P. No.1.
5. The complainant has filed documents. Annexure A (1) is prescription dated 15.01.2015 issued by Dr. Gyanesh Mishra, Annexure A (2) is Receipt dated 15.01.2015 issued by Shri Vinayak Hospital, Annexure A (3) is Cash Receipt dated 15.01.2015 issued by J.L.N. Hospital and Research Center, BSP, Bhilai, Annexure A (4) is Discharge Summary dated 27.01.2015 issued by Jawaharlal Nehru Hospital and Research Center, Bhilai, Annexure A (5) is detailed bill dated 27.01.2015 issued by J.L.N. Hospital & Research Centre, Bhilai, Annexure A (6) is Medical Treatment (Original Bill - Patient Copy), Annexure A (7) is C.T. // 6 // Scan/ M.R.I. Report issued by Department of Radiology, Jawaharlal Nehru Hospital and Research Centre, Bhilai, Annexure A (8) is Haemogram Report, Annexure A (9) is Report dated 27.01.2015, Annexure A (10) is Immuno Chromatographic Test for Dengue NS1 Ag & Ab, Bill receipt dated 17.01.2015 issued by Bhilai Scan and Research Ltd., Annexure A (11) are medical bills issued on various dates, Annexure A - 12 is complaint made in respect of negligent committed in treatment of Ku. Saumya Sahu, to the O.P. No.1, Annexure A (13) is complainant made to Chief Medical Officer, District Durg (C.G.) against the O.P. No.1, Annexure A (14) is Statement of the complainant, Annexure A (15) is Statement of Smt. Gomti Sahu, Annexure A-16 (1) to (3) is Investigation Report of Dr. V.R. Meshram, Investigation Officer and District Tuberculosis Officer, Local Office, Durg, Annexure A 16 (4) is letter dated 03.12.2015 sent by C.M.H.O. Durg, to Deputy Director (Public Grievance), Directorate Health Service, Annexure A-16(5) is Warning Letter dated 03.12.2015 sent by C.M.H.O. Durg to Dr. Navin Kaushik, Prop. Vinayak Hospital, Risali, Annexure A-16(6) and (7) is Statement of Dr. Navin Kaushik, Annexure A-16 (8) and (9) is Statement of Dr. Gyanesh Mishra, Annexure A-17 is letter dated 19.08.2016 sent by C.M.H.O. Durg to Director, Vinayak Hospital, Bhilai, District Durg, Annexure A-18 (1 to 4) is letter sent by the Dr. Navin Kaushik to C.M.H.O. Durg.
6. The O.P. No.1 has filed documents. Annexure NA-1 is Registration Certificate of O.P. No.1, Annexure NA-2 is insurance policy, Annexure NA-3 is Certificate of Registration of Dr. Gyanesh Mishra, Annexure NA-4 is consent letter, Annexure 4-A to I is treatment papers of Shri Vinayak Hospital, Bhilai, // 7 // Annexure NA-4 J is Receipt dated 15.1.2015 issued by Shri Vinayak Hospital, Annexure NA-4K is Cash Receipt dated 15.01.2015, Annexure NA-4L is Discharge Summary, Annexure NA-4M to P is Detailed bill dated 27.01.2015, Annexure NA-4Q is Medical Treatment (Original Bill - Patient Copy), Annexure NA-4R is bill, Annexure NA-4 S is CT Scan/MRI Report, Annexure NA-4 T is Heamogram report, Annexure NA 4 U I report, Annexure NA-4 V is Immuno Chromatographic Test for Dengue NS1 Ag and Ab, Annexure NA-4 W is Bill receipt, Annexure NA-4X to Z are medical bills, Annexure NA-5 is Consent letter, Annexure NA-6 is typed copy of prescription slip dated 15.01.2015, Annexure NA-6A to 6C are typed copy of prescription slip, Annexure NA-6D to G are treatment papers, Annexure NA-7 to NA-9 are literature.
7. Learned District Forum, after having considered the material placed before it by the parties, has dismissed the complaint of the complainant.
8. In the instant case, the appellant (complainant) has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC for filing documents and sought permission to file some documents at the appellate stage.
9. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the respondents (OPs), on the application filed by appellant (complainant) under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.
10. A list of the documents to be filed along with the application under Order 41 Rule 27, has been attached.
// 8 //
11. We have also perused the record of the District Forum. As per the list attached along with application under Order 41 Rule 27, Five documents have been sought to be filed by the appellant (complainant) at the appellate stage as additional evidence. The documents are the letter dated 15.06.2017 (Annexure A-1) sent by Chief Medical and Health Officer, Durg to Shri Yogesh Kumar Sahu (complainant), letter dated 03.12.2015 sent by Chief Medical and Health Officer, Durg (C.G.) to Deputy Director (Public Grievance), Directorate, Directorate of Health Services, Naya Raipur (Annexure A-2), Warning Letter dated 03.12.2016 (Annexure A-3) sent by Chief Medical and Health Officer, Durg (C.G.) to Dr. Navin Kaushik, Prop. Vinayak Hospital, Risali, Bhilai, District Durg, Inquiry Report of Dr. V.R. Meshram, Investigation Officer and District Tuberculosis Officer, Local Office, Durg (C.G.) (Annexure A-4), Consent letter given by the complainant t the O.P. No.1 Hospital (Annexure A-
5). The documents Annexure A-2 to A-5, which were already filed before the District Forum, have been again filed by the appellant (complainant) before this Commission along with application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, but document Annexure A-1 letter dated 15.06.2017 sent by Chief Medical and Health Officer, Durg to Shri Yogesh Kumar Sahu (complainant) has been filed by the appellant (complainant) for the first time before this Commission at appellate stage. If the above application is allowed and the above documents are taken on record, the same will not cause any prejudice to the respondents (OPs).
// 9 //
12. Therefore, we allow the application filed by the appellant (O.P.) for filing documents at the appellate stage and take the above documents on record.
13. The appellant (complainant) remained absent in spite of service of notice. The appellant (complainant) was also absent on 15.06.2016, and 26.06.2018 when the case is fixed for argument, arguments of learned counsel for the respondents (OPs) were heard on merits.
14. The appellant (complainant) has taken a ground in appeal memo that daughter of the appellant (complainant) Ku. Saumya Sahu was suffering from Vomiting and diarrhea, therefore, the complainant brought her to the O.P. No.1 Hospital on 15.01.2015 at about 10.00 A.M., Dr. Gyanesh Mishra, admitted the daughter of the complainant in the O.P. No.1 Hospital for treatment. The O.P. No.1 gave general information that the health of the daughter of the complainant is normal and do not worry. The O.P. No.1 was assuring the complainant that his daughter will become alright. The drop of glucose given to the daughter of the complainant was irregular, therefore, her condition became deteriorated and she became unconscious. The complainant seen his daughter and he was shocked. He took his daughter to Jawahar Lal Nehru Medical and Research Centre, Sector 9, Bhilai (C.G.) for treatment where she was got admitted in ICU and was taken in Ventilator. The complainant had spent near about 75,000/- to Rs.80,000/- in treatment of his daughter. Due to negligence committed by the O.P. No.1, the complainant suffered physical and mental agony. Hence the complainant filed the instant complaint and prayed // 10 // for granting reliefs as mentioned in the complaint, but learned District Forum, has erroneous dismissed the complaint of the complainant. The appeal of the appellant (complainant) be allowed.
15. Shri Anurag Thaker, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 (O.P. No.1) has argued that the appellant (complainant) had brought his daughter Kumari Saumya Sahu to O.P. No.1 Hospital for treatment and Dr. Gyanesh Mishra., who is Child Specialist (Pediatrician) treated the daughter of the complainant. At that time the daughter of the complainant was suffering from high fever and she was in need of immediate treatment. As per advise of Dr. Gyanesh Mishra,. At about 12.20 P.M. the daughter of the complainant was admitted in the O.P. No.1 Hospital. The complainant was informed regarding the condition of his daughter and it was also explained that if the condition of his daughter is not improved, then she is required to be referred to a higher centre for treatment. All the facts were explained to the complainant, who is father of the complainant and after obtaining consent of the complainant, the treatment of Kumari Saumya Sahu, was started. Dr. Gyanesh Mishra, who is expert pediatrician immediately started treatment of the daughter of the complainant . The condition of the daughter of the complainant was improving, even then the complainant took his daughter in Jahawarlal Nehru Medical and Research Centre, Sector - 9, Bhilai. The complainant only deposited Rs.500/-. The O.P. N.1 did not commit any medical negligence. The complainant made complaint against the O.P. No.1 before Chief Medical and Health Officer, Durg (C.G), who authorized Dr. V.R. Meshram, for conducting inquiry in the matter. Dr. V.R. Meshram, conducted inquiry and recorded statements of Yogesh // 11 // Kumar Sahu, the complainant, his wife Smt. Gomti Sahu, Dr. Navin Kaushik, Director of Shri Vinayak Hospital and Dr. Gyaneh Mishra. Dr. V.R. Meshram, gave his finding that Dr. Gyanesh Mishra, did not commit any medical negligence while treating the patient. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Forum is just and proper and does not suffer from any infirmity, irregularity or illegality, hence does not call for any interference by this Commission. The appeal filed by the appellant (complainant) may be dismissed. He placed reliance on Ashok Kumar Pathak Vs. Dr. Swarnava Roy & Anr. 2017 (1) CPR 251 (NC), Kusum Sharma & Ors. Vs. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre & Others, I (2010) CPJ 29 (SC); Babu Lal Gupta Vs. Navjyoti Eye Centre & Ors. IV (2013) CPJ 586 (NC); A. Parameshwar Vs. Asian Institute of Gastroenterology, I (2015) CPJ 113 (NC); Parwati Devi Vs. Dr. Ramanand Jha, II (2014) CPJ 559 (NC); Akash Dora Vs. Dr. Dinesh Sharma & Anr. IV (2013) CPJ 19A (CN) (Utta.); Tushar Maternity and Surgical Nursing Home Vs. Dhanashri Savardekar & Anr. III (2016) CPJ 446 (NC); Smt. Vinitha Ashok Vs. Lakshmi Hospital and Other, 1986-2004 CONSUMER 8129 (NS) decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court; Martin F. D'Souza Vs. Mohd. Ishfaq, I (2009) CPJ 32 (SC); Prem Lata & Ors. Vs. Dr. Arun Kumar Sinha & Ors. II (2017) CPJ 382 (NC); Miss Heart Parma Vs. Venilal G. Panchal & Ors. I (2017) CPJ 619 (NC); Dr. C.P. Shrikumar Vs. S. Ramanujam, 2010 (II) L.S.C.T. 150, decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court; Appeal No.FA/2017/755 - Smt. Bharti Sharma Vs. Director, Dr. Shiba Bobby, decided by this Commission vide order dated 03.01.2018; Appeal No.FA/2017/932 - Amar Kashyap Vs. Dr. Shrikant Giri, decided by this Commission vide order dated 05th June, 2018, Appeal No.FA/2018/28 - Narottam Rao Vs. Dr. L.C. Madharia and other, // 12 // decided by this Commission vide order dated 06th June, 2018; Pally Srikanth & Anr. Vs. Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences Ltd. & Ors. IV (2016) CPJ 667 (NC) and Prayag Hospital & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Vijay Pal, II (2016) CPJ 615 (NC).
16. Shri Yogendra Chandrakar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 (O.P.No.2) has supported the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 (O.P. No.1.)
17. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 (O.P. No.1) and respondent No.2 (O.P. No.2) and have also perused the record of the District Forum, as well as the impugned order.
18. It is admitted fact that the appellant (complainant) brought his daughter Kumari Saumya to the O.P. No.1 Hospital on 15.01.2015, at that time she was suffering from fever and diarrhea, due to which she was filling weakness. The daughter of the complainant was got admitted in the O.P. No.1 Hospital and immediately treatment was given to her by Dr. Gyanesh Mishra.
19. The appellant (complainant) himself pleaded that the treatment was given by Dr. Gyanesh Mishra to Kumari Saumya Sahu, daughter of the complainant, but the complainant did not make Dr. Gyanesh Mishra party, who is necessary party in the case because Kumary Saumya Sahu was got admitted in the O.P. No.1 hospital on the instructions of Dr. Gyanesh Mishra, who is treating doctor. The complainant made complaint to the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Durg, in which it is mentioned that the treatment was given to his daughter by Dr. Gyanesh Mishra, therefore, Dr. Gyanesh Mishra, is // 13 // necessary party in the case and for want of necessary party, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
20. The appellant (complainant) has filed appeal memo along with application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC with Inquiry Report of Dr. V.R. Meshram and Consent Letter of the complainant. The Inquiry Report and the Consent Letter are also placed on record of the District Forum In the consent letter, it is mentioned thus :-
"lwfpr lgefr i= eSa@ esjk ejht bykt ds fy, HkrhZ gqvk gwW@ gqbZ gS@bykt ds igys@ nkSjku p<k, tkus okys [kwu] nzo rFkk nokb;ksa ds fy, viuh lgefr nsrk gwwWA bykt@pkap ds nkSjku fdlh Hkh izdkj ds bUQsD'ku] fj,D'ku] csgks'kh] pDdj vk tkus ds [krjksa dh ftEesnkjh esa vius Åij ysrs gq, bykt dh lgefr iznku djrk gwWA ejht ds 'kjhj esa ikuh dh csgn deh gS rFkk rst cq[kkj gSA Rofjr bykt dh vko';drk gSA ejht dh gkyr fcxM+us dh fLFkfr esa cM+s vLirky ys tkuk iM+ ldrk gS ;g ges crk fn;k x;k gSA fdlh Hkh ifjfLFkfr esa vLirky ;k MkDVj ls ges dksbZ f'kdk;r ugh gksxhA "
21. Dr. V.R. Meshram, gave his finding. In the Inquiry Report, Dr. V.R. Meshram, has specifically mentioned that he recorded the statements of the complainant Yogesh Kumar Sahu, his wife Smt. Gomti Sahu, Dr. Navin Kaushik, Director of O.P. No.1 Hospital and Dr. Gyanesh Mishra. He // 14 // mentioned in para 8 of the Inquiry Report that "Acute encephalopathy refers to a state of rapid deterioration of brain function usually presenting as an alteration in state of consciousness, with or without focal neurological signs". In the conclusion clause, he specifically mentioned that Dr. Gyanesh Mishra, Pediatrician, has not committed any medical negligence while treating the patient. He simply mentioned in his report that in Shri Vinayak Hospital, there is no facility of full time Pediatrician and Paediatric I.C.U., therefore, it was directed that without facility of Paediatric ICU, children are not to be admitted in the O.P. No.1 hospital in future.
22. Looking to the Inquiry Report of Dr. V.R. Meshram, it is established that Dr. Gyanesh Mishra has properly treated Kumari Saumya, the daughter of the complainant. The complainant himself has taken his daughter without consent of the treating doctor and taken her in Jawaharlal Nehru Medical and Research Centre, Sector 9, Bhilai.
23. In Annexure NA-6(D), it is specifically mentioned that "We want to take the patient with our desire, from the hospital without discharging, to a higher centre, without completing the treatment."
24. Merely facility of I.C.U. and full time Pediatrician is not available in the O.P. No.1 hospital, it cannot be held that the O.P. No.1 committed medical negligent while treating the patient. According to the inquiry report of Dr. V.R. Meshram, Dr. Gyanesh Mishra had properly treated the patient Ku. Saumya Sahu.
// 15 //
25. Therefore, the impugned order dated 09.02.2018, passed by learned District Forum, is just and proper and does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality, hence, does not call for any interference.
26. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant (complainant) being devoid of any merits, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (D.K. Poddar) (Narendra Gupta) (Smt. Ruchi Goel)
President Member Member Member
10 /07/2018 10/07/2018 10/07/2018 10/07/2018