State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dayanand Medical College And Hospital vs Shallu on 3 March, 2016
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 155 of 2015
Date of institution: 9.2.2015
Date of Decision: 3.3.2016
1. Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana, through its Medical
Superintendent.
2. Dr. Anju Bansal, Previously student of M.S. Department of General
Surgery, Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana (now
residing at House No. 91, Ward No. 9, Bucho Mandi, Bathinda -
151101).
3. Dr. P.D.S. Nain, Professor, Department of General Surgery,
Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana
Appellants/Op Nos. 1 to 3
Versus
1. Shallu widow of Jatinder Kumar, resident of 26/480, Chowk Majitha,
Moga.
Respondent No.1/Complainant
2. United India Insurance Company Limited, Savitri Complex No. 1,
First Floor, G.T. Road, Ludhiana.
Performa Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated
12.12.2014 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member
First Appeal No. 155 of 2015 2
Present:-
For the appellants : Sh. B.B.S. Sobti, Advocate
For respondent No.1 : Sh. Navneet Jindal, Advocate
For respondent No.2 : Service dispensed with.
2nd Appeal
First Appeal No. 349 of 2015
Date of institution: 30.3.2015
Shallu widow of Jatinder Kumar, resident of 26/480, Chowk Majitha, Moga.
Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana, through its Medical
Superintendent.
2. Dr. Anju Bansal, Previously student of M.S. Department of General
Surgery, Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana (now
residing at House No. 91, Ward No. 9, Bucho Mandi, Bathinda -
151101).
3. Dr. P.D.S. Nain, Professor, Department of General Surgery,
Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana
4. United India Insurance Company Limited, Savitri Complex No. 1,
First Floor, G.T. Road, Ludhiana.
Respondents/Ops
First Appeal against the order dated
12.12.2014 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Navneet Jindal, Advocate
For respondent Nos.1 to 3: Sh. B.B.S. Sobti, Advocate
For respondent No.4 : Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate
First Appeal No. 155 of 2015 3
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
ORDER
This order will dispose of both the appeals, which are arising out of impugned order dated 12.12.2014 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 24 dated 16.1.2012 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short the "District Forum") vide which the complaint filed by complainant was allowed with the direction to Op Nos. 1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the complainant on account of compensation for deficiency in service while treating Jatinder Kumar. They were further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 7,000/- as litigation expenses. Op No. 4 was directed to reimburse that claim so paid by Op No. 1 to complainant. Op Nos. 1 to 3 were further directed to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on a sum of Rs. 3.00 lacs from the date of lodging the claim till realization.
2. Complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') against the OPs on the averments that Jatinder Kumar husband of the complainant(hereinafter referred as patient) was suffering from NHL (Non Hodgkin's Lymphoma) and was under treatment with Dr. Gagandeep Singh in New DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana under CR No. 70688 on 30.5.2011 and was discharged on 20.6.2011. It was assured by Ops that the disease was curable after few sittings of Chemo Therapy in Oncology Department of the Hospital, therefore, the patient continued the treatment of Chemo Therapy with concerned Doctor on 15.6.2011 & 6.7.2011. On 29.7.2011, the patient was taken for 3rd Chemo Therapy, which was completed and First Appeal No. 155 of 2015 4 then catheter of the patient was to be changed as it was 20 days old. Staff Nurse made efforts but she failed, patient was referred to surgery Unit I on the advice of Dr. Navdeep. Complainant visited surgery Unit I where a junior Doctor was on duty. Entire position was explained to Ops. Dr. Pankaj student of MS 3rd year tried to do this job but he also failed. He told that there is some infection in urinary track, therefore, catheter be directly connected to urine bladder after the surgery by a senior Surgeon and referred the patient to emergency ward. Then the patient was taken to emergency ward where Dr. Anju Bansal, student of M.S. 2nd year was on duty. He asked the Doctor to call for Senior Doctor to connect the catheter with urine bladder but she herself done the surgery and discharged the patient at 10.30 p.m. On 30.7.2011 at about 5 AM to 5.45 AM, complainant alongwith her husband visited the emergency ward and again explained the position to Dr. Anju Bansal. She again removed the catheter and tried to connect it with the urinary bladder 2-3 times. She also advised Ultrasound of the abdomen where Doctor Anshu was on duty. She did the Ultrasound. It came to the notice that patient was very sick as there was a big hole in the urine bladder. She further told that there was no fluid in the bladder whereas stomach was full of fluid. She called the concerned doctor from emergency. At that time Dr. Anju Bansal was not in the emergency ward and Doctor P.D.S. Jain was called for, who examined the patient. He discussed the case with Dr. Anshu and thereafter, the patient was shifted to emergency ward. Dr. Nain told that the bladder of the patient was injured and they are going to perform minor surgery. After surgery, the patient First Appeal No. 155 of 2015 5 was put to ventilator in ICU and the patient remained on ventilator from 30.7.2011 to 6.8.2011. Dr. Nain is Surgeon of general surgery whereas this surgery would have been done by Doctor of Urology Department. This fact was brought to the notice of Dr. Sandeep Puri, Medical Superintendent of the Hospital but he did not bother to the request of the complainant. Complainant spent a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- for the treatment of her husband. The patient also suffered the following problem like:-
(i) in vocal chord
(ii) very big and deep bed sore,
(iii) chest infection due to ventilator
(iv) stoppage of chemo therapy.
(v) secretion in lungs
(vi) breathing problem
3. She also moved representation dated 10.8.2011 to the hospital authorities but with no result. Chemo Therapy was the compulsory treatment for Cancer treatment, which was totally stopped due to the negligence of the above referred Doctors. As a result of that the condition of the patient deteriorated and patient ultimately died on 4.10.2011. Patient was working as a Teacher in the private school earning Rs. 25,000/- per month, aged about 40 years. Complainant suffered huge mental pain, agony and harassment on account of negligent act and conduct of Ops. Accordingly, complaint was filed with the direction to Ops to pay a sum of Rs. 16,00,000/- as damages on account of deficiency, Rs. 3,00,000/- the treatment expenses and Rs. 33,000/- as legal expenses.
First Appeal No. 155 of 2015 6
4. Complaint was contested by Ops. Op Nos. 1 to 3 filed their reply/version taking preliminary objections that complainant had failed to specify what ought to have been done and what has not been done by Ops, therefore, no case of deficiency is made out; complainant was guilty of irregularity in follow up despite being advised by Ops at the time of discharge; no basis for the damages as claimed was disclosed; complicated questions of law and facts were involved, which cannot be decided in summary procedure before this Forum, it required voluminous oral and documentary evidence, which can only be done by the Civil Court, therefore, the matter be referred to the Civil Court; complaint was mis-use of process of law; complaint was speculative, imaginary and based upon surmises and conjectures and that proper treatment and care was given to the patient during the course of his treatment in the hospital by well qualified and para-medical staff. On merits, it was admitted that the patient was admitted with Op hospital on 30.5.2011 with Dr. Gagandeep Singh, Professor and Head, Department of Neurology with history of difficulty in bearing weight on both limbs, difficulty in passing urine for the last 2 days with sensation of incomplete evacuation and history of constipation. Patient was diagnosed as having Myelopathy problem in nervous system with bladder and bowel involvement. Possibility of Polyradiculopathy (i.e. disease of nervous). On 31.5.2011, NCV (nerve conduction velocity) was done, which showed findings suggestive of right L4 Radiculopathy, CT Scan FNAC was done on 31.5.2011 from D11 region, which showed only blood with TLC count of 40 cells and DLC (Poly-4, Lympho-46). The First Appeal No. 155 of 2015 7 diagnose could not be confirmed. On 2.6.2011, dorso lumbar spine with contrast done and showed focal area of altered signal intensity in body of D11 Vertebra. On 5.6.2011, patient had episode of loose stools with frank blood. Gastroenterology consultation was taken with Dr. Sandeep Singh Sidhu and patient was advised IV antibiotics, Steroids, Stool examination showed Pus Cells-80-90/hpf, RBCs-70- 80/hpf. Patient was managed with fluoroquinolones, Metronidazole and patient's abdominal pain improved. On 6.6.2011, Sigmoidoscopy (colonoscopy) was done, which showed Grade III Colits? Biopsy was taken, which showed foci of epithelial eroson with dense infiltration of the lamina propria by acute and chronic inflammatory cells. On 9.6.2011, Neurosurgeon Dr. P.K. Kaushal, Professor and Head of Department was consulted and he advised Laminectomy(biopsy of spinal cord), which was done on 10.6.2011. Histopathology report of Epidural tissue showed presence of cellular tumor cells arranged in sheets. The tumor cells were large with round vesicular nuclei, prominent nucleoli in few and scanty cytoplasm. Mitotic figures were seen (suggestive of Malignancy). Oncology consultation was taken from Dr. J.S. Sekhon. On 14.6.2011 CT abdomen and chest was done, which showed Hepatosplenomegaly. On 15.6.2011, bone marrow aspiration was done, which showed cellular marrow having normoblastic maturation of erythroid series with prominence of lymphoid cells. Accordingly, Dr. J.S. Sekhon advised chemotherapy and first cycle of Chemotherapy was given. On 17.6.2011, patient bone marrow biopsy report showed Lymphoproliferative disorder involving bone marrow (suggesting cancer spread in bone). On First Appeal No. 155 of 2015 8 20.6.2011, patient was discharged on oral steroids, antibiotics, analgestic and antiemetic and was advised for second cycle of Chemotherapy on 6.7.2011. It was denied that the Doctors had stated that the ailment of the patient was curable. No such assurance was given on 6.7.2011. 2nd cycle of Chemotherapy was completed and was advised follow up after three weeks i.e. 27.7.2011. Patient was readmitted on 30.7.2011 in Oncology Department and 3rd Cycle of Chemotherapy was done on 30.7.2011. His urinary catheter was to be changed. Doctor posted on duty in Oncology Department tried to catheterize the patient but failed. General surgery consultation was taken for catheterization by Oncology Team and surgery Unit-1 for catheterization, which was tried by 1st year and 3rd year surgery resident but failed and advised suprapupic catheterization(in short SPC). SPC is a common procedure routinely done by the resident doctors. Under all aseptic precautions, SPC was done and patient was shifted to ward in stable condition at 10.30 p.m. from Oncology Department on 30.7.2011 and was advised follow up after 3 weeks i.e. 20.8.2011. In the morning of 31.7.2011, patient had retention of urine with pain in abdomen and breathlessness and patient was again brought to emergency and was admitted to surgery Unit-1. Patient had bed sore before admission. Ultrasonography of abdomen was done on 31.7.2011, which showed urinary bladder was minimally distended with moderate amount of free fluid. Patient was advised exploratory laparotomy and was shifted to emergency O.T., after informing the patient condition to attendants and taking the informed consent, patient was taken for surgery without any delay and First Appeal No. 155 of 2015 9 adequate procedure was done. Intraoperatively, rent was present in the superior surface of bladder around 1-2 litre of pus present in the peritoneal cavity. Exploratory laparotomy with SPC was done on 31.7.2011. SPC had known complication of peritoneal perforation with or without bowel perforation. The procedure became complex due to poor prognosis of patient having non hodgkins lymphoma (Grade IV, terminal stage) shifted to SICU in intubated stage in inotropes. All the ICU care and facilities were given to the patient. The patient gradually improved and was extubated on 6.8.2011. Oncology consultation was taken for decrease in CBC count and was advised to continue with same antibiotics. Patient was shifted to ward on 10.8.2011 in a stable condition and was discharged on 11.8.2011 having no breathing problem with oral diet. As per the medical literature and opinion of medical oncologists, it is best to start chemotherapy after two weeks of removal of sutures. On receiving notice of the complaint, before they could file reply a notice was received from Civil Surgeon of the District. It was denied that the health condition of the husband of the complainant was worst due to negligence of Ops. After discharge on 11.8.2011, he did not visit the hospital for next Chemo therapy treatment. Therefore, they themselves were guilty of negligence. It was denied that complainant suffered mental pain, agony and harassment due to any negligent act of Ops or that they were liable to pay Rs. 16,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant alongwith other charges as referred in the complaint. There was no case of any medical negligence or First Appeal No. 155 of 2015 10 deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Complaint was without merit, it be dismissed.
5. Op No. 4 in its written reply/version took the preliminary objections that the complainant was not a consumer as there was no privity of contract between the complainant and this Op; complaint was bad for mis-joinder of Op No. 4; there was no allegation of any deficiency in service on the part of this Op; complicated questions of law and facts were involved, which required elaborate evidence both oral and documentary, which was not possible before the Forum, therefore, the matter was required to be relegated to the Civil Court and that complaint was bad for non-joinder of legal heirs of Jatinder Kumar and right to sue did not survive to the complainant. On merits, it was denied that the complainant was suffering from NHL (Non Hodgkin's Lymphoma) or remained admitted in DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana vide CR No. 70688 on 30.5.2011. Other averments as alleged in the complaint were denied. No claim was lodged with this Op either by the insured or by respondent No.1/complainant; complainant had not incurred the expenses as alleged in the complaint, therefore, there was no merit in the complaint, it be dismissed.
6. The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.
7. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex. C-A, discharge summary/bills/medicine bills/test reports/follow up card Exs. C-1 to C- 97, complaint to DMC Ex. C-98, legal notice Ex. C-99, postal receipts First Appeal No. 155 of 2015 11 EXs. C-100 to 102, complaint before DF, Ldh. Ex. C-103, letter to MMO Ex. C-104, certificate Ex. C-105, copy of insurance policy of DMC Ex. C-106 & 107. On the other hand, Op Nos. 1 to 3 had tendered into evidence affidavit of Dr. Sandeep Puri, Medical Supdt. Ex. RA, affidavit of Dr. Anju Bansal, MS Surgery Ex. RB, affidavit of Dr. P.S. Nain, Associate Professor Ex. RC, affidavit of Dr. Jaspal Singh, Prof. & Head Ex. RD, medical references/clinical evidence abstract Exs. R-1 to R-10, concession application Ex. R-11, patient files Exs. R-12 to R-15. Op No. 4 had tendered into evidence affidavit of Sudesh Sharma Ex. RA, insurance policy Ex. R-I/4 & Ex. R-II/4.
8. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written versions filed by Ops, evidence and documents brought on the record, the complaint was partly allowed as referred above.
9. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, appellants/Op Nos. 1 to 3 have filed First Appeal No. 155 of 2015 to set-aside the order passed by the District Forum whereas complainant filed F.A. No. 349 of 2015 for enhancement of compensation.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. FIRST APPEAL NO. 155 OF 2015
11. It has been argued by the counsel for the appellant/Ops that patient Jatinder Kumar was admitted with appellants/Ops vide CR No. 70688 dated 30.5.2011. After going through the various tests as referred in the pleadings on 13.6.2011 on the basis of Hystopathological report of epidural tissue was found present in cellular tumour cells arranged in sheets. The tumour cells were large First Appeal No. 155 of 2015 12 with round vascular nuclei, prominent nucleoli, which was suggestive of malignancy. On 15.6.2011, bone marrow aspiration was done, which showed cellular marrow having normoblastic maturation of erythroid series with prominence of lymphoid cells and as per the recommendations given by Dr. J.S. Sekhon, Chemotherapy cycle was started. So far as treatment of the Lymphoma Cells is concerned, no complaint has been made by the complainant, as is clear from the pleadings and order passed by the District Forum. The grouse of the complainant in this complaint is with regard to treatment of SPC done on 30.7.2011. Since urinary catheter was old, therefore, it was required to be changed. Dr. Navdeep tried but he failed. Then patient was shifted to Surgical Unit No. 1 for catheterization. It was tried by the Doctors of surgery Unit I but the same could not be done externally and it was advised that SPC under all aseptic conditions to be done and SPC was fixed in place and patient was shifted to ward. However, on 31.7.2011, the patient in the morning complained retention of urine with pain in abdomen and breathlessness and was admitted in surgery Unit 1. Ultrasound of abdomen was done. Bladder was minimally distended and then open SPC was done. He was incubated. Patient gradually improved and was excubated on 6.8.2011 and ultimately, he was discharged on 11.8.2011 in a stable condition. The complaint of the complainant is that when catheter was to be changed, the patient was handed over to inexperienced Doctors, who were not successful, it led to surgery on 31.7.2011. It aggravated the disease of the complainant because patient was already immune-compromised and this surgery further delayed the First Appeal No. 155 of 2015 13 chemotherapy and ultimately the patient died. The allegations of medical negligence have been pleaded against the hospital and the treating Doctors.
12. After filing of the complaint, the matter was referred to Medical Board, Civil Hospital, Ludhiana. The report was sent by Civil Surgeon, Ludhiana to the D.C.D.R.F., Ludhiana vide No. G.M./2012/444 dated 20.11.2012. The report was given by Dr. Baldeep Singh, Dr. Hitinder Kumar and Dr. Suresh Kaushal in which, they observed that Jatinder Kumar was diagnosed as Stage IV NHL under treatment required supra-public drainage for retention of urine which was done at DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana by Dr. Anju Bansal IIIrd year resident student of General surgery. Ordinarily SPC is a minor surgical procedure done in emergency but in this case, the patient was immune-compromised and was having neuropathic bladder then the rate of intra-operative and post-operative complications is known to be higher and ideally in such high risk cases, SPC should have been performed by a senior surgeon or under supervision with anaesthetic back-up. As a complication of the above mentioned procedure, patient had to undergo explorative laprotomy and around 1-2 litres of pus was drained out during the procedure following which patient remained in ICU on ventilator support for a considerable period of time, following which, the definite treatment of non-Hodgkin Lymphome (Chemo Therapy) was interrupted. So, in the opinion of members of the Boards in this case, SPC and later explorative laprotomy increased the morbidity and contributed to mortality in this First Appeal No. 155 of 2015 14 case. The District Forum relying upon the Board of Doctors held Op Nos. 1 to 3 responsible in deficiency in their service.
13. However, in case we thoroughly go through the report given by the Board of Doctors, it has been stated that SPC was done by Dr. Anju Bansal, IIIrd year resident student of General Surgery. The patient was immune-compromised, therefore, post operative complications were higher, therefore, SPC should have been performed by a senior surgeon and lateron explorative laprotomy increased the morbidity as chemo therapy circle was interrupted. Firstly, with regard to the competency of Dr. Anju Bansal was IIIrd year MS student of general surgery, the SPC is a minor surgery and is normally done by the resident students. To this extent, there is affidavits of Dr. Anju Bansal Ex. R-B, Dr. P.S. Nain Ex. R-C. In case there was some mistake or the patient was not properly handled by Dr. Anju Bansal on 30.10.2011, the patient was again referred to Surgical Unit I of the hospital where under the supervision of Senior Doctor explorative laprotomy was done and catheter was properly placed. No doubt that the patient was intubated upto 6.8.2011 but the patient was properly treated and was discharged from the hospital on 11.8.2011 in a stable condition. At the most, if it is treated as an error of judgment, it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission that error of judgment is not a case of medical negligence held in its judgment 2009(2) CLT 94 "N. Lakshminarasimhaiah and others versus Medical Administrator, Ravi Kirloskar Memorial Hospital and Research Centre and others". It was argued by the counsel for the appellant that the Board of Doctors had not properly appreciated the First Appeal No. 155 of 2015 15 documents on the record because after discharge from this hospital on 11.8.2011, the patient did not come back to the hospital and he started taking treatment from Guru Granth Singh Medical College, Faridkot and lateron he died there. The Board of Doctors have stated that Chemotherapy cycle was interrupted. As is clear from the facts of the case, the last chemotherapy was given on 30.7.2011 and it is admitted fact that there should be three weeks difference between the chemotherapy cycle and next chemotherapy was recommended to the patient for 18.8.2011 i.e. exactly after 20 days. However, it was the option of the patient and the patient did not report for chemotherapy on 18.8.2011 with Op hospital. Therefore, opinion given by the Board of Doctors that Chemotherapy cycle was interrupted, which increase the morbidity is not corroborated from the record. During the course of arguments, the counsel for respondent No.1/complainant was also unable to explain that Dr. Anju Bansal, who was IIIrd year student of General Surgery was not competent Doctor to go for minor procedure of SPC. It is a different matter that lateron the patient had problem and then explorative laprotomy was done but ultimately, the patient was treated well and was discharged from the hospital in a stable condition, therefore, it cannot be said that SPC was not properly done or the patient was not properly looked after. With regard to the SPC, counsel for the appellants/Op has referred to the literature Ex. R-3 i.e. "The Surgical Risk of Suprapubic Catheter Insertion and Long-Term Sequelae" wherein it has been observed that insertion is a common urological procedure, which is often referred as safe and simple even in inexperienced hands and its First Appeal No. 155 of 2015 16 standard requirement appears in the basic surgical trainees logbook. Then in Suprapubic Aspiration Ex. R-4, it has been observed that suprapubic aspiration and catheterization is a procedure to obtain uncontaminated bladder urine. It is easy to perform in the emergency department and is associated with minimal complications.
14. As stated above, the patient died in the month of October, 2011 whereas after 11.8.2011, the patient had not reported to this hospital whether SPC or explorative laprotomy increased morbidity is not corroborated from the report of the Doctors because Doctors have not referred the treatment taken by the patient from Guru Granth Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot and what was the cause of death. Since the patient was suffering from spine tumour and in those cases chances of death are quite higher, however, with the treatment the life can be prolonged. In this regard, the reference can be made to the Medical Literature i.e. Chapter 129 Primary Central Nervous System Lymphoma wherein it has been observed "Primary spinal cord lymphoma is even less common than primary leptomeningeal lymphoma. Lymphoma in the spinal cord parenchyma can occur in isolation or accompany brain lymphoma. Patients present with painless bilateral limb weakness, usually involving the legs; sensory symptoms and signs may initially follow a radicular pattern, but eventually a sensory level may be found. CSF may be normal or have a mildly elevated protein concentration with a few lymphocytes. Prognosis has been poor, with patients surviving only a few months from the onset of symptoms, but this is often because the diagnosis was not made until autopsy and no appropriate therapy First Appeal No. 155 of 2015 17 was administered." Then in Ex. R-2 i.e. Book of Mark Hill, Consultant Medical Oncologist and Fiona Kyle, Specialist Registrar in Medical Oncology wherein it has been observed that "untreated aggressive NHLs would result in death in a matter of months". Therefore, without any evidence on the record, we cannot say that SPC or explorative laprotomy has increased the morbidity.
15. The opinion of the Board of Doctors is just an opinion evidence. It is not necessary that in case the Board of Doctors opined negligence, then it is binding upon the Court/Forum. The Court/Forum is to evaluate the entire evidence and then come to the conclusion that findings given by the Board of Doctors is co-relating with the evidence on the record and whether entire evidence was appreciated by the Board of Doctors before coming to the final conclusion. However, the learned District Forum has simply relied upon the opinion of the Board of Doctors without appreciating the other evidence on the record and without giving analytical appreciation of the evidence on the record how SPC and explorative laprotomy had increased the morbidity and how the circle of chemotherapy was interrupted when the patient was recommended for chemotherapy after 20 days of the last chemotherapy. The conduct of the patient has not been appreciated by the District Forum that he did not report to the hospital on required day i.e. 18.8.2011 and started to take the treatment from some other hospital. Record of that hospital was not produced before the Board of Doctors, therefore, it was not appreciated by the Board of Doctors and was not produced even before the District Forum, therefore, what was the cause of death has First Appeal No. 155 of 2015 18 not come. There is no evidence that SPC or explorative laprotomy had added to the morbidity. In these circumstances, the findings so recorded by the District Forum cannot be sustained and are liable to be set-aside.
16. In view of the above, we accept First Appeal No. 155 of 2015. The impugned order is set-aside. Respondent No. 1/Complainant has failed to establish the cause of any medical negligence or deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Consequently, the complaint is hereby dismissed.
17. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 1,71,250/- with this Commission in the appeal. These amounts with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to appellant No. 1 with intimation to other appellants; by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days, from the despatch of the order to the parties; subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
FIRST APPEAL NO. 349 OF 2015
18. This appeal has been filed for enhancement of the compensation as awarded by the District Forum. However, in view of our findings in First Appeal No. 155 of 2015, the appeal of Ops has been accepted and the impugned order has been set-aside and complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed and in these circumstances, there is no occasion to consider the case of the complainant for enhancement of the compensation. Resultantly, First Appeal No. 349 of 2015 filed by the appellant/complainant is hereby dismissed.
First Appeal No. 155 of 2015 19
19. The arguments in these appeals were heard on 11.2.2016 and the orders were reserved. Now the orders be communicated to the parties as per rules.
20. The appeals could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
21. Copy of this order be placed on F.A. No. 349 of 2015.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran) Presiding Judicial Member (Jasbir Singh Gill) Member March 3, 2016. (Surinder Pal Kaur) as Member