National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Yadram vs Dr. Satish Chaturvedi on 7 June, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4695 OF 2009 (Against the Order dated 29/06/2005 in Appeal No. 2195/2004 of the State Commission Rajasthan) 1. YADRAM R/o 3483, Raiger Ki Kothi, Near Sulabh Complex, Chaukdi, Police Station Ramganj Jaipur ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. DR. SATISH CHATURVEDI Through Chaturvedi Clinic, Nawab Ka Chauraha, Ghatgate Jaipur ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DR. B.C. GUPTA,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Advocate Mr. Gopal Shastry, Advocate Mr. Utsav, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Sushil Daga, Advocate Mr. Nikhil Yadav, Advocate Dated : 07 Jun 2018 ORDER DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER
1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for the enhancement of compensation against the order dated 29.06.2005, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (for short, "the State Commission") wherein the appeal No. 2195 of 2004, filed by the petitioner/complainant, was dismissed.
2. The brief facts are that the complainant's young energetic son (for short 'patient') had suffered fever on 14-04-2003 and at 7.30 p.m. on that day, he was taken to the clinic of Dr. Satish Chaturvedi, the OP. The OP, without examining the patient, administered two injections and a bottle of glucose. Immediately after that, red patches appeared on the whole body of the patient, which later turned into boils. The patient was sent back to his house by the OP. On the same day, at about 09:30 P.M., the condition of the patient further deteriorated and the complainant took his son to the clinic of OP, but it was closed. He made telephonic call from the nearby Shipra Medical Store and apprised the OP about the condition of the patient. The OP asked the sale person in the medical store to hand over two tablets to the complainant. The patient consumed two tablets and came back home but at about 3.30 a.m. the condition of the patient became critical and he was taken to SMS Hospital, Jaipur, where he was declared "dead". Postmortem was also conducted and FIR was registered with the police. Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Jaipur for alleged medical negligence on the part of the OP and prayed for compensation at ₹15,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and ₹2,00,000/- for mental agony and ₹21,000/- towards litigation charges.
3. The OP filed the reply and denied the allegations leveled against him. The OP admitted that the patient was brought to him with high grade fever. After examination, he was found as suffering from Gastroenteritis, pyrexia and there were rashes on the body due to drug reaction. Before approaching the OP, the patient took treatment from "₹ 5 wala" doctor. The OP also contended that only after diagnosis; anti-emetic and anti-allergic injections were administered and patient was sent home. The OP submitted that, as per the PM report, the patient died due to Quinine toxicity and cardiac arrest.
4. On the basis of averments and evidence, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay ₹1,00,000/- for loss suffered and ₹1,000/- for expenses. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, both the parties filed cross appeals, but the State Commission vide common order dated 29-6-2005, dismissed both the appeals.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the State Commission held the OP liable for medical negligence and awarded ₹ 1 lakh only as a compensation for the death of 24 years old son of the complainant. The State Commission did not consider the age of deceased and the mental agony sustained by the complainant. The State Commission should have calculated the compensation on the basis of 'multiplier method'. The counsel further submitted that as per the multiplier method, the total compensation shall be ₹4,58,000/- and, therefore, the complainant had sought enhancement of further compensation of ₹3,58,000/-. The counsel further submitted that, the State Commission overlooked the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lata Wadhwa Vs State of Bihar, whereby the methodology to calculate compensation in case of death of a person by negligence has been prescribed. The counsel further relied upon, the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., 2009 (6) SCC 121.
6. The learned counsel for the OP submitted that, the patient was treated properly for fever and allergic rashes. The OP had administered the anti-allergic and anti-emetic injections only; therefore, there was no negligence during the treatment administered to the deceased by OP. The patient was advised to go to SMS Hospital or any higher centre.
7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the parties and perused the prescriptions given by OP. According to the prescription, OP had given injections of anti-emetic and anti-allergy treatment to control the fever and rashes on the body. However, in the night at about 9.30 p.m. on 14.04.2003, the complainant contacted the OP/doctor. The OP/doctor telephonically informed Shipra Medical Store to give two tablets, without seeing the condition of the patient. Thereafter, at about 3.30 a.m., the patient's condition further deteriorated and he was taken to SMS Hospital, Jaipur where he was declared 'dead'. The post mortem findings also suggest that there was excessive Quinine toxicity. On perusal of prescription, it is pertinent to note that the OP had given following drugs:-
1. 2 Cap. OXYPETRACYCLIN 250 mg.
2. Tab. 2 PARACETAMOL 0.5 gm
3. Tab. 2 IBUPROFEN 400 mg.
4. Tab. 2 DEXAMETHASONE 5 mg.
5. Tab. 2 CHLORPHENIRAMINEMALEATE 2 mg
6. Tab. 2 TROMETHAZINE 10 mg.
7. Tab. 2 LOPERAMIDE 2 mg.
8. Inj. AVIL 2 ml.
9. Inj. PERINORM 2 ml
10. DEXTROSE 5 % 500ml The above drugs are used for treatment of fever, for loose motion, to avoid dehydration and for the allergic reaction. In our view, none of the above drugs contains Quinine i.e. Chloroquine, which was found in the chemical analysis during Post mortem samples. It leads to the presumption that drugs containing Quinine were given by the doctor, who treated the patient before he went to the OP.
8. The State Commission has categorically observed that the deceased had not died because of wrong treatment given by the OP but he was held liable due to the deficiency in service while treating the patient.
9. Therefore, we do not find any substantial reason for the enhancement of compensation to the complainant in the instant revision petition. The revision petition is devoid of any merit; hence, dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.
...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER