State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ranbir Singh vs Dr.Naresh Mittal on 21 July, 2017
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal Nos: 285, 332,367 of 2016 Date of Institution: 05.04.2016, 18.04.2016, 26.04.2016 Date of Decision: 21.07.2017 Appeal No.285 of 2016 1. Ranbir Singh s/o Shri Ram Kumar 2. Renu d/o Shri Ranbir Singh s/o Shri Ram Kumar 3. Vandana minor d/o Shri Ranbir Singh 4. Rupali d/o Shri Ranbir Singh 5. Simran minor d/o Shri Ranbir Singh Appellants No.3 to 5 being minors through their father and natural guardian Ranbir Singh (appellant No.1) all Residents of Sq.No.323, Railway Colony, Sirsa, District Sirsa. Appellants-Complainants Versus 1. Dr. Naresh Mittal, M.D. (Medicines), Mittal Hospital, Opposite Hathi Park, Dr. Inderjeet Street, near Godara Ultrasound Centre, Sirsa, District Sirsa. 2. United India Insurance Company Limited through its Divisional Manager at Sirsa. Respondents-Opposite Parties Appeal No.332 of 2016 United India Insurance Company Limited Regional Office, SCO 123-124, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through its duly constituted attorney Smt. Sunita Sharma, Deputy Manager. Appellant-Opposite Party No.2 Versus 1. Ranbir Singh s/o Shri Ram Kumar 2. Renu d/o Shri Ranbir Singh 3. Vandana minor d/o Shri Ranbir Singh 4. Rupali minor d/o Shri Ranbir Singh 5. Simran minor d/o Shri Ranbir Singh Respondents No.4 and 5 being minors through their father Shri Ranbir Singh, being next friend and natural guardian, all Residents of Sq.No.323, Railway Colony, Sirsa, District Sirsa. Respondents-Complainants 6. Dr. Naresh Mittal, M.D. (Medicines), Mittal Hospital, Opposite Hathi Park, Dr. Inderjeet Street, near Godara Ultrasound Centre, Sirsa, District Sirsa, Haryana. Respondent-Opposite Party No.1 Appeal No.367 of 2016 Dr. Naresh Mittal, M.D. (Medicines), Mittal Hospital, Opposite Hathi Park, Dr. Inderjeet Street, near Godara Ultrasound Centre, Sirsa, District Sirsa. Appellant-Opposite Party No.1 Versus 1. Ranbir Singh s/o Shri Ram Kumar 2. Renu d/o Shri Ranbir Singh s/o Shri Ram Kumar 3. Vandana minor d/o Shri Ranbir Singh 4. Rupali minor d/o Shri Ranbir Singh 5. Simran minor d/o Shri Ranbir Singh Minors daughters through their father Shri Ranbir Singh, being next friend and natural guardian, all Residents of Sq.No.323, Railway Colony, Sirsa, District Sirsa. Respondents-Complainants 6. United India Insurance Company Limited through its Divisional Manager, Sirsa. Respondent-Opposite Party No.2 CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President. Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.
Argued by: Shri Dheeraj Narula, Advocate for complainants.
Shri Nitesh Singhi, Advocate for Dr. Naresh Mittal-Opposite Party No.1.
Shri P.S. Saini, Advocate for United India Insurance Company Limited-Opposite Party No.2.
O R D E R BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER This order shall dispose of afore-mentioned three appeals bearing No.285, 332 and 367 of 2016 having arisen out of common order dated March 2nd, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa (for short the 'District Forum'), in complaint No.85 of 2014 filed by Ranbir Singh and others-Complainants.
2. Smt. Suman (since deceased) wife of complainant No.1 Ranbir Singh and mother of complainants No.2 to 5 namely Renu, Vandana, Rupali and Simran, developed fever and respiratory disorder on December 30th, 2013 and on the same day, she was got admitted in the hospital of Dr. Naresh Mittal-Opposite Party No.1 at Sirsa. After receiving blood test report, platelets count was reported as 94000 against the normal range of 1,50,000 to 4,00,000. Malaria parasite was reported as negative. The complainant was assured that ailment had been diagnosed and she would be ok. On next day i.e. December 31st, 2013, Suman faced difficulty in passing urine. The patient was assured for check up by the opposite party No.1 at the time of ward visit. No further test was got conducted on December 31st, 2013. The complainant No.1 was not informed that the platelets count of patient Suman was less than the normal count. On January 01st, 2014 at about 10:30 A.M. blood test was got conducted from Verma Pathology lab. On that date, the complainant No.1 came to know from staff members that her platelets count had fallen to 18000 and her condition was serious. The opposite party No.1 did not take any step to increase the platelets count as well as respiratory distress and urine problem.
3. On that day, Suman was not checked up by the opposite party No.1 and the complainant No.1 was told that doctor had gone to court. The opposite party No.1 checked up Suman in routine at about 6:30 P.M. and prescribed few medicines. There was no arrangement for providing oxygen and ventilator facility. At about 9:30 P.M. Suman was again checked up by the opposite party No.1 and the complainant No.1 was asked to bring platelets from blood bank of Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa. When the complainant was on his way to Dera Sacha Sauda, he received a telephonic call from the opposite party No.1 to return back as condition of Suman had become very critical and she was to be taken to some higher medical institute. Thereafter, Suman was discharged from the hospital at about 10:25 P.M. and she was taken to another doctor at Sirsa who told that platelets should have been transfused on December 30th, 2013 and blood test should have been conducted on daily basis.
4. Thereafter, Suman was taken to Sukhda Hospital, Hisar at about 1:00 A.M. during same night. Suman was declared a patient of malaria and dengue as positive with Acute Respiratory Disorder (ARDS) and urine problem. On January 2nd, 2014 Suman breathed her last at Sukhda Hospital, Sirsa. The complainant No.1 spent a sum of Rs.80,000/- for her treatment at Sukhda Hospital, Hisar and an amount of Rs.50,000/- was deposited in the hospital of opposite party No.1. In fact, Suman was suffering from acute respiratory disorder, dengue, less platelets and urine problem. Suman lost her life due to negligence on the part of the opposite party No.1 at the time of her treatment.
5. The complainants filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the prayer that opposite parties be directed to pay an amount of Rs.18.00 lacs as compensation on account of death of Smt. Suman; an amount of Rs.1,05,000/- spent for her treatment and an amount of Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.
6. Dr.Naresh Mittal-Opposite Party No.1 in his written version has taken plea that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainants are estopped from filing the present complaint by their own acts and conduct and that the District Forum, Sirsa has no jurisdiction to decide this complaint. The opposite party No.1 has taken plea that the opposite party No.1 has not shown negligence at the time of treatment of Suman and the complainants have not obtained any expert opinion regarding treatment provided to Suman. Moreover, treatment was provided to patient by Sukhda multi specialty hospital also but at the time of treatment no opinion was given by the attending doctor that Suman died due to any act of negligence on the part of opposite party No.1. No enquiry or investigation is pending against the opposite party No.1 regarding allegations of negligence on the part of opposite party No.1. In fact, when the patient was brought to his hospital, there was no breathing problem. X-ray chest, blood test, ECG etc were conducted when Suman remained admitted in the hospital of the opposite party No.1.
7. It is also denied that there was urine problem or ARDS problem with the patient. As count of platelets was 94000 on December 30th, 2013, it was not thought necessary to conduct any test on December 31st, 2013. The opposite party No.1 received information in the evening on January 01st, 2013 after lab test that the patient was having 18000 platelets count. It is also denied that the opposite party No.1 had gone to court on January 01st, 2014. At about 8:30 P.M. on January 01st, 2014, Suman felt difficulty in breathing. She was provided oxygen also. Thereafter, on the request of the relatives of the patient, she was discharged from the hospital for taking her to some higher medical centre. The opposite party No.1 provided best possible treatment to the patient. It is denied that the complainants are entitled to receive compensation as claimed in the complaint. The opposite party No.1 has prayed that the complaint filed by the complainants be dismissed with cost.
8. United India Insurance Company Limited (for short 'the Insurance Company')-Opposite Party No.2 filed its separate written version with the plea that Dr. Naresh Mittal-opposite party No.1 who is a qualified doctor provided best possible treatment to the patient and the doctor cannot be held liable regarding death of Suman in the absence of expert opinion. No expert opinion has been obtained from a board of doctors. The record of Sukhda multi specialty hospital reflects that line of treatment in the hospital of the opposite party No.1 and Sukhda Hospital was same. In this way, the opposite party No.1 cannot be held liable for making payment of any amount as claimed in the complaint. In this way, the opposite party No.2 is also not liable to pay the compensation amount.
9. Parties led evidence in support of their respective claims before the District Forum.
10. After hearing the parties and going through the case file, vide impugned order dated March 2nd, 2016 the complaint filed by the complainants was allowed directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.5,40,000/- to the complainants within one month with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization, jointly and severally. The opposite parties were also directed to pay an amount of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
11. Aggrieved with the order dated March 2nd, 2016 passed by the District Forum, Dr. Naresh Mittal and United India Insurance Company Limited-Opposite Parties have filed First Appeal Nos.332 and 367 of 2016 for setting aside the impugned order and to dismiss the complaint. Appellants-complainants also have filed First Appeal No.285 of 2016 with a prayer to modify the impugned order dated March 2nd, 2016 passed by the District Forum and to enhance the compensation amount as prayed in the complaint.
12. During the course of arguments, there was no controversy of any type that on December 30th, 2013 Smt. Suman wife of the complainant No.1 Ranbir Singh and mother of complainants No.2 to 5, was brought to the hospital of the opposite party No.1. On that day, blood test report from Dr. Verma Path lab was received mentioning total platelets count of Suman as 94000 against the normal range of 150000-400000 and malaria parasite as negative. Path lab reports are Exhibits C-10 and C-11. It is also admitted fact that no blood test was conducted on December 31st, 2013 regarding platelets count. It is admitted fact that next time blood test and other tests were conducted on January 01st, 2014 and on that day when report Exhibit C-11 was received, the platelets count of the patient was found only 18000. It is also admitted fact that during the evening hours on January 01st, 2014 after receiving path lab report, the complainant No.1 was asked to arrange platelets for transfusing in the body of patient Suman, from Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa. It is also admitted fact that on that day, the patient felt breathing problem, urine problem etc. The complainant No.1 returned back without platelets from the hospital. It is also admitted fact that on the same night, Suman was discharged on the request of the complainant No.1 and thereafter she was got admitted in Sukhda Multi Specialty Hospital, Hisar for further treatment. It is also admitted fact that Suman breathed her last on January 02nd, 2013 at about 10:30 P.M. in the hospital.
13. As per test report, she was diagnosed as a patient of malaria, dengue and acute respiratory disorder and urine problem. As per Verma Path lab Exhibit C-5, total platelets count as on December 30th, 2013 was 94000 and as per Path lab report Exhibit C-7, total platelets count as on January 01st, 2014 was 18000 and malaria parasite was found negative in both the reports. As per biochemistry reports Exhibits C-12 to C-14 from Sukhda Hospital, it was a case of dengue positive. As per report Exhibit C-20 it was a case of malaria positive. As per death summary Exhibit C-25, principal diagnosis was: Dengue + malaria (PV) with MODS with ARDS with type-I respiratory failure. The patient came with complaint of shortness of breath, not passing urine for 1 day and patient had H/O fever with chills for3-4 days. The patient was declared dead at 10:30 P.M. on January 02nd, 2014 in Sukhda Hospital, Hisar.
14. The version of the complainants in this case is that Suman lost her life due to negligence on the part of the opposite party No.1 at the time of providing treatment to the deceased. Blood test for platelets count, x-ray chest and other tests were conducted in the hospital on December 30th, 2013. No test was conducted on December 31st, 2013 and on January 01st, 2014 during evening hours after receiving path lab report the platelets count level was found only 18000. Version of the complainants is that there was breathing problem, urine problem etc from the date of admission but the opposite party No.1 has denied this version of the complainants. The complainants feel that the opposite party No.1 has shown carelessness and negligence at the time of treating Suman on December 31st, 2013 because on that day also blood test and other necessary tests should have been got conducted to get up to date knowledge regarding level of platelets count because dengue is a very serious disease. As per version of the complainants, the opposite party No.1 did not take the patient-Suman seriously. Learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that after blood test on December 30th, 2013 there was no need of blood test on the next day i.e. December 31st, 2013 as the level of platelets count was 94000.
15. In this case it is the version of the complainants that on January 01st, 2014 the complainant No.1 was asked to purchase platelets from Dera Sacha Sauda Hospital, Sirsa so that the platelets could be transfused in the body of patient Suman but by that time the condition of the patient had become critical and she had to be shifted to Sukhda Hospital, Hisar. In fact, the only act of carelessness and negligence on the part of opposite parties has been pointed out by the complainants that the blood test was not conducted on December 31st, 2013 and the opposite party No.1 has shown carelessness in this regard. There are also allegations that the patient was not provided ventilator as she was having breathing problem.
16. Smt. Suman remained in the hospital of opposite party No.1 from December 30th, 2013 up to January 01st, 2014 and she died on January 02nd, 2014 at 10:30 P.M. after she was shifted to Sukhda Multi Specialty Hospital, Hisar where she was being kept on ventilator due to breathing problem. In fact, the attending doctors were in a better position to understand as to at what stage the patient should have been kept on ventilator and was in need of oxygen due to breathing problem. It appears that till the patient remained in the hospital of the opposite party No.1, the breathing problem was not so serious which needed the patient to be kept on ventilator. Ventilator facility was available in the hospital and moreover the cause of death of the patient was not only breathing problem and that the timely oxygen was not provided to the patient in the hospital of the opposite party No.1 as she remained alive for more than a period of 24 hours after she was discharged from the hospital of the opposite party No.1.
17. At the time of giving findings in this case, we are also required to make our mind clear regarding ailment of dengue. In fact, dengue is a very serious ailment and chances of casualty due to dengue fever are more than ordinary fever, malaria and so many other diseases. As and when there is news of spreading dengue fever in a particular area, Health Department and State Government take it very seriously and treatment is given to dengue fever patients on war footing. Frankly speaking, sometimes it cannot be possible to save life of dengue patient despite all possible efforts made by the doctor. In most of the cases survival of the patient of dengue does not depend upon the medicines and treatment. Dengue patients are found to be more hopeful for increase of platelets count on the basis of prescribed diet, fruits and liquid. Increase in the level of platelets count in most of the dengue fever cases starts merely due to precautions, diet chart and consumption of liquid and fruits etc. Sometimes in dengue fever cases prevention is better than cure. A doctor certainly cannot give 100% guarantee to save the life of a dengue patient. In this case, as per pathological report dated December 30th, 2013, the level of platelets count was 94000 and certainly at that time the condition of the patient was not so serious. We feel due to these reasons also the opposite party No.1 did not think it proper to get blood test and other tests conducted on next day i.e. December 31st, 2013. It is also nowhere provided and even not advisable that blood test and other tests regarding dengue disease should be done daily.
18. It appears that the opposite party No.1 had taken decision to get blood test and other tests on January 01st, 2014 instead of December 31st, 2013 in good faith considering that the patient was not so serious as the level of platelets count was 94000 on December 30th, 2013. In our view, it cannot be considered as a case of carelessness and negligence on the part of opposite party No.1. A doctor has to take some decisions considering condition and seriousness of each and every patient. Sometimes, there may be mistake in the decision of a doctor also. A doctor can be expected to provide medicines and give treatment as per his ability and each and every decision of a doctor certainly cannot be correct. We cannot overlook this aspect also that chances of survival of a dengue patient are not so much. Keeping in mind the entire pleadings and evidence on the file, we feel that it does not appear to be a case of any act of negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 at the time of treatment of patient-Suman (deceased). It appears the complainants started blaming the opposite party No.1 because he could not save the life of patient Suman who was admitted in his hospital for treatment. The casualty rate of dengue patients is also very high and in most of the cases it becomes very difficult to save life of a dengue patient.
19. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainants has argued that in a case of involving medical negligence, once the initial burden has been discharged by the complainants by making out a case of negligence on the part of the hospital or the doctor concerned, the onus then shifts on to the hospital or the attending doctor and it is for the hospital to satisfy the Court that there was no lack of care and diligence. In support of his this contention, learned counsel for the complainants placed his reliance upon two decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4119 of 1999, Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences versus Prasanth S. Dhananka & Ors., decided on May 14th, 2009; Criminal Appeal Nos.1191-1194 of 2005 'Malay Kumar Ganguly versus Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee and others' decided on August 07th, 2009 and V. Kishan Rao vs. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital & another, decided on 08.03.2010 cited as 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 929. In fact, this contention of the learned counsel for the complainant, mentioned above is on the basis of observation made in case law Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences versus Prasanth S. Dhananka & Ors (Supra).
20. Same type of findings were given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case law Criminal Appeal Nos.1191-1194 of 2005 'Malay Kumar Ganguly versus Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee and others' decided on August 07th, 2009. As per facts of case law referred above, the patient was not referred to a Dermatologist as she had skin rashes all over her body. Diagnosis of the patient that she was suffering from angioneurotic oedema with allergic vasculitis, was wrong. Moreover, patient was given a dose of 80 mg Depomedrol injection twice daily for the next three days and continued treatment on the same line. Moreover, steroid was unnecessarily used at the time of treatment by the doctor. Apart from it, findings were also given that negligence is the breach of a duty caused by the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.
21. As per facts of case law referred above in V. Kishan Rao vs. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital & another, (Supra), the patient was given treatment of typhoid whereas patient was suffering only from malaria fever. In the death certificate issued by Yashoda Hospital also it was mentioned that the patient died due to cardio respiratory arrest and malaria. In this way, wrong treatment was given to the patient. We find cited case laws above are not of much help to the complainants as facts and circumstances of the case in hand are somewhat different from the facts and circumstances of the above cited case laws.
22. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1-Dr. Naresh Mittal argued that the complainant has failed to prove any act of negligence and carelessness on the part of opposite party No.1 or any other doctor or official of the hospital. Treatment was given to the patient by Dr. Naresh Mittal as per his wisdom and long experience. Merely because Dr. Naresh Mittal, could not save the life of Suman, findings cannot be given that all it happened due to acts of carelessness and negligence on the part of Dr. Naresh Mittal. It also will not be justified and advisable to give findings against Dr. Naresh Mittal on the basis of statement of the complainant and few other witnesses in the shape of affidavits and more particularly, when no expert opinion has been obtained in connection with acts of carelessness and negligence on the part of opposite party No.1. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 has argued that sometimes at the time of treatment of the patient, the patients have to face un-expected problems.
23. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainants also argued that Dr. Naresh Mittal-Opposite Party No.1 should had transfused platelets in the body of patient Suman as and when she was brought to the hospital as total platelets count on that day was 94000 and more particularly on next day December 31st, 2013 after conducting blood test and other necessary tests. In case blood test and other necessary tests would have been conducted on December 31st, 2013, certainly the opposite party No.1 would have taken decision to transfuse platelets in the body of the patient. Learned counsel for the complainants has argued that it is a clear case of medical negligence on the part of the Dr. Naresh Mittal-opposite party No.1. In support of his this contention, learned counsel for the complainants placed his reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in case law St.Stephens Hospital versus Roshani Devi & Ors, 2013(4) C.P.J. 74.
24. We have closely perused the above cited Roshani Devi's case law (Supra) and the same is not of much help to the complainant in this case. As per facts of case law referred above, platelets count was reduced from 19000 to 16000 at the time of discharge. As per facts of that case there was serious problem in the abdomen and liver of the patient. Blood tests etc were conducted but no test in respect of liver of the patient was conducted. In that case, problem arose as neither any test in respect of patient's liver was conducted nor any treatment was given. Facts and circumstances of the above cited case laws are quite different from the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.
25. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 also placed his reliance upon case law Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab and another, (2005) 3 CLT 358 (SC) and Kusum Sharma & others vs. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre & Others, 2010(1) CPJ 29 (SC).
26. In case law Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab and another (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
"Negligence in the context of medical profession necessarily calls for a treatment with a difference. To infer rashness or negligence on the part of a professional, in particular a doctor, additional considerations apply. A case of occupational negligence is different from one of professional negligence. A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional. So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical professional of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or procedure which the accused followed. When it comes to the failure of taking precautions what has to be seen is whether those precautions were taken which the ordinary experience of men has found to be sufficient; a failure to use special or extraordinary precautions which might have prevented the particular happening cannot be the standard for judging the alleged negligence. So also, the standard of care, while assessing the practice as adopted, is judged in the light of knowledge available at the time of the incident, and not at the date of trial. Similarly, when the charge of negligence arises out of failure to use some particular equipment, the charge would fail if the equipment was not generally available at that particular time (that is, the time of the incident) at which it is suggested it should have been used."
27. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case law Kusum Sharma & others vs. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre & others (Supra) held as under:-
(I) Negligence is the breach of a duty exercised by omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.
Negligence is an essential ingredient of the offence. The negligence to be established by the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not the negligence merely based upon an error of judgment.
The medical professional is expected to bring 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 is what the law requires.
A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field.
In the realm of diagnosis and treatment there is scope for genuine difference of opinion and one professional doctor is clearly not negligent merely because his conclusion differs from that of other professional doctor.
The medical professional is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which he honestly believes as providing greater chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances of failure. Just because a professional looking to the gravity of illness has taken higher element of risk to redeem the patient out of his/her suffering which did not yield the desired result may not amount to negligence.
Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill and competence. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession.
It would not be conducive to the efficiency of the medical profession if no doctor could administer medicine without a halter round his neck.
It is our bounden duty and obligation of the civil society to ensure that the medical professionals are not unnecessary harassed or humiliated so that they can perform their professional duties without fear and apprehension.
The medical practitioners at times also have to be saved from such a class of complainants who use criminal process as a tool for pressurizing the medical professionals/hospitals particularly private hospitals or clinics for extracting uncalled for compensation. Such malicious proceedings deserve to be discarded against the medical practitioners.
The medical professionals are entitled to get protection so long as they perform their duties with reasonable skill and competence and in the interest of the patients. The interest and welfare of the patients have to be paramount for the medical professionals.
28. After close perusal, we find the case laws cited by the learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 fully support the version of the opposite parties.
29. There is no doubt of any type in this regard that medical profession is a noble profession. People involved in the medical profession, more particularly the doctors command respect in our Society. At the same time, expectations of the public persons are also much more from the doctors than the other institutions and sections of the Society. In fact, a doctor cannot give complete assurance and guarantee to save life of a patient. Certainly for a patient process of treatment is a question of life and death. In this way, a doctor is required to be more and more careful at the time of treatment of a patient. A little negligence on the part of a doctor can make life of a patient hell. A doctor can help a patient by providing him best possible medicines/treatment. Sometimes, mistake may also be possible on the part of a doctor also at the time of treatment. After all, a doctor is also a human being. Working of a doctor cannot be expected like a machine or a computer.
30. Keeping in mind the above mentioned circumstances, we feel in this situation when everybody in public life is facing such type of difficulties, it becomes the duty of the court as well as of this Commission also to pass some effective, meaningful, relief giving and purposeful orders which should be based on equity and helpful for providing justice that is also natural justice. We feel courts as well as this Commission should pass orders as the situation demands and should not hesitate to come out a little out of the tight cordon of rules and procedure also if the situation so demands.
31. In our view Dr. Naresh Mittal-Opposite Party No.1 provided best possible treatment to the patient but unfortunately the life of patient Suman could not be saved and she breathed her last after she was treated by the opposite party No.1 as well as at Sukhda Hospital, Hisar. The opposite party No.1 also had asked the complainant No.1 to purchase platelets from Dera Sacha Sauda, Sirsa to transfuse the same in the body of the patient but the condition of the patient had become very critical and the complainant No.1-Ranbir Singh and his other relatives took decision to shift the patient to some other hospital. Resultantly, findings are given that cause of death of Suman is not any act of negligence on the part of the opposite party No.1. We feel the District Forum has committed an error while giving findings that Suman breathed her last due to negligence of Dr. Naresh Mittal-Opposite Party No.1.
32. Resultantly, the appeals Nos.332 and 367 of 2016 filed by Dr. Naresh Mittal-Opposite Party No.1 and United India Insurance Company Limited-Opposite Party No.2 are allowed, the impugned order dated March 2nd, 2016 passed by the District Forum is held illegal and is set aside. The complaint filed by complainants stands dismissed and consequently, appeal No.285 of 2016 filed by complainants stands dismissed.
33. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- + Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing appeals No.332 and 367 of 2016 respectively be refunded to the respective appellants-opposite parties against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.
Announced:
21.07.2017 (Balbir Singh) Judicial Member (Nawab Singh) President CL