National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Mr.Fakir Chand vs Principal Medical Superintendent, ... on 2 May, 2011
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1803 OF 2007 (Against order dated 12.02.2007 in appeal no. A-1174/2006 Of the State Commission Delhi ) Mr. Fakir Chand (Husband of Late Smt. Swaran Lata), & guardian of Anjana, Ranjana and Nitin, 1694, Laxmibai Nagar, New Delhi-25. ........Petitioner Vs. Principal Medical Superintendent, Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi. ........ Respondent BEFORE : HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT HONBLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. R. Krishnan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. R.V. Sinha, Advocate & Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocate. Dated, the 2nd day of May, 2011 ORDER
PER MRS.VINEETA RAI, MEMBER This Revision Petition has been filed by one Fakir Chand husband of Late Swaran Lata against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in Appeal No. A-1174/2006 dated 14.11.2006. Respondent in this case is the Principal Medical Superintendent, Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi. The facts of the case leading to the present Revision Petition according to the Petitioner who is a Central Government employee and a member of the Central Government Health Scheme is that he took his wife Smt. Swaran Lata to Safdarjang Hospital on 04.11.2002 following complaints of severe headache and vomiting. According to the Petitioner she was conscious at the time of entering the hospital but soon after became unconscious and started frothing from her mouth. She was admitted in the casualty after which she was shifted to a ward.
In spite of several requests by the Petitioner that she be taken to the Intensive Care Unit and necessary tests be conducted and treatment be started no action was taken and even her oxygen cylinder which got exhausted in a few minutes was not replaced. Initially, the ward doctor started the process to treat her as a case of poisoning because of which valuable time was lost and it was only following the intervention of a lady doctor who suspected the case to be a brain haemorrhage and recommended a CT scan that the patient was sent to ICU in preparation for the CT scan. However, the ICU doctor did not allow the patient to be admitted in the ICU and the doctor in-charge CT scan stated that this procedure could not be done while the patient was on oxygen.
The Petitioner thereafter sought help from the Chief Medical Officer but despite all this no treatment was given to the patient and she remained lying in a trolley in a ward for over five hours. Therefore, the Petitioner removed her from Hospital at 11.30 P.M. and rushed her to Apollo Hospital where an MRI Head and CT scan confirmed that she had a brain haemorrhage and she was provided immediate medical attention.
Despite best efforts by the doctors at Apollo hospital Petitioners wife expired on 07.11.2002. Petitioner contended that as per standard medical literature on the subject if his wife had been given correct proper treatment within the first hour which is crucial for the survival of such patients she would have been alive but because of the negligence and callous attitude of the doctors at Safdarjang hospital and the hospital itself he lost his wife and his three children lost their mother.
The Respondent denied the above contentions of the Petitioner and stated that the patient was provided relevant relief, intensive care and life support system in the ward itself due to non-availability of bed/ventilator in the ICU on that date. Further, as per established procedure it was necessary to rule out that it was not a case of poisoning. It was also a fact that the CT scan was advised for the patient but the Petitioner did not take her for the CT scan. Furthermore, the Petitioner took away the patient without her being officially discharged by the hospital and, therefore, the hospital had to file a medico-legal complaint before the police.
Thus, there was no medical negligence or deficiency in service since patient was properly managed for brain haemorrhage which was one of the two diagnoses at the time of admission.
District Forum after perusing the evidence on record accepted the complaint and held the Petitioner hospital vicariously responbile for medical negligence by inter alia observing that:-
It is true that the doctors only treat and they do not guarantee cure. It is possible that despite proper treatment wife of the complainant would not have survived but the fact remains that her condition deteriorated due to lack of timely treatment.
It, therefore, directed the Petitioner hospital to pay a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs by cheques to the Petitioner in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each out of which the shares of the three childen would be invested in the Fixed Deposit for specified years. Rs.
5,000/- was imposed as costs.
While the Respondent hospital accepted the order of the District Forum the Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission seeking enhancement of the compensation from the Respondent. The State Commission while holding the hospital guilty of administrative negligence for having not attended to the patient for a long period for no justifiable reason however concluded that the amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum did not need any interference keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case where there was only limited deficiency in service. The operative part of the order of the State Commission reads as follows:-
In the instant case the allegation that the patient was not attended to for 5 long hours was denied by the respondent as according to the respondent treatment was provided to the patient immediately as the clinical examination pointed out by the hospital is towards the poisoning and she was kept on ventilator and since no oxygen cylinder were available in the ICU, the appellant removed the patient to private hospital against the medical advice, yet we find the hospital guilty of administrative negligence for having not attended for long for no sufficient reason. There is no specific allegation of wrong treatment given by the doctors, or for having committed such a manifest error in treating the patient that might have caused the death or might have caused some other complications.
In our view in cases of medical negligence one cannot be oblivious of the fact that whenever the patient lands in the hospital the doctors are not aware about his condition, how many children, the patient has and what are his/her liabilities and have no knowledge as to the family background or the family conditions or other conditions of a patient and therefore, it is overall view of negligence and the cause related therewith as the death or other complications suffered by the patient which is a determining criteria for assessing the damages or the compensation. While determining such compensation, Court cannot be swayed by sentiments.
Aggrieved by this order the present Revision Petition has been filed. Ld. Counsel for both the parties were present and made oral submissions. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner stated that the State Commission had erred in rejecting the prayer for enhancement of the compensation by ruling that the present case was one of administrative negligence and not of medical negligence. In fact there was not only negligence of the hospital but criminal and wilful negligence on the part of specific doctors who made the patient wait for 5 hours and even then no proper diagnosis or treatment was started except for giving oxygen. It was because of such a situation that the Petitioner had to take the patient to Apollo Hospital at midnight where she was attended to immediately. The sum of Rs. 2 lakhs is not adequate compensation in view of the fact that the Petitioner now has to bring up three children alone and also has to suffer irreparable loss of his wife. It also needs to be taken into account that his wife expired at a young age and at a time when she was sharing the responsibility of child rearing and looking after the household. Counsel for Respondent, however, denied that there was any delay or negligence on the part of the hospital and stated that the patient was being properly managed by giving oxygen and was put on ventilator.
Necessary diagnostic tests including C T Scan were also prescribed but the Petitioner did not wait for these to be conducted and instead took the patient away without medical concurrence and, therefore, he alone is responsible for the unfortunate consequences.
We have heard Ld. Counsel for both the parties and have gone through the evidence.
The facts regarding the patients clinical condition and her being admitted to the Respondent hospital are not in dispute. It is also a fact that the patient remained in the Petitioner hospital for 5 hours and thereafter she was taken away by the Petitioner to another hospital.
It has also been admitted by the Respondent that the patient could not be given admission in the ICU because no bed was available there but she was given all the medical support in the ward itself. However, as observed by the State Commission no documentary evidence in the form of a case sheet/history was produced to supported this contention. It is also a fact that during this period despite the specific advice of a doctor, the hospital did not conduct the crucial CT scan on the patient. The Respondents contention that the CT scan was not done because the Petitioner himself did not bring the patient for the scan lacks credibility.
It is apparent that the Petitioner ran from pillar to post seeking medical assistance for his wife and thereafter at midnight he had no option but to shift the patient in the interests of her life to another hospital. The fora below have on the basis of evidence before it reached the conclusion that there was certainly serious administrative deficiency in the hospital which could have contributed to the patients death. However, since there was no specific allegation of wrong treatment given by the doctors or having committed any manifest error in treating her, the fora below have treated this case as one of somewhat limited deficiency and awarded Rs. 2 lakhs.
Counsel for the Petitioner submitted before us that the compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs is very meagre because even though the deceased was not earning a monthly income per se her contribution in running the house and looking after her children was significant and it would be equitable to put a value on this contribution while deciding on the quantum of compensation.
We have considered this aspect along-with reasoning of the fora below in awarding the quantum of compensation to the Petitioner. It is an admitted fact that the deceased did not have any fixed income on the basis of which the loss to the state could be calculated/fixed while awarding compensation. The Petitioner has also not led any evidence before the fora below regarding his own income and, therefore, the suggestion by counsel for Petitioner at this stage to consider enhancing the compensation by taking into account some percentage of the income of the Petitioner is not possible in our revisional jurisdiction. Regarding the other factors including the age of the deceased, her role and contribution to the running of the household and the fact that the Petitioner was deprived of consortial company was known to the fora below and no doubt taken into account by them while fixing the compensation. We see no reason, therefore, to disagree with the conclusions of the fora below in granting compensation to the Petitioner. We, therefore, direct the Respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs along-with costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the Petitioner.
Revision Petition is disposed of in above terms.
Sd/-
...
(ASHOK BHAN J.) PRESIDENT Sd/-
(VINEETA RAI) MEMBER AR