National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Parwati Devi vs Dr. Ramanand Jha, Central Coal Fields ... on 30 April, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4156 OF 2012 (From the order dated 08.08.12 in First Appeal No. 265/2009 & 358/2010 of Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) Parwati Devi w/o late Ram Prasad Gupta, r/o Parwati Bhandar, Old BDO Office, P.O. Bermo, District Bokaro, Jharkhand 825102 through its authorised signatory ... Petitioner/Complainant versus Dr. Ramanand Jha, Central Coal Fields Limited Regional Hospital, Dhori, P.O. Dhori, P.S. Bermo, District Bokaro, residing at quarter no. O/C-2, Regional Colony Dhori, P.O. Dhori, P.S. Bermo, District Bokaro, Jharkhand 825102. Respondent/OP
BEFORE HONBLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS For the Petitioner Mr. Sushant Mahapatra, Advocate with Mr. Aruni Poddar, Advocate For the Respondent Dr. M.C. Gupta, Advocate Mr. Ritesh K. Pandey, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON : 30th APRIL 2014 O R D E R PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 08.08.2012, passed by the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission) in FA No. 265/2009, Parwati Devi versus Dr. Ramanand Jha and FA No. 358/2010, Dr. Ramanand Jha versus Smt. Parwati Devi, filed against the order dated 20.07.2009, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bokaro, allowing the consumer complaint no. 62/2008 and directing the payment of compensation of `_12,000/- and litigation cost of ` 3000/- to the complainant by the OP/Doctor. The State Commission vide impugned order dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant, but allowed the appeal filed by the OP/Doctor and hence in the process, the consumer complaint was ordered to be dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant Parwati Devi is the widow of Shri Ram Prasad Gupta, who was a patient of hypertension and diabetes mellitus (DM) and was on regular treatment for the said disease. The said Ram Prasad Gupta developed dyspnou with cough and mild chest pain on 15.04.2008, for which he was admitted to Regional Hospital, Dhori under Central Coalfields Limited (C.C.L.) where the OP Doctor R.N. Jha was on duty on 15.04.2008 at 3:30 AM. The said doctor examined the patient and diagnosed DM with hypertension with acute Myocardial Infarction with CCF. It has been stated that the Doctor gave injection streptokinase to the patient, which led to Cerebral Haemorrhage. When the condition of the patient worsened, he was referred to Bokaro General Hospital (BGH) on the same day at 8:30AM. The patient, however, died at BGH on 25.04.2008 at 3:00AM. It has been alleged that the said doctor had indulged in medical negligence by giving injection streptokinase, because the said injection can be given only by a specialist Doctor, whereas the OP Doctor was holding a MBBS degree only. Further, the said hospital was not properly equipped to deal with said kind of cases, as there was no provision for CCU or CT scan in the said hospital. It is also alleged that the injection streptokinase is given only when the blood pressure (B.P.) of the patient is less than 160/100; however, in this case the BP was 210/130. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking direction to the OP/ Doctor to make payment of ` 10 lakh as compensation and ` 6000/- as cost of treatment.
3. In the written statement filed by the OP Doctor, it was stated that the said doctor was a permanent employee of the Central Coalfields Limited (CCL) and like other Doctors, he had to perform emergency duty as per the roaster issued by the Hospital. When the husband of the complainant was admitted in the Hospital on 15.04.2008, he was on duty to handle the case in the emergency. The OP/Doctor stated that before starting the treatment, he had advised the attendants of the patient to shift him to the BGH, given his deteriorating condition. However, the said attendants/relatives requested him to continue the treatment. The patient was then admitted and on the basis of previous history, as disclosed by the patient and his son and also on clinical examination, it was detected that the patient was suffering from Mycordial Infarction with heart failure. The Doctor has stated that it was wrong to say that streptokinase was administered when the BP was 210/130. The said medicine was purchased from a chemist shop which opens only after 6:00 AM.
The said medicine was given when the BP was around 150/90. The Doctor has denied the allegations levelled in the complaint, stating that he treated the patient to the best of his ability and it was not necessary that the injection streptokinase could be given by a specialist doctor only.
4. The District Forum after taking into account the evidence of the parties, allowed the complaint and directed payment of `_12,000/- as compensation and ` 3000/- as cost of litigation by Doctor to the complainant. Two appeals were made against this order one by the complainant Parwati Devi and the other by the OP, Dr. R.N. Jha. The State Commission vide impugned order dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant, but allowed the appeal filed by the OP Doctor, consequently, dismissing the consumer complaint in question.
5. It was stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner during hearing that injection streptokinase is given when the BP of the patient is less than 160/100 mm of Hg. However, in this case, the injection was administered at 3:30AM when the BP of the patient was 210/130. It has been stated in the report given by Doctor Neeraj Prasad, Department of Cardiology, Abdur Razzaque Ansari Memorial Weavers Hospital Apollo Hospital group that streptokinase is a life-saving drug, which is given within two hours of the onset of symptoms. It is given when the BP is less than 160/100 mm of Hg. It has also been stated by Dr. Prasad that all qualified doctors and even trained paramedics can give streptokinase.
Learned counsel argued that the original record of the Hospital had not been made available to them and there was over-writing/ manipulation in the record. The learned counsel stated that there was overwriting in the medical prescription. As observed by Doctors of BGH, the patient had died due to Cerebral Haemorrhage, which occurred due to the streptokinase injection given at high BP.
6. In reply, the learned counsel for respondent stated that the allegation of medical negligence on the part of the OP/Doctor was not substantiated from the facts on record. The medical negligence could be attributed only, if the diagnosis done by a Doctor was wrong, or the plan of treatment was wrong or the treatment administered to the patient was wrong in any manner. In the present case, none of these factors were there and hence, the charge of medical negligence was not established. The order passed by the State Commission was, therefore, in accordance with law. The learned counsel also stated that the patient was under the supervision of a team of four Doctors, when the said injection was given. Moreover, the onus to prove that it was a case of medical negligence, was on the complainant. The patient had been shifted to the B.G.H. within a period of 4 to 5 hours from admission in the CCL hospital. The OP had advised shifting to that hospital, when the patient was brought before him, but the relatives of the patient were not prepared to take him to BGH. The learned counsel stated that the injection in question had been purchased around 6 AM from the Chemist shop. The said shop opens for business around this time only. Referring to the allegation of manipulation in the records etc., the learned counsel stated that relevant record was always kept in the hospital. If the complainant is levelling any allegation regarding forgery in record etc., they should have been impleaded the hospital as necessary party.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner replied that as per the usual practice, the medicine is given from the stock of the hospital and later on, the same is replenished after making purchase from the chemist shop. The learned counsel further stated that the allegation of making forgery in the record had not been controverted by the other party. Moreover, the four doctors said to have been present during treatment belonged to the same hospital.
8. I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.
9. From the facts on record, it is evident that the patient was in a serious condition when he was brought to the CCL Hospital, Dori.
It has been stated by the OP/Doctor in the written statement filed before the District Forum that before starting treatment of the patient, the OP/Doctor had advised to shift the patient to BGH for better treatment. However, the attendants accompanying the patient insisted that the treatment should be started at the CCL Hospital only. It is also admitted fact that within a few hours of admission in the CCL Hospital, the patient was shifted to BGH, where he died after ten days, i.e., 25.04.2008.
10. The main allegation made against the OP/Doctor says that the injection streptokinase was administered although the OP/Doctor was not qualified to do so and moreover, the injection was given when the BP of the patient was very high and the hospital was not equipped to deal with any emergency situation, following the injection. In this regard, the information given by Dr. Neeraj Prasad, Department of Cardiology, Abdur Razzaque Ansari Memorial Weavers Hospital, is quite material in which Dr. Prasad has stated that streptokinase injection can be given by all qualified MBBS doctors and also by trained paramedics.
It is clear, therefore, that the OP Doctor has not indulged in any negligence, just by giving the said injection. Further, there is an affidavit on record given by four Doctors of the CCL Hospital, namely, Dr. S.C. Biswal, Dr. A.K. Dubey, Dr. Arvind Kumar and Dr. K.R.R. Singh which says that the OP/Doctor, Dr. Ramanand Jha consulted all of them and other doctors as per the system and practice in their hospital and it was professionally, unanimously decided to inject streptokinase for saving the life of the patient. They have also given a certificate to this effect. It has also been stated by these Doctors that all of them motivated the patients relatives to take the patient to BGH and only after that, the patient was shifted.
11. In the light of the above facts, it is clear that the State Commission has carried out a rational analysis of the facts and circumstances on record and came to the conclusion that the allegation of medical negligence against the OP/Doctor was not proved. It is made out from the facts stated above that the decision to inject streptokinase was taken by a team of four doctors. It is also clear that at the initial stage itself, the relatives of the patient were advised to take him to BGH, but they themselves decided not to do so.
12. From the above discussion, it is clear that there is no irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the State Commission which may merit any interference at the revisional stage. This petition is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed and the order passed by the State Commission is upheld.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
(DR. B.C. GUPTA) PRESIDING MEMBER RS/