State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
V.P.Singh vs Dr.M.P.Chandrakar & Anr. on 11 August, 2015
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
Complaint Case No.20/2009
Instituted on : 05.10.2009
V. P. Singh, S/o Late Gadhdhar Prasad Singh,
Age 65 years,
R/o : Quarter No.2B, Street- 1A, Sector - 8,
Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) ... Complainant.
Vs.
1. Dr. M.P. Chandrakar, M.D. CEO/
Executive Director,
Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital,
Near Nehru Nagar Chowk, G.E. Road,
Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.)
2. Dr. H.C. Sharma, M.D., Consultant Doctor,
Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital,
Near Nehru Nagar Chowk, G.E. Road,
Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) ... Opposite Parties
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER
SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
Complainant present in person.
Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for the OPs.
ORDER
Dated : 11/08/2015 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. The complainant filed this consumer complaint against the OPs seeking reliefs as under :-
// 2 //
(a) To direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.50 lakhs towards compensation.
(b) To direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.49,99,999/- towards compensation for mental agony.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 11.09.2007 at 5 A.M., the complainant admitted his son late Anand Prakash in Chandulal Memorial Hospital, near Nehru Nagar, Chowk, G.E. Road, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) due to fever. The complainant took precaution because complainant's son was getting treatment for Hepatitis - B. The complainant's son was dumped in Room No.27 (A.C. Room) Lavatory of Room No.27 was dirty, unhygienic, highly infected, highly contaminated with germs, Bacteria's and Viruses. Room was also dirty. On the request of the complainant, the OPs did not change Bed - Sheet even. At about 1.00 P.M. Dr. H.C. Sharma came to examine his son. From 5 A.M. to 1.00 P.M. the complainant's son was totally ignored in Hospital. At 5 .00 P.M., the complainant's son was shifted in ICU only for sponging and no medicines were given for fever. On 12.09.2007 in morning the complainant saw that two sweepers (female) were cleaning bedpans of Hospital in toilet of room No.27, then the complainant realized the reason for unbearable foul smell from toilet. The complainant lit essence sticks in room as well in lavatory. On 12.09.2007 at 5.00 P.M. the complainant's son was shifted in room No.27 and he remained in room till 5.00 P.M. on 15.09.2007.
// 3 // During stay in hospital, the complainant experienced lot of irregularities in treatment. The complainant spent about Rs.34,000.00 but there was no improvement in fever condition. So, contrary to Doctor's advice, putting adverse remarks on discharge slip in respect of hospital treatment, the complainant got discharge of his son from hospital. On 14.09.2007, Dr. H.C. Sharma, made some very unpleasant remarks and advised for liver transplant in from of complainant's son. Remarks of Dr. Sharma, made a very demoralizing impact on the morale of complainant's son and he lost hope of survival and wept for whole night on 14/15/09.2007. The complainant could not imagine that unhygienic /highly infected / highly contaminated condition of room No.27 & its toilet compounded with extremely unwanted and damaging remarks of Dr. Sharma will kill complainant's at such a tender age of 33 years. For room No.27, hospital is fully responsible and for demoralizing / damaging effects only Dr. Sharma is responsible. On 19.09.2007, the complainant shifted his son to Pune by air and on 20.09.2007 he was admitted in Joshi Hospital, Pune and on 20.09.2007 his Bilirubin Count was 43.06. As per Dr. P. Lawate D.M. attending doctor at Pune, complainant's son died due to stomach infection, not due to Hepatitis - B. Further Dr. Lawate told that stomach infection is either due to infected water or highly infected toiled / surroundings. On two counts Chandulal Memorial Hospital is responsible. Firstly, complainant's son was dumped in room No.27 // 4 // which was highly contaminated and full of Germs, Viruses and infection carrier agents which played a vital role for infection in stomach of complainant's son. Second reason is discussion of Liver transplant in front of complainant's son at the cost of 25 to 30 lakhs which was an unmanageable amount for the complainant, broke the moral of complainant's son to fight the disease. The Hospital refused to give the complainant papers pertaining to the treatment even under Right to Information Act, 2005. Therefore, the complainant filed consumer complaint before this Commission and prayed for granting relief as mentioned in relief clause of the complaint.
3. The opposite parties filed written statement and raised preliminary objections. The OPs averred that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable before this Commission as the OPs have not committed any unfair trade practice and have no done any deficiency in service, therefore, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. This Commission has sent the matter along with the record to the Medical Board and Medical Board has given their report that the OPs have not committed any medical negligence in the treatment, therefore, the complaint of the complainant is likely to be dismissed. The complainant without any reason and without any evidence has claimed the amount of Rs.99,00,000/-. The complainant's complaint is not maintainable as complainant has not filed any document to prove his case for the compensation of Rs.99,00,000/-, // 5 // therefore, the complaint of the complainant, is liable to be dismissed. The complaint filed by the complainant is not according to the prescribed procedure and it is not mentioned that under what Section the complaint has been filed. The complainant's son Late Anand Prakash was admitted in the hospital of the OPs. The room N.27 was not dirty, not unhygienic, not highly infected, no highly contaminated with germs, bacteria's and viruses. The room was also not dirty. The room No.27 is a private room with an A.C. Cabin and has been used by several patients and no complaint has been received from any patient so far. The room is totally well furnished and it is well maintained. Dr. H.C. Sharma had examined the son of the complainant and accordingly he was given the medicines and treatment. The treatment given is clear from document which has been filed by the complainant himself. The complainant's son was not ignored in the hospital and medicines were given to him. In every hospital in every room the sweepers clean the toilet, bed pan and urine pot of the room in the room's toilet. Every room has separate toilet. The complainant has paid the amount as per the norms of the hospital. The complainant has left the hospital against the medical advise. Dr. H.C. Sharma, had not made some very unpleasant remarks and advised for liver transplant in front of the complainant's son. The room no.27 was not unhygienic and its toiled was not compounded with extremely unwanted and damaging remarks of Dr. Sharma. Dr. Sharma, is not responsible for // 6 // demoralizing / damaging effects. The complainant has taken on his own his son to Pune Hospital. The OPs are having no knowledge regarding the treatment that was given to the complainant's son in Pune Hospital. The room No.27 was not highly contaminated and full of germs, viruses and infection carrier agents. Any remarks was not before the son or to the complainant regarding the amount of liver transplant. All the papers of treatment which were in possession of the OPs are produced before this Commission.
The complainant is not entitled for the amount of compensation of Rs.99,00,000/-. The OPs have submitted 5 pathology test reports and copy of detailed discharge ticket which contains information about treatment / medication given to the parties. All the papers which were available before the OPs have been filed before this Commission. The treating Dr. H.C. Sharma is a leading gastroenterologist of this region. He has received training in AIIMS, New Delhi and has been the HOD of the institutions like JLN Hospital, Bhilai, MMI, Raipur, Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital, Bhilai and Appolo/BSR Hospital, Bhilai. The treatment given by the OPs No.2 was of standard and no deficiency in service has been committed by the. The complainant's son was a young man with advanced liver disease already diagnosed to have chronic hepatitis B related cirrhosis. The presence of fluid in his belly and deranged blood tests (Renal Functions, albumin and bilirubin) reflected a highly advanced condition of liver failure (Child-
// 7 // Turcotte Class C) acute decompensation of chronic liver disease. This entity has a dismal prognosis with more than 80% mortality without a timely liver transplant. The complainants son was under primary treatment and follow-up at a different place. He was being treated with costly injections of interferon which are considered to have significant risks associates to their use and are contraindicated in advance cirrhosis. The complaints of fever suggesting infection to be the likely cause in the background of interferon used and also considered a possibility of drug induced decompensation of previously compensated liver disease. He was treated in well elaborated guidelines for such a situation with drugs to empirically cover the likely causes of infection and to support his kidney. He was taken against medical advice at own risk by their family to consult their primary treatment provider. The further course of deranging liver function is already known. Medical research has shown that in these cases the source of infection is usually from the patient's own bowels due to weakened immunity of the liver. He already had fever at admission and he was kept in a separate room to avoid cross infection. From the patient's previous records, he had a rapid deterioration and either a superadded viral infection or well known avoidable use of infection in a cirrhotic patient added to it. The only thing which could have helped the young man would have been a timely new liver. So, it is clear that the complainant has made false allegations against the // 8 // OPs regarding which the medical board has given the opinion and on the basis of above facts, the complaint of the complainant is likely to be dismissed.
4. On the basis of averments of both the parties, the points for determination are :-
1. Whether the complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of verification of the complaint ?
2. Whether Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital, Bhilai is necessary party in the complaint, if yes, then what is its effect ?
3. Whether the OPs have committed medical negligence ?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the OPs for negligence committed by them, if yes, then to what extent ?
5. The complainants filed documents. Documents are death certificate issued by M.M.F. Joshi Hospital, Pune, Bio-chemistry Report dated 20.09.2007, Discharge Ticket issued by C.M. Hospital, Bhilai (C.G.), Liver Function Test Report, letter dated 05.02.2008 sent by Dr. H.C. Sharma to the complainant, Bio-chemistry report, admission sheet of Maharashtra Medical Foundation Joshi Hospital, Pune, discharge, admission notes, daily notes and orders, of M.M.F. Joshi Hospital, Pune, order dated 31.12.2012 passed by State Information Commission, // 9 // Raipur, letter dated 14.10.2010 sent by Dr. M.P. Chandrakar to the Registrar of this Commission, admission register, Liver Function Test Report etc., Discharge Ticket of Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital, Bhilai.
Discussions and its conclusion :
Question No.1.Whether the complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of verification of the complaint ?
6. Firstly, we shall consider whether the complaint has not been verified by the complainant and due to non-verification of the complaint, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
7. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the OPs has argued that the complaint has not been verified by the complainant and for want of verification, the complaint, be not taken into consideration, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The above contention of the complainant is erroneous. Verification is merely procedural in nature.
8. The above contention of the OPs is erroneous. Verification is merely procedural in nature. The complainant filed his affidavit and the affidavit has been duly verified by the complainant.
9. In Disha Education Society v. M/s. Jai Mahakal Construction, 2010 (3) CPR 449, this Commission has observed thus :-
''6. First of all we will consider preliminary objections raised by the O.P. The objection regarding the complaint not being verified is // 10 // correct but it is also noted that the complainant has filed affidavit of Shri Surendra Kumar Jain, President of the Society together with complaint itself and the contents of the complaint have been verified by the said affidavit hence the objection taken by the O.P. that the complaint has not been verified remains only a technical objection. Consumer Fora are not bound by rules of technicalities and complaints cannot be dismissed on technical ground, hence the objection is rejected."
10. In Merck Kgaa & Another vs. Bala Hegde and Dr. Hemnath Hegde, IRL (2007) Supp. (7) Delhi 162; High Court of Delhi observed that "Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section - 151 - Plaintiff sought to place on record a duly verified plaint in order to meet defendant's objection that plaint not verified in accordance with law - Affidavit of the plaintiffs filed along with the main plain reasserted different paragraphs - The averments in the plaint, were not verified properly.
This is mere irregularity and curable; Held : Procedural law is intended to facilitate and not to obstruct the course of substantive justice and any defect or omission in verification would not render the plaint invalid."
11. On the basis of above judgments, it appears that the complaint has been verified by the affidavit of the complainant himself, hence the objection taken by the OPs that the complaint has not been verified remains only a technical objection. Consumer Fora are not bound by rules of technicalities and therefore, the complaint cannot be discarded // 11 // merely on the ground that the complaint has not been verified, hence the objection raised by the OPs, is rejected. Question No.2. Whether Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital, Bhilai is necessary party in the complaint, if yes, then what is its effect ?
12. Now, we shall consider Whether Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital, Bhilai is necessary party in the complaint, if yes, then what is its effect ?
13. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel appearing for the OPs has argued that Dr. H.C. Sharma, is working as Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital, Bhilai, therefore, the said hospital is a necessary party in the instant complaint, but Chandulal Chandarkar Memorial Hospital has not been made party by the complainant, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of necessary party.
14. The complainant pleaded that his son Late Anand Prakash was admitted in Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital on 11.09.2007. He further pleaded that at about 1.00 P.M. Dr. H.C. Sharma came to examine his son. From 5.00 A.M. to 1.00 P.M. his son was totally ignored in the Hospital. It appears that son of the complainant was admitted in Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital where Dr. H.C. Sharma, is working as a consultant.
// 12 //
15. The law is well settled that a necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively and proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary to complete and final decision of the questions involved in the proceedings.
16 The general rule in regard to impleadment of parties is that plaintiff in a suit being dominus litis may chose the person against whom he wishes to litigate and cannot be compelled to sue a person against whom he does not seek any relief, but if necessary party, is not impleaded, the suit itself is liable to be dismissed.
17. In the instant case, the OPs are working in Chandulal Chandakar Memorial Hospital as consultant and the complainant deposited the amount with Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital. If medical negligence is proved, then initially burden to compensate the complainants is on Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospioital, therefore, the said hospital is a necessary party and without impleading Chandulal Chandrakar Hospital as opposite party, no effective order can be passed in absence of Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital, therefore, Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital, is necessary party in the instant complainant but the complainant did not make Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital as opposite party in the instant complaint.
// 13 // Question No.3 & 4 : 3. Whether the OPs have committed medical negligence ?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the OPs for negligence committed by them, if yes, then to what extent ?
18. The question No.3 & 4 are related to each other, therefore, they are being decided together.
19. Now we shall consider whether Dr. H.C. Sharma, (O.P.No.2) committed medical negligence while treating the complainant's son and he ignored the patient for giving proper treatment.
20. The complainant has argued that his son Late Anand Prakash was admitted in Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital, Bhlai from 11.09.2007 to 15.09.2008. At the time of admission his Billirubin Count was 7.45, as per Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital, which was unbelievable. Standard of Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital, is not upto mark and it is not a hospital for curing the patient. The treatment given by the hospital is sub standard. He further argued that at time of admission of his son Anand Prakash, the treating Doctor Dr. H.C. Sharma totally ignored his son. His son was admitted in Room No.27. Lavatory of Room No.27 was very dirty, unhygienic, highly infected, highly contaminated with germs, Bacteri's and viruses and bed sheet was not changed properly. Dr. H.C. Sharma has not treated properly his son and Dr. H.C. Sharma told his son that there is // 14 // need for liver transplantation which was shocking for his son. The report of the Medical Board is based on the submission of Medical History of Pune Hospital for the period 20.09.2007 to 07.10.2007, The report was given by the Medical Board to help the Hospital. His son died due to sub standard treatment given by the OPs Hospital. Dr. H.C. Sharma, committed medical negligence and due to negligent act of Dr. H.C. Sharma, his son died. Dr. Parimal Lawate, Dr. Thorat and Dr. Bunnywala were consultant doctors and they are more experienced doctors then Dr. H.C. Sharma. Dr. H.C. Sharma, mentioned adverse remarks in medical history and discharge papers, therefore, the complaint may be allowed and compensation be awarded to the complainant as mentioned in the complaint.
21. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel appearing for the OPs has argued that the allegations made by the complainant is false. The complainant has not been able to prove that any medical negligence was committed by the treating doctor, Dr. H.C. Sharma. Dr. H.C. Sharma had examined son of the complainant and he was given medicines and proper treatment, which is clear from the documents which have been filed by the complainant himself. The room was clean and hygienic . Dr. H.C. Sharma, never told the complainant or his son regarding liver transplantation. Reports of the Medical Board and Maharashtra Medical Foundation Joshi Hospital, Pune specifically shows that the son of the complainant was suffering from very // 15 // advanced liver disease with multiple complications and was in serious condition and hospital has given him adequate care. From the bare perusal of Certificate issued by Maharashtra Medical Foundation Joshi Hospital, Pune, it appears that the cause of death is Hepatic Encephalopathy due to liver cirrohosis due to hepatitis B. It appears that the OPs have not committed any medical negligence, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. He further argued that deceased Late Anand Prakash left the hospital against medical advice (LAMA).
22. In Dr. Laxman Balkrishna Joshi v. Dr. Trimnsk Bapu Godbole and anothert, AIR 1969 Supreme Court 128, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that "The duties which a doctor owes to his patient are clear. A person who holds himself out ready to give medical advice and treatment impliedly undertakes that he is possessed of skill and knowledge for the purpose, such a person when consulted by a patient owes him certain duties, viz.. a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case, a duty of care in deciding what treatment to give or a duty of care in the administration of that treatment. A breach of any of those duties gives a right of action for negligence to the patient. The practitioner must bring to his task 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".
// 16 //
23. In Chief Medical Officer & Anr. vs. Ramesh Chand Sharma, II (2015), CPJ 295 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has observed thus :-
"9. A doctor need not be held negligent simply because something went wrong. The Hon'ble Apex Court, as well as this Commission in a catena of decisions has held that, the doctor is not liable for negligence because of someone else of better skill or knowledge would have prescribed a different treatment or operated in a different way. He is not guilty of negligence if he has acted in accordance with the practice accepted as proper by a reasonable body of medical professionals. We put reliance upon, the case of Dr. Laxman Balkrishna v. Dr. Trimbak, AIR 1969 SC 128, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held the above view. In the case of Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha, III (1995) CPJ 1 (SC) = 1995 6 SCC 651, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided that the skill of a medical practitioner differs from doctor to doctor and it is incumbent upon the Complainant to prove that a doctor was negligent in the line of treatment that resulted in the life of the patient."
24 In this context it is relevant to cite case of Kusum Sharma & ORS. Vs. Batra Hospital & Research Centre & ORS., I (2010) CPJ 29 (SC) in which the conclusions under different case laws on the subject of medical negligence have been summarized as under :-
'Para" 90" In Jacob Mathew's case (supra), conclusions summed up by the Court were very apt and some portions of which are reproduced hereunder:
(1) Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by omission to do something which is a reasonable man guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs // 17 // would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The definition of negligence as given in Law of Torts, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal (edited by Justice G.P. Singh) referred to hereinabove, holds good.
Negligence becomes actionable on account of injury resulting from the act or omission amounting to negligence attributable to the person sued. The essential components of negligence are three: 'duty', 'breach' and 'resulting damage'.
(2) 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 profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was also available or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or procedure which the accused followed.
(3) The standard to be applied for judging, whether the person charged has been negligent or not, would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession. It is not possible for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise or skills in that branch which he practices. A highly skilled professional may be possessed of better qualities, but that cannot be made the basis or the yardstick for judging the performance of the professional proceeded against on indictment of negligence.
// 18 // Para "94'. On scrutiny of the leading cases of medical negligence both in our country and other countries especially United Kingdom, some basic principles emerge in dealing with the cases of medical negligence. While deciding whether the medical professional is guilty of medical negligence following well known principles must be kept in view:
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.
II. 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.
III. The medical professional 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.
IV. A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field.
V. 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.
// 19 // VI. The medical professional is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which is 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.
VII. 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.
VIII. It would not be conducive to the efficiency of the medical profession if no Doctor could administer medicine without a halter round his neck.
IX. 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.
X. 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 or clinics for extracting uncalled for compensation.
Such malicious proceedings deserve to be // 20 // discarded against the medical practitioners.
XI. 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."
25. In the complaint, the complainant simply made allegation (i) that on 11.09.2007, the son of the complainant was admitted in Room No.27 of Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital, Bhilai. Lavatory of Room No.27 was dirty, unhygienic, highly infected, highly contaminated with germs, Bacteria's & Viruses and (ii) that on 14.09.2007, Dr. H.C. Sharma, made some very unpleasant remarks and advised for liver transplant in front of complainant's son.
26. The above allegations made by the complainant, are not supported by any documentary evidence. The complainant simply filed his affidavit in which he simply stated that (1) He has filed petition which was drafted by him (2) The content of page 1 & 2 are true to his knowledge and legal averment made are believed to be true and nothing material has been suppressed therein.
27. The OPs filed affidavit of O.P.No.1 Dr. M.P. Chandrakar, M.D. CEO/Executive Director, Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital, Bhilai, District (Durg) and he specifically stated that :-
// 21 // "7. That it is admitted that the complainant's son Late Anand Prakash was admitted in the hospital of the opposite party. It is denied that the room no.27 was dirty, unhygienic, highly infected, highly contaminated with germs, bacteria's and viruses. It is also denied that the room was also dirty. The room no.27 is private room with an A.C. cabin and has been used by several patients and no complaint has been received from any patient so far. The room is totally well furnished and it is well maintained. The opposite parties request the Hon'ble Commission to appoint any person who can visit the room and may submit his report. The complainant has stated false statement in this para regarding the bed sheet.
28. The OPs have also filed affidavit of O.P.No.2 Dr. H.C. Sharma, Consultant Doctor, Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.). Dr. H.C. Sharma has deposed para 7 of his affidavit in the same manner.
29. On the basis of above affidavits, it appears that the allegations made by the complainant in respect of Room No.27, is unbelievable. 30 A Medical Board has been constituted consisting of Dr. S. Gupta, Professor, Department of Medicine, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur, Dr. P. Dawale, Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur, and Dr. A. Toppo, Assistant Professor, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Hosptal, Raipur. They have filed their report in which they mentioned thus :-
// 22 // "1. The patient named Mr. Anand Prakash S/o Mr. B.P. Singh was suffering cirrhosis of liver with liver cell failure characterized by prolonged prothrombin time, increased serum bilirubin levels with associated renal failure (Raised S. urea and serum creatinine). He had decompensated liver disease (characterized by Ascitis and Poral hypertension) and Hepatitis B infection.
2. He was under regular treatment at M.M.F. Joshi Hospital, Pune and only for interim treatment he was admitted at Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital, Bhilai from 11.09.2007 to 15.09.2007.
3. He was given adequate treatment for infection and his liver and kidney problem and also recommended adequate treatment even when patient took discharge against medical advice from Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital, Bhilai.
4. Discussion about liver transplantation with the patient and relations is very much appropriate.
5. Cause of Death as per Certificate is Encephalopathy(Brain swelling) due to Cirrhosis of liver with Hepatitis B infection. There is no mention of role of stomach infection or uhygienic condition in room.
6. There is no medical record submitted for clinical status or treatment from 15.09.2007 to 20.09.2007. On admission at Joshi Hospital, Pune on 20.09.2007 at 12 noon patient was afebrile.
7. Overall the patient had very advanced liver disease with multiple complications and was in serious condition. The Hospital at Bhilai has given him adequate care.
31. Report of Maharashtra Medical Foundation Joshi Hospital, Pune has been filed by the complainant. In Admission sheet dated 20.09.2007 the date of admission is mention 20.09.2007 and time of admission is mention 12.00 P.M. // 23 //
32. The Discharge Summary has also been filed by the complainant in which cause of death is mentioned as Hepatic Encephalopathy due to liver cirrohosis due to hepatitis B .
33. The complainant has filed a letter dated 05.02.2008 written by O.P.No.2 Dr. H.C. Sharma, Consultant Gastroenterology to Shri V.P. Singh, in which it is mentioned thus :-
"With reference to your letter dated 9.1.08, we are profoundly grieved to know about the unfortunate outcome of your patient.
The Hospital was involved in the care of the patient from 11.9.07 to 15.9.07, when he was taken against medical advice from the hospital. Therefore, as part of the hospital policy his medical records are a medico-legal document to be released on judicial orders.
We enclose established medical evidence to suggest that his previous and subsequent treatment differed substantially from the internationally advised and accepted norms and may have done more harm than good."
34. The complainant mentioned in the Rejoinder that to counter Medical Board Report, Dr. Parimal Lawate, D.M. is competent and may be called to appear in person, but the complainant did not file any application for calling Dr. Parimal Lawate to examine him. Even the complainant did not file any affidavit of Dr. Parimal Lawate.
35. The complainant has not been able to prove that the Lavatory of Room No.27 was dirty, unhygienic, highly infected, highly contaminated with germs, Bacteria's & Viruses. The son of the // 24 // complainant was suffering from Liver Cirrhosis. And he was treated in Maharashtra Medical Foundation Joshi Hospital, Pune. The complainant has alleged in the complaint that on 14.09.2007, Dr. H.C. Sharma, made some very unpleasant remarks and advised for liver transplant in front of complainant's son. The above facts has not been proved by the complainant by adducing cogent and reliable evidence, therefore, merely making allegation in the compliant is not sufficient to hold that due to unpleasant remarks made by Dr. H.C. Sharma and advised for liver transplant in front of complainant's son, the complainant's son, suffered mental agony and the complainant's son died due to negligence of O.P. No.2 Dr. H.C. Sharma.
36. On the basis of above discussions, in the instant case, we find that the complainant has not been prove that there was any medical negligence on the parts of the OPs. As there is no negligence on the part of the OPs and the OPs have not committed any medical negligence, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from the OPs.
37. In the instant case, Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital, Bhilai is a necessary party and Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital, Bhiali ought to have been joined as party in the complaint but Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital, Bhilai has not been impleaded in the complaint, therefore, the complaint itself is liable to be dismissed on this ground.
// 25 //
38. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant against the OPs, is liable to be dismissed, hence the same is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own cost.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (Ms. Heena Thakkar) (D.K. Poddar)(NarendraGupta) President Member Member Member /08/2015 /08/2015 /08/2015 /08/2015