National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Jaipur & Anr. vs Chhavi Goyal on 30 July, 2020
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2563-2564 OF 2017 (Against the Order dated 03/05/2017 in Appeal No. 1546/2016 & 138/2017 of the State Commission Rajasthan) 1. MAHATMA GANDHI HOSPITAL, JAIPUR & ANR. THROUGH SH. RAJINDER SINGH PANWAR, OSD TO CHAIRMAN, (A UNIT OF INDIA EDUCATION TRUST) RIICO INSTITUTIONAL AREA SITAPURA TONK ROAD, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN-302022 2. DR. ROHIN BHATIA, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR DEPARTMENT OF NEUROSURGERY, MAHATMA GANDHI HOSPITAL, THROUGH SH. RAJINDER SINGH PANWAR, OSD TO CHAIRMAN, (A UNIT OF INDIA EDUCATION TRUST) RIICO INSTITUTIONAL AREA SITAPURA TONK ROAD, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN-302022 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. CHHAVI GOYAL W/O. SH. PAWAN KUMAR GOYAL, R/O. VILLAGE POST BALAHEDI, TEHSIL MAHUA, DISTRICT-DAUSA RAJASTHAN ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. PREM NARAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. C. VISWANATH,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Ms. Rashmi Priya, Advocate with Mr. Nishant Shokeen, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Nupur Goswami, Advocate along with Respondent - In person Dated : 30 Jul 2020 ORDER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners Mahatma Gandhi Hospital Jaipur and anr. challenging the order dated 03.05.2017 in FA No.1546/2016 & FA No.138 of 2017 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, (in short 'the State Commission').
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant was pregnant and she was admitted in the petitioner hospital. It has been alleged that she was not properly administered anaesthesia injection through spinal cord. The anaesthesia dose was not proper and within five hours of it, MRI was to be done, but the same was not conducted in time. Hence, complainant suffered paralysis on half of her body. It has been alleged that operation was not done properly and there was a cut on the head of the baby due to which infection spread in baby's brain. The condition of baby deteriorated and afterwards the baby died. Hence, the complainant has filed the complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Jaipur (in short 'the District Forum'). The complaint was resisted by the petitioners/opposite parties by filing their written statement. However, District Forum, passed the following order on 08.11.2016:-
"On the basis of above discussion, the complaint filed by the complainant against the respondents, is allowed and it is directed while considering the entire circumstances of the case that the respondents severally and jointly shall pay Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten lakh rupees only) as compensation and Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand rupees only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within two months from today otherwise, the complainant shall be entitled for 09 percent annual interest on the aforesaid amount till the date of recovery."
3. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties preferred appeal before the State Commission being FA No.1546 of 2016. Similarly, complainant also preferred FA No.138 of 2017 before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 03.05.2017 dismissed the appeal filed by the opposite parties being FA No.1546 of 2016 and allowed the appeal of the complainant being FA No.138 of 2017 by enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs.10,00,000/- to Rs.12,00,000/-.
4. Hence the present revision petitions.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the learned Commissions below should have appreciated the fact that at the time of discharge from the petitioner-hospital, the respondent was normal and able to walk and thus, the petitioners gave the proper treatment to the respondent and there was no negligence at the time of treatment by the petitioner-hospital.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that this Commission in the case of Dr. Harkanwaljit Singh Saini Vs. Gurbax Singh, 2003 (I) CPJ 153 (NC) has held that, "6. The Commission cannot constitute itself into an expert body and contradict the statement of the doctor unless there is something contrary on the record by way of expert opinion or there is any medical treatise on which reliance could be based."
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that learned commissions below ought to have taken into consideration the fact that the complainant-respondent herein was admitted in the petitioner-hospital for almost 04 months and was given all the necessary treatment required post-delivery and after getting completely fit, the complainant was discharged from the hospital on 17.09.2012 and there was neither any complication nor any disability at the time of discharge of the complainant. Thus, the learned commissions below failed to appreciate that there was neither any medical negligence nor any deficiency pertaining to the treatment of the complainant-respondent herein by the petitioners.
8. It was also stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned commissions below failed to appreciate the fact that after the delivery of the complainant, boy child was born and he was shifted to Narayana Hrudayalay Hospital on the advice of the doctors after taking consent from the complainant's family. However, due to the unavoidable reasons, the child died on 02.06.2012 at Narayana Hrudayalay Hospital. Therefore, the allegations made by the respondent that the child died due to medical negligence by the petitioners is not sustainable in the eyes of law as there was neither any treatment carried out nor any medical supervision was provided to the child at the petitioner-hospital.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further stated that the fora below have wrongly come to the conclusion that due to medical negligence of the concerned doctors, the complainant-respondent herein had disability of 40% on the basis of certificate which is neither issued by the expert committee/panel of doctors nor actually verified by the fora below about the genuineness of the same. It is not disputed by the complainant that post-delivery, she was treated for almost 04 months for her numbness in the legs and the complainant was discharged after she was declared fit by the doctors.
10. It was averred by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the finding by the fora below without any medical opinion that 13.1 g/dL haemoglobin mentioned as such in the exhibit-4 is sufficient range and that: "there is no ground to presume that blood clot was formed due to anaemia and due to this reason, both of the legs became numbed", is completely wrong finding and the learned commissions below are neither authorized nor competent to form such medical opinion without taking the view of the Medical Board, hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
11. Learned counsel further stated that the fora below committed manifest error of law by holding the petitioners herein liable for delay of five hours in doing M.R.I. and holding it deficient in service even in absence of corroborative medical evidence. On the contrary, the petitioners informed the respondent that anaesthesia is required during operation and since, medical advice was given to get M.R.I. done for blood clot being formed in the spinal-cord of the complainant-respondent herein, after which the family members of the complainant started making hitch and gave the consent after lapse of some time, thus, delaying the process of conducting M.R.I.
12. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the Discharge Card of the respondent dated 17.09.2012, there was no record of "Cut lacerated wound on Rt temporal Region of the new born child and the petitioners are unaware about the conditions in which the child was after being discharged from the petitioner- hospital and before being admitted in the other hospital.
13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent stated that the complainant has suffered loss of her baby. She was also paralysed to a great extent. The discharge summary given by the hospital dated 17.09.2012 clearly states the status of the patient as "improved". It clearly shows that the complainant was not fully recovered. The complainant has suffered disability of 40% as observed by the State Commission and therefore, the compensation granted by the State Commission is perfectly reasonable. The argument of the petitioners is that the new born child was shifted to the other hospital and child died there, cannot be sustained because the child was born by caesarean operation and during operation there was a cut on his head and there was lacerated wound. Due to this emergency, child was shifted to other hospital on the advice of the doctors of the petitioner hospital. The child was born on 27.05.2012 and ultimately died on 02.06.2012 at Narayana Hrudayalaya Hospital, Jaipur. It is true that the complainant was treated at the petitioners hospital from 27.5.2012 till 17.09.2012. This treatment was necessary as the doctors of the opposite party hospital while giving the anaesthesia through spinal cord wrongly injected anaesthesia, which caused numbness in the legs and the treatment lasted for about four months. The complainant did not fully recover even after this treatment. Thus, there has been serious deficiency on the part of the petitioners and therefore, the State Commission has rightly enhanced the compensation by Rs.2,00,000/- over and above the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- awarded by the District Forum.
14. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. Both the fora below have given concurrent finding in respect of the fact that there was medical negligence on the part of the petitioners particularly on two counts. The baby was born through caesarean operation and the doctors of the hospital while operating the complainant made a cut on the head of the child leading to lacerated wound, which ultimately got infected and the child died within a week. The second deficiency has been in giving anaesthesia to the complainant for the operation as the anesthesia was injected wrongly leading to numbness in the legs of the complainant for which the complainant had to take treatment for about four months in the opposite party hospital. Even after the treatment, the complainant was not fully cured as is clear from the discharge summary given by the hospital dated 17.09.2012 where under the column "Condition on Discharge", "Improved" is mentioned. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that after discharge the respondent/complainant was completely cured and was able to walk freely is not supported by the document of the discharge summary.
15. In respect of deficiency of the petitioners in the case of the new born child, there is no doubt that the child was born on 27.09.2012 and was shifted to Narayana Hrudayalaya Hospital, Jaipur on the advice of the doctors of the petitioner hospital. This was done under some emergency. Both the fora below have given finding that during operation, the head of the child was injured by a cut on the right temporal region which caused lacerated wound which became infected and caused the death of the child. Though the petitioners have denied this, but petitioners have not disclosed the reason for shifting the new born child to another hospital. In the list of dates, the petitioners have only mentioned that new born was shifted to Narayana Hrudayalaya Hospital, Jaipur due to unavoidable reasons. In fact, the District Forum has observed the following in this regard:-
"10. The complainant made the second allegation that her newborn baby died for cut lacerated being made in his head. In this respect, it is mentioned in the Discharge ticket marked herein as exhibit-1 that the newborn baby was referred to the Narayan Hridayal hospital, Jaipur. The initial Assessment Report has been produced by the complainant which is marked herein as exhibit-6 wherein besides general condition of baby being mentioned as "Poor", it is marked that: "Cut, lacerated wound on Rt. Temporal Region" is found. This report was prepared immediate after birth of the baby when he was referred to the Narayan Hridayal hospital and there is no appropriate ground to disbelieve it. It proves that during delivery through operation, cut was made on right Temporal Regional and Lacerated wound was also caused which among the other reasons, cannot be denied the reason of death of the baby. It shows negligence and deficiency in service on behalf of the doctor to make such cut on the baby during operation and to cause such lacerated wound."
16. The State Commission has also observed the following on the deficiency of the petitioners:-
"Facts of the present case clearly speaks that complainant get admitted in the hospital on 27.5.2012. She gave birth to male child with caesarean. At the time of admission she was not having any problem in walking or in lower part of the body whereas in discharge certificate Ex.1 it has been clearly mentioned that she is walking with support of the walker and the specific contention of the complainant was that anesthesia has been administered negligently and to rebut this contention no evidence has been produced on behalf of the hospital. The forum below has rightly held that affidavit of treating doctor has not been submitted and affidavit of officer incharge could not rebut the contention raised by the complainant. In case of delivery the complainant has to remain hospitalized from 27.5.2012 to 17.9.2012 and Anx. 5 reveals that she suffered more than 40% disability. Further more child has also been treated negligently. Ex.6 reveals that she suffered cut, lacerated wound on right temporal region and patient was referred to Narayana Hrudalaya Hospital and the Forum below has rightly concluded that the hospital is negligent and claim of Rs.10 lakh alongwith cost of compensation and interest has been allowed."
17. It is further seen that the State Commission has observed that the District Forum has not allowed the expenditure suffered by the complainant during her treatment with the hospital on the ground that this expenditure is consumed during treatment. The State Commission has stated "when the hospital is negligent, it is in the fitness of thing to allow reimbursement of the expenditure incurred by the complainant", therefore, the State Commission has increased compensation by Rs.2,00,000/-. It is seen that the complainant has demanded a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and the District Forum has awarded a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- without any further examination. The District Forum has not allowed the reimbursement of the expenditure incurred on the treatment as the services were obtained by the complainant and the hospital has tried their best to treat the complainant. The State Commission has granted even the reimbursement of this expenditure. The State Commission has observed as the hospital has been negligent, therefore, this reimbursement is also justified. It is true that the complainant suffered numbness in the legs after the anaesthesia was administered, however, the hospital and doctors therein have tried to treat the complainant properly for four months and the condition of the complainant also improved. If the complainant was not satisfied with the treatment, she should have shifted to some other hospital for further treatment. As reasonable compensation as demanded by the complainant has been awarded by the District Forum, the cost of service of treatment is not required to be reimbursed as the complainant was satisfied with the treatment and continued the treatment for about four months in the same hospital. Moreover, no deficiency has been alleged for this treatment. In the circumstances of the case, we agree with the order of the District Forum and the order of the State Commission in respect of additional award of Rs.2,00,000/- is set aside, however, the remaining order of the State Commission is upheld. Accordingly, the revision petitions No.2563-2564 of 2017 stand disposed of.
...................... PREM NARAIN PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... C. VISWANATH MEMBER