State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ramkumar Namdev vs Dr. Brijesh Patel & Ors. on 4 March, 2017
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
Complaint Case No.CC/2014/09
Instituted on : 26.04.2014
Ramkumar Namdev, S/o Bhuvan Lal Namdev,
Aged 54 years, R/o : Belgadi Nala, Balco,
Police Station, Balco, District Korba (C.G.) ... Complainant.
Vs.
1. Dr. Brijesh Patel, S/o Shri Suresh Prasad Patel,
Aged 33 years, Profession : Doctor,
KIMS Hospital, Bilaspur,
R/o : Koni, Guru Ghashidas Vishwavidyalaya, Bilaspur,
P.S. Koni, Tehsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.)
2. Dr. Y.R. Krishna, S/o Late Narayan Rao, Aged 61 years,
R/o : Beside KIMS Hospital, Bilaspur,
Police Station - Civil Lines,
Teh. & Dist. Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.)
3. Manager, KIMS Hospital, Bilaspur,
Dr. Y.R. Krishna, S/o Late Narayan Rao, Age 61 years,
R/o : Beside KIMS hospital, Bilaspur,
Police Station - Civil Lines,
Teh. & Dist. Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) ....Opposite Parties
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
Shri Tularam Patel, Advocate, for the complainant.
Shri Mukesh Sharma, Advocate for the OPs.
ORDER
Dated : 04/03/2017 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. The complainant filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (actually the complaint // 2 // should be filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) against the OPs seeking following reliefs :-
(1) To direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) which has been spent in the operation and treatment of the deceased.
(2) To direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) which has been incurred on travelling and meals. (3) To direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs) towards loss of business. (4) To direct the OPs to pay Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) towards compensation under the head dependency. (5) To direct the OPs to pay Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs) towards physical and mental agony. (6) To direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) towards cost of litigation.
Total amount of Rs.46,25,000/- has been sought by the complainant.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint of the complainant are that the wife of the complainant deceased namely Amrit Bai had complaint of stomach pain, therefore she was taken to Dr. B.P. Bajpai at Korba, who gave medicines for six weeks. Due to medicines , the // 3 // pain of the deceased was relieved. On 10.11.2013, again the deceased was suffering from abdominalgia (abdominal pain) and she was taken to E.S.I.C. Hospital. On 11.11.2013 She was referred to KIMS Hospital, Bilaspur (O.P. No.3). The O.P. No.2 Dr. Y. R. Krishna treated the deceased and gave medicines for 3-4 days and several tests were got conducted on 11.11.2013, 12.11.2013 and 14.11.2013. On 15.11.2013, it is told to the deceased that she was having stone in gall bladder and treatment was done through laparoscopic procedure for which the complainant gave his consent. The deceased was taken to operation theatre on 16.11.2013 at about 10.30 A.M. The operation was to be done through laparoscopic procedure, but instead of laparoscopic procedure, open surgery was conducted by the O.P. No.1. Due to open surgery, profused bleeding was occurred and Smt. Amrit Bai died. The complainant lodged report at Police Station, Civil Lines, Bilaspur on 16.11.2013 where First Information Report No.56/2014 for offence under Section 304A IPC was registered against the O.P. No.1 and charge sheet was filed against the O.P. No.1 before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur. The Police Station, Civil Lines, Bilaspur (C.G.) sent letter No.82/13 dated 02/12/2013 to Chief Medical Officer, District Hospital, Bilaspur (C.G.) and team of expert was constituted by Chief Medical Officer, Bilaspur (C.G) and the team gave their report. In the report, it is found that the O.P. No.1 committed mistake while conducting operation, therefore, the bleeding was occurred, due // 4 // to which the deceased died. O.P. No.1 Dr. Brijesh Patel committed medical negligence. In the Post Mortem Report, it is mentioned that "whole of the peritoneal cavity in abdomen full of blood near about 2-3 litre of blood and found (Haemoperitarium) excessive haemorrhage from the liver bed. On 16.11.2013, the O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.2 asked the complainant for arranging 4 bottles blood and the complainant arranged the blood and handed over it to the O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.2 at 4.00 P.M. At 4.30 P.M. again two bottle blood was given by the complainant to the doctors and thereafter the deceased was shifted in another room, which is beside the operation theatre, at that time she was unconscious. Her both eyes are closed and white bandage was tied in her abdomen. Both the doctors left the room and at about 7.30 P.M. the employees of the Hospital told the complainant that the wife of the complainant had expired. The complainant inquired about the death of his wife from Dr. Y.R. Krishna. Dr. Y. R. Krishna told the complainant that due to excessive bleeding, his wife died. The O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 instead of conducting operation through laparoscopic procedure, conducted open surgery, due to which excessive bleeding was occurred and Smt. Amrit Bai died. O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.2 committed medical negligence. The complainant and his family is dependent on deceased. The deceased was maintaining her family and she was earning income of Rs.25000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month. Due to death of deceased, the complainant and his family is // 5 // suffering from physical and mental agony and is also suffering economical loss. The complainant is entitled to get the compensation, as prayed in the complaint.
3. The O.P. No.1 has filed his written statement separately whereas the O.P. No.2 & O.P. No.3 have filed their joint written statement, but defence of the OPs are common. It is averred by the OPs that Smt. Amrit Bai, W/o Ramkumar Namdeo was brought to hospital of O.P. No.3 as a referral patient of Periportal Collateral, ? Cholecystitis, ? Hepatitis, Mild Splenomegly with Periportal & Perisplenic Collaterals, the patient was referred from E.S.I.C. Hospital. The E.S.I.C. Medical services are provided to works of institutions in which the management is paying ESI charges to ESIC which confirms the status of patient to be relative of any dependant of ESIC card holder. The patient was having complaint of abdominalgia (abdominal pain). Patient was treated by Dr. B.P. Bajpai, who advised for altrasonography abdomen which was carried out by Dr. Anil Pratap Singh of month of July, 2013. The patient was reported to be suffering from "Thick Walled Gall Bladder with Chogenic GB Sludge & Periportal Cuffing ? Cholecystitis, ? Hepatitis, Mild Splenomegly with Periportal & Perisplenic Collaterals" for which patient was treated conservatively for around more than 3 months. The patient could not be relieved of complaint hence reported to hospital of O.P. No.3, for further management. When patient was brought to the hospital of // 6 // O.P. No.3, she was having complaints of severe pain in abdomen on 10.11.2013. On being information given by the patient and revealed from the previous reports brought with him, the patient had several recurrent attacks of cholecystitis and choleolithiasis (gall balder stone) and pain in hepatic region which could have been relieved by conservative treatment. The patients and her attendants were advised accordingly on the basis of reports brought by the patient at the time of admission and investigation carried out at the hospital. The patient and her relative were given options of conservative management because there was high risk in operative procedure considering periportal Collaterals / cuffing with Hepatitis with splenomegaly and perisplenic collaterals that may lead to problematic bleeding during surgical procedure like cholecytectomy and they were also given the second option of operative procedure with very very high risk, they opted for surgical option to get rid of long standing sufferings and pain. The patient was obese and was having hepatic as well as gall bladder pathology and Periportal Collaterals / cuffing hence risk and consequence of surgery were explained to patient and her relatives, the surgery was attempted by laparoscopic method with all precautions but in course of surgery as the patient was having periportal Collaterals and Hepatic adhesions patient started bleeding in situ and bleeding was tried fro control by laparoscopic method but when it was not stopped by laparoscopic // 7 // method, then urgent laparotomy (open procedure) was done to control the bleeding and it was advised for blood supplement and 4 units blood was transfused and patient was shifted to post operative ward but due falling blood pressure and increasing pulse rate re-bleed was suspected after some time so patient was second time taken for surgery with proper consent and during second surgery patient develop cardiac arrest leading to death of patient. It has been repeatedly reported by sinologist in their reports that patient was having Periportal Collaterals and the patient was having Liver Pathology profuse bleeding was known complications hence the patient suffered know complication of surgery which was attempted to control could not be successful and the patient has suffered arrest as complication of surgery. The patient has not died because of negligence. The patient has suffered arrest as complication of surgery which can occur inspite of all precautions and expertise. The statements recorded during criminal investigation under provision of Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code without providing chance for cross-examination. The patient had developed complications, in the present case also the present has developed known complication and same does not amount to deficiency in services, known complications occur inspite of all expertise and precautions. The complainant has submitted exaggerated claim, which is not tenable in lieu of any deficiency in services on the part of OPs. There was no negligence or // 8 // deficiency in services on the part of the OPs. OPs were vigilant in treating the patient, as soon as he suspected complications in patient, he has taken all steps required for proper management. The OPs are not liable to compensate the complainant for the relief claimed in para 25 of the complaint, as there was no deficiency in services on the part of the OPs. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost to the OPs in the interest of justice.
4. The complainant has filed documents, which are Final Report dated 03.02.2014, First Information Report dated 25.01.2014, complaint made to Officer Incharge, Police Station, Civil Lines, Bilaspur on 16.11.2013, Crime Details Form, Arrest / Court Surrender Memo, Jamant Nama, Statement of Ramkumar Namdev, Govind Prasad Patwa, Dwarika Prasad Namdev, Krishna Namdev and Munni Patwa, statement of Dr. Brijesh Patel, Statement of Dr. Brajesh Patel, Statement of Dr. Y. R. Krishna, Statement of Mannulal Sahu, Merg Intimation, application to appear in the panchayatnama, naksha panchayatnama, application for post mortem, post mortem report, property seizure memo, Kartavya Praman Patra, shav supurdnama, letter dated 02.12.2013 sent to the Chief Medical Officer, letter dated 20.12.2013 sent by Civil Surgeon Cum Chief Hospital Superintendent, Bilaspur to Incharge Officer, Police Station, Civil Lines, Bilaspur (C.G.), Report submitted by Dr. R.K. Gupta and Dr. O.P. Raj on 19.12.2013, Consent given for surgery.
// 9 //
5. The OPs have filed documents which are copy of Property Seizure Memo, copy of prescription issued by Dr. B.P. Bajpai, copy of pathology report, copy of Sonography report, copy of ESIC referred form, copy of identity card of ESI Corporation, copy of Sonography report.
6. Shri Tularam Patel, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has argued that the deceased Smt. Amrit Bai was having pain in abdomen, therefore, she was taken to Dr. B.P. Bajpai, who gave medicines for six weeks. After taking medicines, the pain was relieved, but on 10.11.2013, again she suffered from stomach pain, therefore, she was taken to E.S.I.C. Hospital on 11.11.2013 from where she was referred to O.P. No.3 hospital, where the O.P. No.2 treated the deceased and gave medicines for 3-4 days and several tests were also conducted. The complainant was told by the O.P. No.2 that deceased Amrit Bai was having stone in gall bladder. Treatment was done through laparoscopic procedure for which complainant gave his consent. The deceased was taken to operation theatre on 16.11.2013 at about 10.30 A.M. , but operation was not done through laparoscopic procedure and the open surgery was conducted without obtaining consent of the complainant and without explaining regarding risk of the open surgery. Due to the open surgery, excessive bleeding occurred and Smt. Amrit Bai died. The matter was reported to Police Station, Civil Lines, Bilaspur where offence under Section 304A IPC // 10 // was registered against O.P. No.1 and charge sheet was filed against the O.P. No.1 before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur. The Police asked report from Chief Medical Officer, District Hospital, Bilaspur, who constituted a team. The team gave their report. In the report it is mentioned that O.P. No.1 committed mistake while conducting operation of the deceased. The O.P. No.3 also gave in writing that the operation was to be conducted through laparoscopic procedure, but the O.P. No.1 conducted open surgery without giving information to the relative of the deceased. Due to open surgery, the patient died. Dr. Brijesh Patel (O.P. No.1) is responsible for the death of the patient. It shows that the OPs committed medical negligence. The deceased was maintaining her family and she was earning Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month. Due to death of the deceased, the complainant and his family is suffering from physical, mental agony and financial hardship. The complainant is entitled to get compensation, as prayed by him in the complaint. He placed reliance on V. Krishnakumar Vs. State of Tami Nadu & Ors. 2015 (3) CPR 104 (SC); Jai Prakash Mehta Vs. Dr. B.N. Rai & Anr. 2014 (1) CPR 13 (NC) and Alfred Benedict and Another Vs. Manipal Hospital, Bangalore and others (2015) 11 Supreme Court Cases 423.
7. Shri Mukesh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the OPs has argued that Smt. Amrit Bai was a referral patient of Periportal Collateral, ? Cholecystitis ? Hepatitis, Mild Splenomegly with // 11 // Periportal & Perisplenic Collaterals. She was referred from E.S.I.C. Hospital, Korba. Initially the patient was treated by DR. B.P. Bajpai, who prescribed some medicines and patient was relieves from the pain. Necessary pathological and radiological tests were conducted and Sonography was also carried out by Dr. Anil Pratap Singh in July, 2013 in which patient was reported to be suffering from "Thick Walled Gall Bladder with Echogenic GB Sludge & Periportal Cuffing ? Cholecystitis ? Hepatitis, Mild Splenomegly with Periportal & Perisplenic Collaterals. The patient was advised for surgical intervention. The patient required immediate intervention looking to grievous disease of the patient, but the patient was neglected in carrying out proper treatment for more than 100 days resulting in severe infection in patient. The patient had several recurrent attacks of Cholecystitis and Choleolithiasis (gall bladder stones). Before conducting operation high risk content was obtained by the O.P. No.1 from the complainant and risk was duly explained to him. After obtaining consent of the complainant, the operation was conducted. The patient was suffering from gall bladder stones and she herself was negligent in carrying out proper treatment. The O.P. No.1 operated the patient carefully and did not commit medical negligence. The complainant has not been able to proved that his case by producing cogent evidence. The questionnaires were sent to the doctors, who gave their report, but they did not reply properly. Smt. // 12 // Amrit Bai was having complication and due to complication she died. The complainant himself forcibly taken the treatment papers. The doctors did not properly given answers to the questionnaire. The complainant has not adduced any evidence to prove that OPs have committed any medical negligence, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties and have also perused the documents filed by them in the complaint case.
9. It is admitted that initially deceased Smt. Amrit Bai was taken to Dr. B.P. Bajpai at Korba for treatment, who gave medicines and after taking the medicines, she relieved from pain and all of sudden on 10-11-2013 she again suffered severe pain in abdomen, then she was taken to E.S.I.C. Hospital, Korba from where she was referred to O.P. No.3 Hospital on 11.11.2013. Dr. Y. R. Krishna (O.P. No.2) started treatment to Smt. Amrit Bai and several pathological and radiological tests were carried out. It is also admitted that she died due to excessive bleeding.
10. The complainant lodged report against the O.P. No.1 at Police Station, Civil Lines, Bilaspur (CG.), where Offence No.56/2014 for offence under Section 304A IPC was registered against the O.P. No.1 // 13 // and charge sheet was filed against him before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur.
11. The complainant specifically pleaded that O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.2 told him that procedure was to be done through laparoscopic procedure, therefore, the complainant gave his consent for laparoscopic procedure, but instead of laparoscopic procedure, open surgery of the patient was conducted by the O.P. No.1. In the First Information Report, it is mentioned that the complainant's wife was admitted in KIMS Hospital (O.P. No.3). After 5-6 days from the date of admission of the patient, Sonography was conducted. In Sonography report, it is mentioned that Smt. Amrit Bai was having stone and the doctor told the complainant that operation was to be conducted through Laparoscopic procedure and deceased was taken to operation theatre for conducting operation, but Dr. Brijesh Patel (O.P. No.1) conducted open surgery of the deceased. The O.P. No.1 conducted open surgery of the deceased on his own will. On dead body of Smt. Amrit Bai, post mortem was conducted. The doctor, who conducted post-mortem opined that the "cause of death is due to excessive Haemorrhage from the torn and badly injured liver bed (H/o Cholecystomy present) leads to Cardio-respiratory shock and death due to Haemopesitrium." It is also mentioned that "whole of the peritoneal cavity in abdomen full of blood near about 2-3 litre of blood // 14 // found (Haemoperitanium). Excessive haemorrhage from the liver bed."
12. The Police Station, Civil Lines, Bilaspur sent letter to Civil Surgeon Cum Chief Medical Superintendent, District Hospital, Bilaspur and raised query. In response to the query raised, Dr. R.K. Gupta, Specialist Surgeon, District Hospital, Bilaspur, sent his report, in which he mentioned that operation of the deceased was conducted through open surgery and not through laparoscopic procedure. There was incision mark of operation in the right side of body of the patient. The operation which was conducted by the O.P. No.1 was first operation and was conducted through open surgery and patient died due to mistake committed while conducting operation.
13. In the instant case, the O.P. No.1 filed an application under Section 13 (4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for discovery of documents whereby the O.P. No.1 prayed that the complainant be directed to file complete documents which he has taken away from the hospital and record in relation to treatment of patient prior to admission in the hospital. The complainant filed his reply and denied the allegation that he had taken bed head ticket etc. forcibly from the O.P. No.3 Hospital. The complainant also pleaded that the documents are not in his possession. The complainant has filed his affidavit in support of the above reply. The complainant again filed reply to the above application on 09.09.2015.
// 15 //
14. The OPs have also filed an application under Section 13 (4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for calling expert witnesses for their statement in the complaint wherein they prayed for calling Dr. O.P. Raj, Assistant Professor, Department of Surgery, Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Science, Bilaspur and Dr. R.K. Gupta, General Surgeon.
15. The O.P. No.1 sent questionnaire to Dr. O.P. Raj and Dr. R.K. Gupta. The first question asked is "What documents did you receive from Police for medical preparation". In response to the above question, both the doctors have gave answer that "Postmortem report and bed head ticket from KIMS Hospital, Bilaspur of Amrit Bai, W/o Ramkumar Namdev, age 45 years/female, address Balco, Korba (C.G.)" The second question aske is "Did you find periportal collateral / periportal cuffing as mentioned in previous two sonogrpahy reports". In response to the above questions, both the doctors have gave answer that "it has mentioned already in ultrasonography report". The Question No.10 which has been asked is "During conversion from laparoscopic surgery to open surgery, is it possible to combine all the three port in upper part in such a manner that it looks single incision". In response to the above question, both the doctors gave answer that "During conversion from laproscopic surgery to open surgery, it varies from surgeon to surgeon". Both the doctors have // 16 // gave their finding the O.P. No.1 committed mistake while conducting open surgery of the patient.
16. In the Abdomen & Pelvis Ultra Sonography report of Dr. Anil Pratap Singh, it is mentioned thus :-
"IMPRESSION :-
THICK WALLED GALL BLADDER WITH ECHOGENIC GB SLUDGE & PERIPORTAL CUFFING ?
CHOLECYSTITIS ? HEPATITIS
MILD SPLENOMEGALY WITH PERIORTAL &
PERISPLENIC COLLATERALS."
17. The complainant has filed document High Risk Consent which is placed at page No.63 in the record of the complaint, in which it is mentioned thus :-
"HIGH RISK CONSENT esjs ejht ve``r ckbZ ukenso tks fd fdEl gkWLihVy esa HkrhZ gSA ejht fd fLFkfr ds ckjs esa MkWDVj lkgc }kjk le>k fn;k x;k gSA ejht dks vkWijs'ku ds ckn fLFkfr cgqr xaHkhj gS rFkk nqckjk vkWijs'ku dh t:jr gSA lHkh ckrksa dks MkWDVj lkgc }kjk le>k fn;k x;k gSA vxj vkWijs'ku ds nkSjku rFkk ckn esa tku dh {kfr gksrh gS rks iqjh ftEesnkjh gekjh gksxhA blesa gkWfLiVy izca/kd vkSj MkWDVj dh dksbZ ftEesnkjh ugha gksxhA** // 17 //
18. Dr. R.K. Gupta, Surgical Expert and Dr. O.P. Raj, Medical Officer submitted their report to Civil Surgeon Cum Chief Hospital Superintendent, New District Hospital, Bilaspur (C.G.) in which it is mentioned thus :
"mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr mYysf[kr gS fd (As per Record available) mRrj 1&e`rd dk vkijs'ku dsoy vksiu i}fr ls gqvk Fkk] nqjchu i)fr ls ugh ejht ds 'kjhj esa nk;s rjQ vkijs'ku dk incision mark o Vkads yxs Fks] o 'kjhj ds vU; Hkkxksa esa dksb phjk dk fu'kku ekStwn ugh Fkk] o nqjchu i)fr ls gksus okys vkWijs'ku dksbZ fjdkMZ ugh feykA ÁFke vkijs'ku nwjchu i)fr ls ugh gqvk gS] bl fy;s =qfV dks dksbZ loky ugh gSA mRrj 2&tks Hkh vkWijs'ku gqvk Fkk] oks ÁFke vkijs'ku Fkk] nwjchu i)fr ls vkijs'ku dk fu'kku 'kjhj esa ekStwn ugh Fkk o fjdkMZ Hkh ugh FkkA mRrj 3&tks Hkh vkWijs'ku gqvk oks vksiu i)fr ls o ÁFke ckj gqvk gS] D;ksfd nwjchu i)fr ls vkijs'ku ds fu'kku 'kjhj ij ugh Fks o ejht dh e``R;q ÁFke vkijs'ku dh =qfV;ksa ls gqbZ gSA mRrj 4& f}rh; vkijs'ku gqvk ugh Fkk] D;ksfd dsoy ÁFke vkijs'ku tks vksiu i)fr ls gqvk Fkk] D;ksafd dsoy izFke vkijs'ku tks vksiu i)fr ls gqvk Fkk] exploratory laprotomy. ds fjdkMZ gSA mRrj 5& nwjchu i)fr esa%&¼v½ 1- ejht dh fLFkfr lkekU; gksrh gSA 2- hospital stay de gksrk gSA 3- cosmetic. dkj.kksa ls gksrk gSA // 18 // 4- ejht haemodynamically stable gksrk gS 5- vkikrdkfyu fLFkfr esa ugha fd;k tkrk gSA ¼c½ Open Opration vkikrdkyhu o lkekU; fLFkfr;ksa esa vksiu vkijs'ku fd;k tk ldrk gSA mRrj 6&miyC/k fjdkMks ds voyksdu ls Kkr gqvk gS fd vkWijs'ku ds iwo leqfpr tkap gqb Fkh] fu'psruk fo'ks"kK lksuksykftLV o esfMlhu foHkkx ds MkWDVjks dh tkWp dh fjiksZV layXu gSA mRrj 7&Post mortem fjiksZV esa mYys[k gS fd Abdominal cavity esa 2&3 yhVj [kwu Fkk (caemoperitnium) yhoj dk Bed cqjh rjg ls {kfrxzLr Fkk G.B. fiRr dh FkSyh fudkyh tk pwdh FkhA bu lc dks ns[krs gq;s izzrhr gksrk gS fd 'kY;fdz;k lEiUu djus okys 'kY; fpfdRld fd pwd gSA fnukad 19-12-2013 MkW- vkj-ds-xqIrk 'kY; fo'ks"kK l-i-ft-fp-]fcykliqj N-x-
MkW- vks-ih-jkt
fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh "
19. The complainant filed copy of letter dated 16.11.2013 given by O.P. No.2 Dr. Y.R. Krishna, which is annexed at Page No.62 in the record of the complaint, in which seal of KIMS Hospital (O.P. No.3) is affixed and signature of Jaspal Bhamra, C.E.O. of KIMS Hospital, is also present in the said letter. In the said letter it is mentioned thus :-
// 19 // " Jhefr ve``r ckbZZ ukenso ifr jkedqekj ukenso ckydks dksjck tks fd fdEl gkfLiVy fcykliqj esa HkrhZ tks fd Mk0ds vuqlkj nwjchu i)fr ls vkijs'ku ls Bhd gksuk Fkk] mlds ckotwn Mk0 fcts'k iVsy ¼,e0,l½ }kjk viuh ethZ ls vksiu vkijs'ku fd;k x;k ftldh tkudkjh fdlh ifjtu dks ugh fn;k x;k mlds i'pkr~~ ejht dh e``R;w gks x;h ftlds ftEesnkj Mk0 fcts'k iVsy gSA "
20. In the instant case, the consent letter which is annexed at page No.91 in the record, only name of the patient is mentioned as Smt. Amrit Bai Namdev and details and date were left blank. Even signature of the doctor is not present.
21. From perusal of letter dated 16.11.2013 given by O.P. No.2 Dr. Y.R. Krishna, which is annexed at Page No.62 in the record of the complaint, it appears that the O.P. No.1 Dr. Brijesh Patel, without informed the complainant and deceased and without obtaining their consent conducted open surgery instead of laparoscopic procedure and due to negligent act of the O.P. No.1, the patient Smt. Amrit Bai died, for which O.P. No.1 Dr. Brijesh Patel is responsible. Looking to the Medical Report and letter given by O.P. No.2, it appears that while conducting the open surgery, the O.P. No.1 committed mistake, which comes within purview of medical negligence.
22. Now we shall examine whether the O.P. No.2 & O.P. No.3 are also liable for the act of the O.P. No.1 ?
// 20 //
23. The complainant pleaded that initially Dr. Y. R. Krishna (O.P. No.2) treated the deceased. Dr. Y. R. Krishna is a director of KIMS Hospital (O.P. No.3) and Dr. Brijesh Patel (O.P. No.1) is working in KIMS Hospital (O.P. No.3), therefore, O.P. No.2 & 3 are also equally responsible for the mistake committed by the O.P. No.1, therefore, the OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the complainant.
24. Now we shall examine the quantum of compensation to be awarded in favour of the complainant ?
25. The complainant pleaded that the deceased Smt. Amrit Bai was earning income of Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month and family was depended upon her. Due to death of the deceased, the complainant suffered loss. The complainant prayed for awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.46,25,000/-. The complainant has not filed any document to prove that the income of deceased Smt. Amrit Bai was Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month, expenditure to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- was incurred on travelling and meals, the complainant suffered business loss to the tune of 15,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- towards dependency.
26. In Naksha Panchayat nama and the Post mortem report, the age of the deceased Smt. Amrit Bai, is mentioned as 50 years. The complainant is unable to prove that the deceased Smt. Amrit Bai was // 21 // earning Rs.25,000 to Rs.30,000/- per month. The complainant has not specifically pleaded regarding deceased's profession, therefore it is just and proper to presume notional income of the deceased in the year 2013. Looking to the age and notional income of the deceased, it is just and proper to award lump sum amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) towards compensation to the complainant , which is payable by the OPs jointly and severally.
27. In view of the above discussions, we partly allow the complaint filed by the complainant and it is directed that :-
(i) The OPs will jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-
(Rupees Ten Lakhs) towards compensation to the complainant within two months from the date of this order along with simple interest @ 9% p.a., on the above amount from the date of this order till realisation.
(ii) The OPs will also jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) towards cost of litigation to the complainant.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (D.K. Poddar) (Narendra Gupta)
President Member Member
04/03/2017 04 /03/2017 04/03/2017