National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Dinesh Kaushal And Ors. vs Dr. K.K. Khurana on 25 October, 2002
ORDER
Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member
1. Appellant/complainant has appealed by this Commission. Facts in brief of the case are that appellant's father on 5.10.1999 was having high temperature. He was brought by the appellants to opposite party for treatment. Opposite party after examining the patient found that the patient was suffering from diabetes and T.B. and prescribed medicine for the same. Since there was not much improvement in patient's health he was taken again to opposite party. Opposite party conducting various tests again said that patient was having high blood sugar and no heart problem.
2. On 10.1.2000 the patient complained of acute chest pain and breathlessness. Opposite party after examining said that there was no serious ailment. In the same day when appellants were taking the patient to native place the condition of the patient had deteriorated so much that he had acute pain and became breathless. He was immediately taken to the local civil hospital where the Doctor advised for ECG test, which was got conducted at Gupta Hospital at Kurali. On having seen the ECG report, the Doctor at the Local Civil Hospital opined that the patient had severe heart attack and he referred him to General Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh, but the patient, on the way to Chandigarh, had died due to acute pain in the heart and breathless suffering.
3. The complainants had filed the complaint before the State Commission claiming Rs. 9,52,800/- along with Rs. 6,000/- for the amount spent for medicines, etc. They had also claimed Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation for mental harassment and agony suffered plus Rs. 50,000/- as litigation expenses for medical negligence and gross deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
4. Opposite party contended that deceased was a critical patient of diabetes, anaemia and both lungs having T.B. It is as a stated that the patient was suffering from high fever, extensive weakness, prostration and Mark Toxemia, and after seeing the opposite party satisfied the appellant to take patient to some better hospital but they insisted on treatment by opposite party. Opposite party further contended that ECG report did not show any old heart problem. Affidavits were filed by complainants and opposite party. State Commission after hearing both sides and on perusal of documents came to the finding that the line of treatment by opposite party was not wrong nor there was any act of negligence or deficiency in service by opposite party. Affidavit filed on behalf of P.D. Pathak also does not show that the line of treatment given by opposite party was to the contrary. State Commission came to the conclusion that opposite party had adopted correct line of treatment, and that there was no negligence or deficiency in service by the opposite party. Therefore, complaint deserved to be dismissed.
5. Appellant/complainant before the National Commission too pleaded that as per medical jurisprudence in accordance with Davidson's book on Medicine which says that firstly spectrum of the culture should be prepared to confirm tuberculosis clinically thereafter patient should be put to chemotherapy, i.e., stepomycine which the opposite party failed to do and continued with same line of treatment. After hearing the parties we do not find any negligence, deficiency in service rendered by opposite party nor any infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission. Hence the appeal deserves to be dismissed. But, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.