State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Rajneesh Goyal vs Gurpreet Singh on 20 July, 2015
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.409 of 2011
Date of Institution: 04.03.2011
Date of Decision : 20.07.2015
1. Dr. Rajneesh Goyal, Owner of Aastha Hospital, Flower Lane 2,
Opposite Court Complex, Gate No.2, Handiaya Road, Barnala.
2. Dr. Neelam Goyal C/o Aastha Hospital, Flower Lane 2, Opposite
Court Complex, Gate No.2, Handiaya Road, Barnala.
.....Appellants/Opposite parties
Versus
Gurpreet Singh, S/o Sh.Ranjit Singh R/o Sehna, Tehsil Tapa District
Barnala.
... Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal against order dated
24.01.2011 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Barnala
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Vaibhav Narang, Advocate For the respondents : Sh.G.S Toor, Advocate ............................................ J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-
The appellants of this appeal (the opposite party no.1 and 2 in the complaint) have directed this appeal against the respondent of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint), challenging order dated 24.01.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum First Appeal No.409 of 2011 2 Barnala, accepting the complaint of the complainant and directing the OPs to pay the consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.1 lac to the complainant. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the opposite parties now appellants in this appeal.
2. The complainant, Gurpeet Singh, has filed the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that he was admitted in Aastha Hospital, Barnala on 30.3.2010 on account of head injury received by him. He was treated by OP No.1 and 2 in the above hospital and he became their consumer because he availed their services. OPs No.1 and 2 ran the Astha Hospital at Barnala and complainant paid a sum of Rs.55,000/- to them, but no bill was issued to this effect. CD ECHO CARDIOGRAPHY of complainant was conducted by OPs, vide report dated 08.04.2010. The condition of the complainant did not improve and his attendants protested on this matter and the complainant was discharged from the above hospital of OP on 08.04.2010. Wrong date was mentioned in the prescription slip, as 08.03.2010. The complainant received head injury, but OPs are not Neurosurgeon and they admitted him in the hospital only to extract the money. The complainant was taken to Patiala Diagnostic Centre & Eye Clinic K.C Road Barnala and C.T. Scan examination of complainant was got done and it was opined by Dr. Rajesh Kumar Garg that "Transaxial Scan head of 10 mm thickness slice at 10 mm interval done. Findings are consistent with Mild Diffuse Left Cerebral Edema." The complainant paid Rs.1800/- for the above CT Scan report to Dr. Rajesh Kumar Garg. The complainant further pleaded First Appeal No.409 of 2011 3 that he was admitted at Noor Multispeciality Hospital & Trauma Center Barnala, where Dr. Sanjeev Rajput Neuro and Spinal Surgeon examined him and Rs.50,000/- was incurred on his treatment thereat. The complainant has, thus, filed the present complaint directing the OPs to pay Rs.1,02,300/- being the actual amount spent by him on his treatment, besides Rs.50,000/-, as compensation for mental harassment along with Rs.15,000/- , as costs of litigation.
3. Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and contested the complaint of the complainant vehemently. The OP No.1 raised legal objections that complainant has no loucs standi or cause of action to file the complaint against them. The complainant is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the complaint and hence complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has concealed the material facts, as he has not come to this Forum with clean hands and instead filed the present complaint. The complainant has filed the complaint on false grounds. This fact was not denied by the OP no.1 that complainant was admitted in hospital of OP on 31.03.2010 due to head injury on account of falling from cycle, as narrated by Amrik Singh. It was further averred that Aastha Hospital is well equipped with modern facilities, including Neurosurgeon facilities. GCS was sent to Dr. Deepinder Singh Neurosurgen MCH Apollo Hospital Ludhiana by the OP and he gave report on 1.4.2010 that head injury required no active surgery and recovery was through medicines only. The GCS level of the complainant at the time of admission was 8.15. The complainant was treated by OP with the proper consultation of First Appeal No.409 of 2011 4 Dr. Deepinder Singh Neurosurgeon, a specialist doctor in the field. It was further pleaded that the GCS level of the complainant was improved from 8.15 to 14.15 and he recovered to his normal position and was able to eat meals himself and to walk even without support. It was further pleaded that due consent was taken from Amrik Singh, when he admitted the complainant in the hospital at the time of his admission. It was denied that there was no improvement in the condition of the complainant in the hospital of OP No.1. It was further stated that OP no.1 provided best available treatment to the complainant, as OP No.1 is qualified MBBS, MD in Medicine and had taken special training from DMCH Ludhiana and Escort Hospital Amritsar in Critical Care Medicine. It was further stated on merits in the written reply that after admission of the complainant with OP No.1, his treatment was started and CT Scan was already with the complainant. Dr. Deepinder Singh Neurosurgeon MCH Apollo Hospital Ludhiana was immediately consulted and he examined the CT Scan report, GCS level , detailed history and examination notes of the complainant along with other tests and found that only conservative treatment was required for head injury of complainant, which was Mild Deffuse Edema and it did not require active surgery. It was further averred that the GCS level of the complainant improved from 8.15 to 14.15 with best treatment provided by OP and he came into normal condition on 8.4.2010. CD ECHO Cardiography and ECG were done at 11.10 a.m and they were normal. On 08.4.2010 at about 12.30 P.M, 15-20 unknown persons started shouting at the hospital of the OP and they got discharged the First Appeal No.409 of 2011 5 patient against medical advice and left the hospital without getting Discharge Summary. OP No.1 further averred that Dr. Sanjeev Rajput is a visiting surgeon, who comes only on Saturday at Noor Hospital and he is only consultant. The prescription slip dated 13.4.2010 of complainant was prepared and signed by Dr. Navdeep Singh (MS ORTHO), who is not a Neurosurgeon. OP No.1, thus, prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.
4. OP No.2 filed its separate written reply by denying the averments of the complainant as incorrect and false. OP No.2 pleaded that she has not provided any treatment to the complainant in this case. She has no role in treating the complainant in this case. She controverted the other averments of the complainant. She adopted other pleadings, as raised by OP no.1 in the written reply in her defence and, thus, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. The complainant tendered in evidence the affidavit of complainant Ex.C-8 along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-
7. As against it, Ops tendered in evidence affidavit of Dr.Rajneesh Goyal Ex.R-1, affidavit of Dr. Deepinder Singh Ex.R-7 along with copies of documents Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-6, Ex.R-8 and Ex.R-9 on the record. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum, Barnala, accepted the complaint of the complainant by directing the OPs to pay the consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.1 lac. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Barnala dated 24.01.2011. The OPs now appellants carried this appeal against the same.
First Appeal No.409 of 2011 6
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case.
7. It is for the complainant to prove medical negligence on the part of the treating doctor in the consumer complaint. The onus to this effect has to be discharged by the complainant by leading evidence. Admittedly, there is no expert body's report in this case on the record. The complainant has not applied to the District Forum for medical expert report in this case. The District Forum has not sought any report of expert body to prove any medical negligence of the OPs in this case. We have to examine the evidence available on the record to come to the conclusion, as to whether any medical negligence on the part of OP No.1, who treated the complainant is proved or not. OP No.2 is other doctor, who took the plea that she never treated the complainant and rather washed her hands off in this case. We have to examine the evidence on the record. Ex.C-1 is CD-Echo Cardiography Report of the complainant dated 08.04.2010 by Aastha Hospital. This document has proved that the CD Cardiography examination of the complainant was conducted by the OPs on 08.04.2010. The prescription slip Ex.C-2 is issued by the OPs and certain medicines, as recorded in it, were given to the complainant for his recovery. Test reports of the complainant are recorded on left side of the slip. Ex.C-3 is CT Scan report dated 31.3.2010 of the complainant. We have carefully examined the CT Scan report of the complainant, which was given by the Dr. Rajesh Kumar Garg. Admittedly, the complainant sustained head injury due to falling from the cycle on 30.03.2010 and was admitted in the First Appeal No.409 of 2011 7 hospital of the OP No.1 at Aastha Hospital on 31.3.2010. On 31.3.2010 his CT-Scan report was conducted by Dr. Rajesh Kumar Garg and he found the report as under :
"There are small hemorrhagic foci in left tempo-pariental region with small perifocal edema. No extra axial hemorrhage seen. Supratentorial ventricular system is normal. However, slight compression of left lateral ventricle is appreciated. Basal cisterns are normal. Sulci gyri pattern normal. On bone window : Non depressed fracture right temporal bone seen.
Impression : Findings are consistent with Mild Diffuse Left Cerebral Edema."
It is, thus, evident that CT Scan report in case of head injury was produced before OPs, vide Ex.C-3, on the record. Ex.C-4 is prescription slip of Noor Multispecialty Hospital & Trauma Centre dated 13.09.2010 pertaining to complainant and certain medicines have been prescribed on it. Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-7 are the prescription slips of Dr. Sanjeev Rajput and certain medicines have been prescribed on it. Affidavit of Gurpreet Singh complainant is Ex.C-8 on the record in support of his allegations. We find that the complainant suffered injury, which was Mild Diffuse Left Cerebral Edema and copy of CT Scan report is Ex.C-3 in this regard.
8. To counter this evidence of the complainant, the OPs tendered in evidence, affidavit Ex.R-1 of Dr. Rajneesh Goyal of Aastha Hospital Barnala, who treated the complainant. He stated that the CT Scan report of the complainant was available with him, when he First Appeal No.409 of 2011 8 admitted the complainant in the hospital and his other tests were also got performed there. He consulted Dr. Deepinder Singh Neurosurgeon, MCH Apollo Hospital Ludhiana on 1.4.2010 by sending CT scan report, detailed history and other examination notes and GCS score of the complainant. He opined that said head injury requires "No Active Surgery". The above neurosurgeon opined that no active surgery was required and only conservative treatment was required. This witness stated that GCS level of the complainant was 8.15 at the time of his admission in his hospital. He treated the complainant in consultation with Dr. Deepidner Singh Neurosurgeon and provided best and proper treatment to him. This witness stated that GCS level of the complainant rose from 8.15 to 14.15. He further stated that complainant was able to eat himself and to walk without support and was able to recognize his visitors and attendants and was showing full control over urine and bowel movements on account of best treatment, provided to him. From the evidence on the record, particularly the affidavit of Dr. Rajneesh Goyal and admission record Ex.R-2 and notes appended on it, we find that OP no.1, who is qualified doctor for treating such injuries, which required no active Neurosurgery intervention, cannot be said to be deficient in treating the complainant. Such edema injuries are treatable with conservative medicines because no Neurosurgery was required in this case. The treatment chart of the complainant is also placed on the record, as prepared by OP No.1. Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-4 have also been examined by us. The most fortifying evidence in support of the case of the OPs is the affidavit of Dr. Deepinder Singh First Appeal No.409 of 2011 9 Neurosurgeon, vide Ex.R-7 on the record. This witness has stated in his affidavit Ex.R-7, that he is qualified Neurosurgeon and Consultant with qualification M.S (PGI), Mch. Neurosurgery (AIIMS Delhi) and is doing job at Satguru Partap Apollo Hospital Ludhiana. He further stated that he examined the CT Scan examination notes of Gurpreet Singh for consultation on 1.4.2010. After examining his CT Scan history and examination notes, he gave consultation that injury of complainant was a Mild Deffuse Edema and it required no active neurosurgery. This witness further stated in his affidavit that only consultation and medical treatment was sufficient to treat the complainant. The specialist Dr. Deepinder Singh Neurosurgeon examined the CT Scan report, examination notes and detailed history of the complainant and opined that no active surgery was required and only conservative medical treatment was required. The complainant would improve with passage of time. We find that there is no affidavit of any other Neurosurgeon on the record to rebut this affidavit of Dr. Deepinder Singh Neurosurgeon Ex.R-7 on the record. The complainant has not placed on record the affidavit of Dr. Sanjeev Rajput Neurosurgeon to the contrary. We find that when the consultation of Neurosurgeon was taken by the OPs and examination notes were duly available and it was found that case of the complainant was treatable with medicines and no neurosurgery was involved in this case. Consequently, we do not find any medical negligence on the part of OPs. Doctor never guarantees to cure the patient and doctor has to follows the Medical Standard Practice despite he is being a qualified doctor. Herein, due consultation of First Appeal No.409 of 2011 10 specialist Neurosurgeon Dr. Deepinder Singh was taken at the time of starting the treatment of complainant, vide Ex.R-7, and he opined that only conservative treatment was required for 'Mild Diffuse Edema' of the complainant. This case is not of active Neurosurgery. The OPs duly recorded this fact in LAMA summary contained at Page 57 of the paper book of the appeal. The OPs got conducted the CT Scan and other tests of the complainant, as well. Consequently, we do not find any medical negligence on the part of the OPs.
9. The most important circumstance not taken into account by the District Forum is that the 'Glassgow Coma Level' of the complainant was 8.15 at the time of admission, which subsequently rose with treatment provided by OPs to 14.15. This is a strong circumstance to exonerate the OPs from any medical negligence in this case. The 'Glassgow Coma Level' is a Neurological Scale that aims to give a reliable, objective way of recording the conscious state of a person for initial as well as subsequent assessment. The 'Glassgow Coma Level' scale between 3 and 15, 3 being the worst and 15 the best. The 'Glassgow Coma Level' of the complainant significantly improved with the treatment of OPs and at the time of admission, it was 8.15 and subsequently with treatment, it rose to 14.15. Consequently, we cannot hold the OPs were medically negligent in this case. The order of the District Forum, thus, cannot be held to be sustainable in this appeal. The order of the District Forum under challenge in this appeal dated 24.1.2010 is ordered to be set aside in this appeal.
First Appeal No.409 of 2011 11
10. As a sequitur of our above discussion, we accept the appeal of the appellant and by setting aside the order of District Forum Barnala dated 24.1.2011, we hereby dismiss the complaint of the complainant now respondent in this appeal.
11. The appellant had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission, vide receipt dated 4.3.2011 and Rs.25,000/-, vide receipt dated 5.4.2011 at the time of filing of the appeal. Both these amounts with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellants by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days in equal shares.
12. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 15.07.2015 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties, as per rules.
13. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM) MEMBER July 20, 2015.
(ravi) First Appeal No.409 of 2011 12