Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.             The facts, in brief, are that, on 07.07.2011 at about 4.00 PM, the son of the complainants namely, Vikas aged 3 years, got a fracture on the elbow of right hand. It was stated that the complainants got their son treated from General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh, where plaster was done and advised that their son needed a minor surgery for the treatment.  Thereafter, on 08.07.2011, the complainants consulted Dr.Mohinder Kaushal  (Opposite Party No.1) at his clinic namely "Arthroscopy and Spinal Endoscopy Center", SCO No.66, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh, who after inspecting the child, told them (complainants) that their son needed a minor surgery and that they would perform minor operation on the next day i.e. 09.07.2011 at about 7.00 AM.  It was further stated that the complainants were asked to bring the minor child empty stomach and had taken consultation fee of Rs.1000/- and also made a consultancy card of the minor child and directed them to make a payment of Rs.25000/- for his operation. As per the direction of Dr.Mohinder Kaushal, the complainants alongwith their uncle took the minor child empty stomach to his clinic alongwith a sum of Rs.25,000/- in cash.

4.             In his written statement, Opposite Party No.1, stated that the replying Opposite Party approached the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court by filing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.165 dated 09.07.2011, registered at Police Station, Sector 19, Chandigarh for offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, registered on the behest of the complainants. The Hon'ble High Court directed the SSP, Chandigarh for constitution of Board of Doctors in the said FIR. The Director Health and Family Welfare, Chandigarh Administration vide letter dated 11.10.2010 constituted the Board of Doctors and the said Board had submitted the report. It was further stated that from a bare perusal of the findings of the Board of Doctors, it was clear that Opposite Party No.1 had not committed any negligent and deficient act, while performing his duties. Copy of proceedings of the meeting of the committee is Annexure OP-1/1. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 (Dr.Mohinder Kaushal) is MBBS, DNB (Orth), MNAMS, FMISS (France) Incharge, Arthroscopy and Spinal Endoscopy Centre, SCO 66, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh and working in the said centre as Chief Consultant Orthopaedic, Spinal and Arthroscopic Surgeon since 2004. It was further stated that prior to starting this Centre, Opposite Party No.1 had worked in Armed Forces, PGI and GMCH, Sector 32 and had experience of more than 25 years in medical field and 17 years in Orthopaedics.

5.             It was further stated that the centre where the incident took place had been designed, as per the guidelines laid down by Arthroscopy Association of North America.  It was admitted regarding visit of the complainants alongwith their three year old child having fracture in his right elbow. It was also admitted that the child was medically examined and advised surgery.  It was further stated that as the child was not fasting, attendants were advised to get routine tests done at time of admission and bring the child fasting on 09.07.2011 in the morning.  The attendants of the patient were satisfied and accepted the line of management. Dr.Ajaya Chakravorty, Senior Consultant Anesthesia (Opposite Party No.2) was informed telephonically regarding listing of orthopaedic emergency case next day morning.  On 08.07.2011, the child was examined and evaluated by the replying Opposite Party, prior to starting treatment, which proved that the relatives of deceased child gave false information to the Police that their child was not examined before starting treatment. It was further stated that the child was admitted on early morning of 09.07.2011 and routine emergency investigations were done and consent for surgery and anesthesia was taken prior to surgery. It was further stated that the child was to be operated upon by the team of doctors comprising Opposite Party No.1, Dr.Lalit Kaushal a visiting Senior Orthopaedic Consultant and Dr.Ajaya Chakravorty under short general anaesthesia. It was further stated that all these doctors had more than 15 years of experience in respective speciality and worked in reputed institutes like PGI and GMCH, Chandigarh. It was further stated that Dr.Ajaya Chakravorty, (Opposite Party No.2) few minutes after general anaesthesia was induced, as per the structured prescribed norms, informed Opposite Party No.1 that response of the patient was not favourable to anaesthesia.  The father and relatives of child were informed by Opposite Party No.1 about untoward unfolding of these events.  In the meantime, the Police was informed and Police also arrived at the Centre and they were apprised of the situation.  It was further stated that the decision to shift the child was taken jointly by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 in view of persistent low Sa02 and with prior information to attendants.  The orthopaedic operative treatment for the right arm injury could not take place in view of deteriorating condition of the child. No injection was given to patient by the replying Opposite Party, as falsely claimed by the attendants of deceased child in the FIR. It was further stated that properly laid down orthopaedic emergency procedure was followed to manage child, as per laid down medical norms, such as OPD examination, admission, emergency investigations, consent. It was further stated that in the present case, it was apparent from the perusal of the final report submitted by the investigating agency that no opinion was taken from any medical practitioner in the field of Orthopaedics, so as to warrant the conclusion that Opposite Party No.1 had been negligent in any manner.  It was further stated that the replying Opposite Party had got insurance from The New India Assurance Company under the subject of "liability insurance professional indemnity Dr.(IAM)" valid  w.e.f. 01.02.2010 to 20.2.2011. It was further stated that the death of child was purely because of adverse drug reaction due to anaesthetic drug administered by Opposite Party No.2 to child. It was further stated that the replying Opposite Party was neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.    

7.             It was further stated that the complainants failed to show that how and in which manner injection Ketamine could be so lethal that a person could die due to overdose of injection Ketamine.  It was further stated that the child was never given any overdose of Inj. Ketamine by the replying Opposite Party. It was further stated that if the patient had not favourably responded to a treatment, the doctor could not be held liable for medical negligence.  No sensible professional would intentionally commit an act or omission, which would result in harm or injury to the patient since the professional reputation would be at stake. It was further stated that the complainants had filed the complaint with sole intention to extract money from the replying Opposite Party. It was further stated that the replying Opposite Party took professional indemnity Insurance Policy from New India Insurance Company i.e. Opposite Party No.4 vide Policy (Annexure R-5/A). It was further stated that the complainants brought their child on 09.07.2011 for operation for fracture lower end of right humers (open reduction & internal fixation) and the replying Opposite Party drew 1.5 ml i.e. 75 mg Ketamine in a 2 ml syringe from a multidose vial of Ketamine (Neon Company) after checking expiry date. The same was provided to the replying Opposite Party by "Arthroscopy and Spinal Endoscopy Center" and injected Inj. Ketamine dose 75 mg (i.e. 6 mg/kg as body weight of the patient was 12 KG) in front of the staff. It was further stated that the said 2 ml syringe and drug vial was seized by the Police and sent to the CFSL. The child became unconscious within 60 seconds after the Ketamine Injection. It was further stated that the child certainly did not respond favourably to the treatment, but the same was never due to overdose of Ketamine or any wrong treatment given by the replying Opposite Party. It was further stated that the replying Opposite Party was neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice.