Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

17. The record of PGI i.e. discharge-cum-follow up card shows that Amikacin 500 mg. BD for 15 days and 14 gms. was prescribed and as per the statement of Dr. Anil Bhansali, Amikacin 500 mg. BD for 15 days and 15 gms. and same was the statement of Dr. Harpreet Singh. There is no evidence to suggest that the doses were beyond 15 gms. The District Forum believed the chemist bills dated 04.03.2006, 11.03.2006 and 18.03.2006, whereas the admission in the PGI was on 05.03.2006. In "Dr. Martin F. D'Souza Vs Mohd. Ishfaq", there were similar allegations and no case of the overdose of the drug was made out. The District Forum relied upon the statement of Dr. Harpreet Singh and Dr. Anil Bhansali, but has not considered the statement of the appellant, Dr. Darshan Singh, ENT Expert and literature produced by the appellant. As per Dr. Bhansali, hearing of loss was around 29.03.2006 and it was sudden, but at that time, the patient was not under treatment of Amar Hospital nor the patient informed about it to the hospital. Dr. Harpreet Singh has also not stated about the condition of the patient and has also not performed any test to evaluate the hearing, not even audiometry, tympanometry and without that, the patient cannot be declared as profound deaf. The audiometry carried out at PGI, Chandigarh reveals bilateral sensorineural deafness. No attempt was made to differentiate the deafness as sensory or neural. There are multiple causes of sensory and neural deafness which cannot be concluded without proper evaluation. Without measuring the plasma level of Amikacin, it cannot be concluded that the deafness is because of Amikacin. Respondent No.1 Baljit Kaur had ear discharge, cough, fever and urinary tract infection and all this may have caused precipitated deafness and renal failure. The statement of Dr. Harpreet Singh is without any basis.

21. The appellant in reply to Question No.7, stated that he is member of Munshi Ram Charitable Trust and is holding the post of Cashier. He further admitted that the name of the father of the appellant is Amar Nath and the name of his grandfather is Munshi Ram. Thus, it is clear that Amar Hospital is owned by the appellant and at present, the president of Amar Hospital is mother of the appellant. The land where the Amar Hospital is constructed is the ownership of the appellant and the appellant always presented himself to be the proprietor of Amar Hospital. Amar Hospital is owned and run by the appellant and his family members in the name of the Trust. The appellant also admitted that he is in Govt. job and without resigning from the Govt. job, is serving at Amar Hospital which is illegal in the eyes of law. The appellant also admitted that he has not made any written contract with Munshi Ram Charitable Trust which further proves that the appellant is owner. The documents annexed by the appellant in reply to questionnaire are not tendered in evidence by the appellant. Annexure R-17 to Annexure R-24 cannot be read into evidence. From the income tax returns of the year 2006-07, 2007-08, it is clear that the appellant is getting salary from Amar Hospital, but after the present complaint, he did not withdraw the salary and that was considerably reduced. In reply to Question No.22, the appellant admitted that he visited the house of respondent no.1 on 04.03.2006, but he stated that he has not received any fee which cannot be believed. The appellant visited the house of respondent no.1 and charged the fee and respondent no.1 was consumer under the Act. The appellant admitted in reply to Question No.23 that prescription slip dated 04.03.2006 is in his own handwriting. In reply to Questions No.36 and 38, he has denied these facts and in reply to Question No.39, he stated that he came to know from the relatives of the patient that there were no adverse symptoms. In reply to Question No.44, it was admitted by the appellant that audiometry is advisable test before starting/giving the injection Amikacin, but the same was not conducted which proves deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the appellant. In reply to Question No.50, it was admitted by the appellant that duration of Antimicrobial therapy in case of upper UTI is 14 days, whereas he has administered injection Amikacin for continuously three weeks i.e. more than 21 days. This resulted into complete deafness and acute renal failure. Respondent no.1 suffered all this due to deficiency in service and negligent treatment of the appellant. Prescription slip Ex.C-X proves so. Appellant also admitted in reply to Question No.1 that the patient should be monitored for renal functions, preferably daily and also audiometry should be done. In the present case, the appellant kept on giving injection Amikacin for more than 21 days without monitoring the same which resulted in complete deafness and renal failure. The statements of Dr. Anil Bhansali and Dr. Harpreet Singh, PGI record, prescription slip dated 04.03.2006 and reply to the questionnaire by Satnam Singh, Parminder Kaur and appellant make it clear that the appellant was negligent in treating respondent no.1 and she suffered complete deafness and acute renal failure and she remained in PGI and later on, she died due to wrong and negligent treatment given by the appellant, on 11.04.2008 due to renal failure.

30. As has been discussed above, Ex.C-X prescription slip was issued by the appellant and the entries on the reverse of Ex.C-X were made by the appellant and the doses were prescribed by the appellant. As per the evidence of Dr. Anil Bhansali, the proper dose of Amikacin 500 mg. twice a day is maximum for seven to 10 days dose, but with the monitoring of the renal function. The appellant has failed to bring on record any evidence to prove that he monitored the renal function of patient Baljit Kaur time to time. The appellant also did not recommend the test of audiometry before administering the Amikacin or during the administration of Amikacin on the patient Baljit Kaur, whereas PGI, Chandigarh after her admission on 05.04.2006, conducted audiometry test on 12.04.2006 and the report is Ex.C-26. Dr. K.S. Chugh examined respondent no.1 Baljit Kaur on 03.04.2006 vide Ex.C-29 and found that she has taken Amikacin 500 mg. BD for 15 days in Amar Hospital which was given by Dr. Sameer Kaushal and her S-cretainine has gone upto 7.8 mg. and particularly, prescribed no Amikacin. The literature Ex.C-25 relied upon by respondent no.1 and Ex.R-16 relied upon by the appellant show that Amikacin can cause hearing loss and kidney related problems as side effects. Under head 'Preparation, Routes of Administration and Dosage', in Ex.R-16, it was provided as follows:-