Haryana

StateCommission

A/1114/2018

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS - Complainant(s)

Versus

AMAR NATH - Opp.Party(s)

RAJESH KHURANA

17 Mar 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                      First Appeal No.1114 of 2018

                                                Date of Institution: 21.09.2018

                                                          Date of order: 17.03.2023

 

1. Union of India, through the General Manager, Northern Railway, Headquarter office, Baroda House, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Medical Director, Northern Railway, Headquarter office, Baroda House, New Delhi.
3. The Additional  Chief Medical Superintendent, Divisional Hospital, Northern Railway, Ambala Cantt.
4. The Divisional Rail Manager (D.R.M.)., Northern Railway, Ambala Cantt.
5. Mrs. Nutan Kumari, Nurse, Posted at
   Railway Hospital, Ambala Cantt.

(All through Dr.Chhattar Singh, Chief Medical Superintendent, Northern Railway, Ambala Division, Ambala).

…..Appellants

Versus

1. Amar Nath S/o Sh. Bachua, Retired COS age 70 years of R/o H.NO.10/76, Chander Puri colony, Near DRM office, Ambala Cantt.
2.  
2. Sh. Om Parkash Patni (DMI/UMB), Orthopedic Doctor posted at Railway Hospital, Ambala Cantt.

…..Performa Respondents

CORAM:    S.P. Sood, Judicial  Member

                   Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                  

Present:-    Mr.SikanderBakshi, Advocate for theappellant.

                   Mr.Amarnath respondent No.1 in person.

                   Service of respondent No.2 already dispensed with.

 

First Appeal No.1283 of 2018

Date of institution:26.11.2018

Date of order Hearing: 17.03.2023

 

Amar Nath S/o Sh. Bachua, Retired COS age 70 years of R/o H.NO.10/76, Chander Puri colony, Near DRM office, Ambala Cantt.

…..Appellant

Versus

1. Union of India, through the General Manager, Northern Railways, Headquarter office, Baroda House, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Medical Director, Northern Railways, Headquarter office, Baroda House, New Delhi.
3. The Additional Chief Medical Superintendent, Divisional Hospital, Northern Railway, Ambala Cantt.
4. The Divisional Rail Manager (D.R.M.)., Northern Railway, Ambala Cantt.
5. Sh. Om Parkash Patni (DMI/UMB), Orthopedic Doctor posted at Railway Hospital, Ambala Cantt.
6. Mrs. Nutan Kumari, Nurse, Posted at
   Railway Hospital, Ambala Cantt.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    S.P. Sood, Judicial  Member

                   Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Amarnath appellant in person.

                   Mr.SikanderBakshi, Advocate for the respondent No.1 to 4 and 6.

                   Service of respondent NO.5 already dispensed with.

CORAM:    S.P. Sood, Judicial  Member

                   Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                  

                                                ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Vide this common order above mentioned two appeals bearing No.1114 of 2018and F.A. No.1283 of 2018will be disposed of as both the appeals have been preferred against the order dated 21.08.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (in short ‘District Commission).

2.       The brief facts of the case are that complainant was ex-employee of Railways  and Ops have deducted a sum 12863/- in lieu of issuing him a medical card for providing medical facilities from Railway Hospitals. On 08.06.2012, complainant’s wife Smt. Nirmala feltlill and was brought to railway hospital, Ambala Cantt. but hospital staff did not attend her properly  knowing the fact that she was suffering from heart problem, sugar and high blood pressure. However shortly thereafter,  his son and daughter put her on wheel chair to take her in ICU but the lift of the hospital was out of order, whereas the ramp for ICU were locked and no employee of the hospital helped them. After 15-20 minutes somehow or the other the locks of the ramp were opened but due to delay and negligence, the condition of the patient got further deteriorated.  Treating doctor-OP NO.6 applied oxygen mask on the face of patient and gave her two three injections to the patient and thereafter OP No.5 and 6 fell asleep leaving the patient in ICU. Even otherwise OP No.5 was orthopedic doctor and he was unaware about the real condition of the patient. Due to negligence of the hospital staff, the wife of the complainant died at about 4.00 AM. Faced with this situation, complainant moved an application to set up medical board and to take necessary action against negligent staff member but only the enquiry was entrusted to Dr.Ateek Ahmed and nothing tangible happened thereafter. Thereafter complainant got issued a legal notice to Ops, but, to no avail. Thus there being negligence as well as deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, hence the complaint.

3.      Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed joint written statement concealingthat  medical facility was to be provided free of costs to the railway employees, their family members and dependent relatives of Group A B C and D vide para NO.602 of IRMM 2000. On 08.06.2012, the complainant brought his wife to the hospital due to unusual breathing for the last 4-5 hours. The patient was admitted in ICU for treatment and was attended by doctors thrice but despite best efforts she collapsed at 03.45 hours and was declared dead at 04.30 hour in ICU.  But hearing the said news the complainant and his family members created a scene and started shouting and abusing the staff and called Additional Chief Medical Superintendent, Ambala. A fact finding enquiry was conducted and during inquiry Sh.Bharat Lal ACMS/ Ambala opined that entire episode took place within one and half hours span of time and within this period, treatment given by the treating doctors was adequate in nature. The treating doctor was not at fault.  In the enquiry, it was held that the Nurse on duty gave all the treatment prescribed by the doctor in the case file.   The patient was diabetic, therefore, random blood sugar test was  done and recorded and when the condition of the patient did not improve, trop T test was done. The treating doctor was competent to give such treatment in emergency.  As per record, the patient was suffering from hypertension, diabetes and anxiety. Thus there was no negligence as well as deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Ambala has allowed the complaint vide order dated 21.08.2018, which is as under:-

“ The Ops are directed to pay Rs.2,40,000/- (Rs.4000 x 12 x 5) service being rendered by the deceased to the complainant alongwith sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of love and affection and addition a sum of Rs.20,000/- to complainant on account of loss of consortium within 30 days failing which  this amount would carry 9% interest for default period till realization.”

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P Nos.1 to 4 and 6 as well as Amarnath-complainant have preferred these appeals.

6.      Arguments heard. With their kind assistance entire record of appeal as well as that of the District Commission including whatever evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties has been properly perused and examined.

7.      It is not disputed that complainant being a retired employer of railway department had obtained a card for getting free medical facilities after paying certain money from his salary. It is not disputed that due to breathing problem, the complainant’s wife was admitted in the Ops hospital on 08.06.2012.  It is also not disputed that the wife of the complainant has expired on the same day. The plea of complainant was that there was negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops because at the time to shift the patient in ICU, the family members of the complainant saw that lift of the hospital was out of order and all the doors of ramps leading to ICU were locked and no worker/employee of the hospital helped the complainant  to shift the patient to ICU.  Ex.C-39 is  inquiry report of Dr.Ateek Ahmad regarding the death of Mrs. Nirmala W/o Sh.Amarnath TRD COS/ENGG/SRE, the conclusion part is as under:-

.         As per the complaint of the patient’s husband that he brought her wife in casualty and waited for 30 mts before being examined by the doctor on duty does not appear correct as patient was brought in casualty around 3.00 am and was admitted in ICU at 3.15 as per hospital record of patient. Some times due to anxiousness of patient’s relative the time may seems like 30 minutes  while is actually not so.

.         It is true that there was some delay in shifting the patient from casualty to ICU because both lifts were out of order and doors of ramp were locked.

.         Patient received immediate attention from nurse on duty in ICU.  Nurse on duty gave all treatment prescribed by doctor in case file and put oxygen mask to the patient. Nurse on duty frequently visited to see the patient and called doctor on duty at  3.30 am to see the patient. Therefore the allegation made by patient’s husband that nurse on duty was sleeping does not appear correct.

.         doctor on duty examined patient once in casualty and twice in ICU as per statement of staff and fact finding enquiry conducted by ANO/UMB.

.         Though patient was well attended by both doctor & nurse on duty but both failed to communicate the nature and seriousness of the ailment properly to the relatives of the patient.”

          In view of the report, there was some delay in shifting the patient from casualty to ICU because both lifts were not in working order and doors of ramp were also locked. Due to this delay in shifting the patient into ICU the condition of the patient deteriorated and nurse had placed the oxygen mask on her face and also administered 2/3 injections to her.   The fact finding enquiry marked by the higher authorities has given clear chit to both the treating doctors and nursing staff except observing that both the lifts were not in working condition and ramp were locked due to which some valuable time for shifting her to ICU was wasted. Itwas apparently clear that  complainant’s wife had expired due to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.The learned District Commission has righty allowed the complaint of the complainant.

8.      Resultantly, the contentions raised on behalf of the present appellantsin both the cases stands rejected as rendered no assistance and found to be untenable and the order passed by the learned District Commission does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and is well reasoned and accordingly stands maintained for all intents and purposes.  Hence, appeals bearing No.1114 of 2018 and F.A. No.1283 of 2018 stands dismissed on merits.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- each deposited at the time of filing the appeal bearing No.1114 of 2018be refunded to the complainant-Amar Nathagainst proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

10.              Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

11.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

12.              File be consigned to record room.

13.              The original judgement be attached with appeal No.1114 of 2018 and certified copy be attached with appeal No.1283 of 2018.

 

17^thMarch, 2023       Suresh Chander Kaushik            S. P. Sood                                                                Member                                             Judicial Member

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)