JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) Aggrieved by the order dated 13.02.09, which was subsequently corrected by another order dated 24.11.09, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in complaint case no. 82/2000, the original opposite party no.1, Management of Parmarth Mission Hospital has filed the present appeal. By the impugned order, the State Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by one, Anil Kumar claiming a compensation of Rs.9 lakh from the opposite party
..2.. hospital and the doctors alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service on their part in the treatment of his father, namely, Sardari Lal aged about 62 years. The State Commission has awarded a lump-sum compensation of Rs.75,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the hospital to the complainant. 2. Office has reported delay of 55 days in filing the present appeal but learned counsel for the appellant explains that in fact there is no delay in filing the present appeal inasmuch as the copy of the impugned order dated 13.02.09 was received by the appellant towards the end of July, 2009 and, therefore, the delay, if any, would be of few days in filing the appeal. Even otherwise, it is apparent that the said order was subsequently corrected/modified vide order dated 24.11.09 which by itself would mean that the final order in this case came to be passed only in November, 2009 and hence, the appeal so filed, does not appear to be barred by the limitation. 3. We have heard Dr. I. B. Gaur, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sandeep Kapoor, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 but had not the advantage of hearing the say of the complainant as ..3.. he remained unrepresented on record despite due service of notice
upon him. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would assail the finding and order of the State Commission primarily on the ground that it is not based on correct and proper appreciation of facts and circumstances and the evidence and material brought on record. In this connection, it is necessary to reproduce here para nos. 7, 8 and 9 of the impugned order which give out the mind of the State Commission in dealing with the controversy:- “7. In nutshell the allegations of medical negligence or some other kind of deficiency in service on the part of the OP hospital are that when the patient was admitted to the hospital he was admitted for operation of neck of femur on 7.3.2000. On 8.3.2000 when the tests were done prior to the operation the tests revealed particularly the ECG that he had heart problem and therefore on 8.3.2000 the surgery was postponed. On 9.3.2000 one Cardiologist, OP-3 was called who examined the patient and then called a doctor from outside for conducting the ECG in which it was detected that 30% of heart is only functioning. The ECG was done around 11.00 A.M. on 9.3.2000 at 11.45 P.M. the patient suffered heart attack and instead of calling a Cardiologist one, Dr. Kapoor was called, who was an Anesthesiologist, for saving the patient from the heart attack. The patient died at 1.50 P.M. on the same day. ..4.. 8. Thus, in our view, the limited negligence on the part of the OP is not making arrangement of Cardiologist knowing well that the doctor who conducted the ECG found that the heart condition of the patient was serious and the functioning of the heart was only 30%. It is not a case of either lack of skill or the doctor attending to the patient for the purpose of operation nor is it a case of any such kind of negligence in the line of treatment given by the doctor or the hospital. 9. We have taken a view that whenever a patient goes for any treatment in a hospital and the hospital receives that patient the hospital should be equipped with all necessary arrangements for attending to any complication that may arise in the hospital either during treatment, before operation or after the operation and if a patient like the one in question has been found to be suffering from serious heart ailments or the ilk prior to the operation then the services of a Cardiologist of the concerned discipline as the case may be should be immediately summoned.” 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that once the treating doctors realized that the patient was suffering from a certain cardiac problem which was confirmed by E.C.G done on 08.03.2000, they immediately advised the complainant and the attendants of the patient to shift the patient to some nearby ICCU for proper and further treatment and management. However, the attendants were not willing to take the patient to such an ICCU and insisted the treating doctors
and surgeon to carry out surgery of the femur neck but even then the ..5.. doctors did not agree to do the said procedure and rightly so on account of the prevailing health condition of the patient and rather summoned a cardiologist to manage the patient. In our view faced with the situation, in which they were placed, the appellant hospital and the doctors could have done no better than that what they have done. In our view they cannot be faultered or said to have committed any medical negligence and deficiency in giving the treatment to the said patient. Finding of the State Commission is as such cannot be upheld and is liable to be set aside. 6. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed and the impugned order passed by the State Commission is set aside leaving the parties to bear their own costs. As a consequence, the complaint shall be deemed to have dismissed. On request of learned counsel for the appellant, we direct the Registry to refund the amount of Rs.35,000/- to the appellant deposited by them as pre-requisite for filing the appeal.
......................JR.C. JAINPRESIDING MEMBER
......................ANUPAM DASGUPTAMEMBER | | 
