Appellant/complainant’s son, after passing BDS from the respondent college went to collect the Degree from the respondent on 12.12.2009.  Suddenly, he developed chest pain and his friends took him to the campus

2

hospital of the respondent where OP-3 doctor diagnosed heart condition and gave the following injections and fluids :

a) Inj. Hydrocortison steroid

b) Inj. Buscopan abdominal killers

c) Inj. Voveron

d) Inj. Ranitidin,

e) 2 bottles of Dextrose each containing 500 ml of fluid

f)  2 bottles of Ringer Lactate each containing 500 ml of fluid.

        Appellant has alleged that the administration of fluids aggravated the heart problem and that while shifting his son to govt. hospital at Nalagarh, his condition deteriorated and he died on the way.  The cause of death, as per postmortem report is coronary artery disease.  Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, appellant filed the complaint before the State Commission.

      State Commission has dismissed the complaint by observing thus :

“As regards the merits, no evidence worth the name has been led by the complainant to show, that it was on account of medication given by opposite party No.3, that the deceased suffered heart attack leading to his death, or that the medication provided by him in any way aggravated the coronary artery

                        3

disease. Learned counsel representing the complainant has made reference to certain literature, copies of which are not available on record, and submitted that when fluid is administered to a person with heart ailment, it can lead to pulmonary edema, which, in turn, may cause heart failure. There is no evidence on record indicating that the fluid, which was administered to the deceased, in fact, led to any pressure of the kind, which the learned counsel for the complainant has referred to and caused pulmonary edema. On the contrary, the postmortem report, copy of which is Annexure C-1, shows that both the lungs of the deceased were normal, which means there was no pulmonary edema.

        Opposite parties have placed reliance upon a report by a doctor. The said report is Annexure R/A. As per this report, the treatment, which was given by opposite party No.3, is normally given when a patient with the chest pain and stomach pain visits a doctor’s place and that that treatment is given to ameliorate the symptoms. The opinion further reads that the treatment given was correct and it was required to save the life of the patient in an emergent situation.”

4

        We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  Onus to prove that there was negligence on the part of the respondents was on the appellant.  Appellant failed to produce any evidence to show that the medication provided by the respondent in any way aggravated coronary heart disease leading to the death of the respondent’s son.  Reference was made to certain literature that when a fluid is administered to a person with heart ailment, it can lead to pulmonary edema which may in turn cause heart failure.  In the postmortem report Exh. C-I, both the lungs of the deceased were found normal which means that there was no pulmonary edema. 

Counsel for the appellant has not referred to any medical literature to show that the fluids administered by Respondent No.3 in any way contributed to the patient’s death.  Dismissed.