Haryana

Ambala

CC/171/2020

Yuven - Complainant(s)

Versus

Christian Medical College & Hospital - Opp.Party(s)

Shurya Bhatia

06 Nov 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	171 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	28.08.2020
Date of decision	:	06.11.2023

Yuven aged about 6 years son of Late Shri Krishan lal, resident of 55-A, Chanderpuri Colony, Ambala Cantt through his next best friend-cum-natural guardian & mother Neeru wife of Late Shri Krishan Lal.

…..Complainant

Vs.

1. Christian Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana through its Managing Director
2. Dr. Bobby John at Christian Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana.
3. Dr. Akbar at Christian Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana.
4. Insurance company of Christian Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana (to be disclosed by the opposite party No.1 to 3)

….…. Opposite Parties

Before:       Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                     Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

Present:       Shri Shaurya Bhatia, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                                  Shri R.S. Mattu, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- & Rs.25,00,000/-, for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.50,00,000/- for future expenses on the treatment of complainant and pay Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses alongwith interest at the Bank rate.
2. Grant any other relief, which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.

 

2.             Brief facts of this case are that the complainant is a minor aged about 6 years and is residing at 55-A, Chanderpuri Colony, Ambala Cantt and is filing the present complaint through his next best friend-cum-natural guardian & mother Neeru. The complainant at the time of birth was diagnosed with Lumbosacral Meningomyelocele (Spina bifidia) and the complainant at the age of three months on 25.11.2014 was taken to the department of Pediatric, Surgery at PGI, Chandigarh by her mother and there Dr. Enomo and Dr. Soumendra had performed the surgery of the complainant for Excision and Repair and the complainant was discharged on 27.11.2014. After the passage of time, the complainant at the age of about 2 years complained about difficulty in walking. So the mother of the complainant had taken consultation & advice from the doctors at PGI Chandigarh. The doctors of PGI Chandigarh had advised the mother of the complainant to make the complainant wear orthosis in the feet while walking. The mother of the complainant followed up as per the advice of the doctors of the PGI, Chandigarh and took the complainant for following up till the age of five years after regular intervals at PGI, Chandigarh. On 6 September 2019, the complainant complained about pain in right foot and had developed wounds on right foot because of the wearing of orthosis in the feet and he was also suffering from fever. So the mother of the complainant had taken her to Guardian Hospital, Jagadhri Road, Ambala Cantt, for check-up and there Dr. Karan Sobti (MS, Orthopaedician) had advised the mother of the complainant for several tests of the complainant. Dr. Karan Sobti prescribed medicines to the complainant and he had taken all the medicines as prescribed by Dr. Karan Sobti. The mother of the complainant has taken the complainant at Guardian Hospital, Ambala Cantt on 19.09.2019 and 26.09.2019 and the complainant was then treated for wound in the feet which was developed due to the wear and tear of orthosis. The mother of the complainant had asked about the permanent solution of the feet of the complainant by Dr. Karan Sobti, as the complainant complains about difficulty in walking from the age of two years, which aggravated till the age of five years. So Dr. Karan Sobti had advised the mother of the complainant for ortho opinion (Expert Opinion) and had referred the complainant to Dr. Bobby John at hospital of OP No.1 on 26.09.2019. The complainant was then taken to hospital of the OP No.1 by his mother on 30.09.2019 and had consulted with Dr. Bobby John (OP No.2) and Dr. Akbar (OP No.3). After the consultation and thorough checkup of the complainant by the OP No.2 & 3, they were of the opinion that they need to affix plaster on both the feet of the complainant and told the mother of complainant that the complainant will be absolutely fine and he will be able to walk properly without the help of wearing orthosis after the removal of plaster, in a time span of 15 days and thereafter the OPs No.2 and 3 had affixed plaster on both the feet of the complainant on the same day i.e. on 30.09.2019 and the mother of the complainant was asked to come after 15 days, for the removal of plaster of the complainant and was assured by OPs No.2 and 3 that the complainant will be perfectly fine after removal of the plaster and will be able to walk properly without wearing the orthosis in the feet,  in future. From the day of affixing of plaster on the feet of the complainant i.e. on 30.09.2019, the complainant was not feeling comfortable but the OPs No.2 and 3 told the complainant and his mother that the plaster has been affixed in an appropriate manner and the complainant will get normal within a few days and then the complainant was discharge by the OPs on the same day i.e. on 30.09.2019. The complainant has taken all the precautions as per the advice of the OPs No.2 and 3. After completion of 15 days on 14.10.2019, the complainant along with her mother went to the hospital of OP No.1 for the removal of plaster and the OPs No.2 and 3 at the time of removing/cutting the plaster, had given lots of cuts inside both the feet of the complainant. The complainant's mother protested regarding the cuts in the feet to the OPs No.2 and 3 as the complainant suffered a lot of pain due to the professional mis-conduct of OPs No.2 and 3. On the contrary the OPs No.2 and 3 had immediately done the dressing and had assured the complainant and his mother that the complainant will be fine soon and further advised the mother of the complainant to make the complainant wear night sprints in the feet  and asked the complainant to re-visit, after two months at the hospital. On 18.10.2019, after three days of the removal of the plaster, there was Swelling/Bluish discoloration of both lower limbs of the complainant which was getting increased very quickly, so the mother of the complainant had made a telephonic call at the hospital of OP No.1 which was then transferred to the department of OP No.2 & 3 and the mother of the complainant had thoroughly explained the situation of the swelling/ Bluish- discoloration of both lower limbs of the complainant to the doctor concerned. The said doctor told the mother of the complainant to consult some local doctor in Ambala.  Thereafter the mother of the complainant immediately took the complainant to Dr. Karan Sobti at Guardian Hospital, Ambala Cantt on 18.10.2019 in the early morning time, but he was not available there. The mother of the complainant feeling helpless as the Swelling/Bluish discoloration of both lower limbs of the complainant was getting increased very quickly. So she had immediately rushed to C. Lall Hospital, Jagadhri Road, Ambala Cantt along with the complainant and there Dr. K.K. Gandotra (Orthopaedician) after thorough checkup had advised the mother of the complainant to take the complainant either to the emergency ward of PGI Chandigarh/Forties Hospital Mohali or to OP No.1 but as the complainant's mother has lost trust in the acts and working of the OPs as there was willful sheer negligence on their part, as such, she took the complainant to Max Hospital, Mohali and the complainant was admitted in the emergency ward at 9.31 am on 18.10.2019. The doctors of the Max Hospital Mohalli {Dr. Saurabh Kapoor (Pediatric Surgeon) and Dr. Manu Sharma (Atten. Physician)} after thorough and relevant investigation observed bilateral lower limb gangrene with Sepsis with anaemia and also Swelling/Bluish Discoloration of both lower limbs along with the fever due to affixation of the plaster by Ops No.2 & 3. The doctors of Max Hospital Mohali told the mother of the complainant that due to the affixation of plaster on both the feet by OPs No.2 & 3, the complainant had developed gangrene in both the feet and there is loss of blood circulation, due to which they need to do fasciotomy of two fingers of each foot to save the feet. The team of doctors of Max Hospital, Mohali had done fasciotomy of 2 & 5th toe of left feet (index toe and little toe) and 4th & 5th toe of right feet (Fourth toe and little toe) on 19.10.2019 and thereafter the Doctors of Max Hospital, Mohali had started giving treatment with antibiotics and other supportive treatment. The complainant was then discharged on 7.11.2019 after a long treatment of 21 days and the complainant was further advised to get the medicines which the complainant had taken as per the advice of the doctors. The mother of the complainant took the complainant to Max Hospital Mohali after regular intervals as per the advice of the doctors. It is pertinent to mention here that due to the lot of paper works and billing formalities etc., the complainant got discharged from Max Hospital, Mohali on the next very day i.e. on 8.11.2019. The complainant after two months of treatment at Max Hospital Mohali and after thorough and relevant investigations by the Doctors at MAX Hospital Mohali, the complainant was further diagnosed with Raw area B/L foot and the complainant was advised for Aesthetic and Reconstructive surgery by Dr. Rishi Dhawan (M.S. MCH Plastic Surgery). The complainant on 19.12.2019 underwent surgery of skin grafting B/L foot by doctors of MAX Hospital Mohali and the complainant was then managed with IV Antibiotics, Analgesics and other supporting measures at Max Hospital Mohali by surgeon Dr. Rishi Dhawan and Anesthetist Dr. Batra and Team and the complainant was then discharge on 20.12.2019. The complainant had undergone various tests before and after the surgery. It is pertinent to mention here that even after the discharge of the complainant after the skin grafting, the complainant was taken to Max Hospital Mohali after regular intervals for CT Scan, X-Ray, dressing, bandage etc because of the swelling of the feet and discharge of the pus from the feet of the complainant and the complainant has to still visit at Max Hospital Mohali after regular interval for routine checkup. The complainant has still not recovered and not able to walk properly and is bed ridden due to the act and conduct of the OPs. The mother of the complainant takes care of the child and do the dressing of the lower limbs of the complainant by herself twice on daily basis The mother of the complainant has to spend around Rs.7000-8000/- per month only for dressing and bandage of the complainant. Due to the ongoing expenditure there is a lot of financial burden on the shoulders of the mother of the complainant as she is the sole earner of the bread & butter of the complainant. The complainant himself is just about 6 years of age and has a whole life ahead to live and because of the acts and conducts of the OPs the complainant has become a liability instead of an asset for her widow mother who is working at Chitkara University, Rajpura as a Teacher and is just earning a meager amount of Rs.20,000/- per month who also has a burden of growing up and maintaining the complainant and his elder sister named Priyushi aged about 7 years as both the children are school going and are studying in S.S. little Angle Convent School, Ambala Cantt. The mother of the complainant had taken leave from her job for a period of more than nine months and had suffered a lot physically, mentally and financially, as there is no one else to look after the complainant except his widow mother. Even the OPs did not care about the poor financial condition of the widow mother of the complainant and had not given the medical treatment in an appropriate manner. Because of the negligence of the OPs, the complainant and his family suffered a lot and the complainant and his mother had spent and paid to the OP No. 1 and to Max Hospital, Mohali etc. by making borrowings from the relatives and friends etc. Hence this complaint.   
3.           Upon notice, OPs No.1 to 3 appeared and filed written version, raising preliminary objections to the effect that the complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands and has made false and misleading statements in relation to the material particulars; this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint and the same is liable to be rejected; the complaint is not within time; the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious etc. On merits, it has been stated that the patient was treated in the OPD of OPs No.1 to 3 in CMC Hospital at Ludhiana as per standard treatment universally accepted for such patients. The patient was never brought back to the Opposite Party No.1 to 3 for re- examination and as per record he was treated on 30.09.2019 and 14.10.2019 in the OPD and paid Rs.500/- only vide Hospital Receipt No.8973129 on 30.09.2019 and Rs.200/- only vide Hospital Receipt No.7764062 on 14.10.2019. The patient was not admitted to CMC & H at any stage. Infact Patient Yuven, CMC Hospital, Ludhiana Unit No.C7925961, was born with a congenital abnormality of the spine. He had a spina bifida and a Myelomeningocele. He was operated at PGI Chandigarh on 25.11.2014 at the age of 3 months. Patient Yuven was first brought to CMC & H, Ludhiana on 30.09.2019 when he was aged of 6 years, with a deformity from an ill-fitting brace with a non- healing ulcer of the foot for over 6 weeks, treated elsewhere and in Ambala. The patient was thoroughly examined clinically at CMC & H, Ludhiana and a decision taken to give a plaster cast and was advised to come back the OPD after 2 weeks for review of the Patient. Thereafter the child/patient was brought back two weeks later to CMC & H. Ludhiana on 14.10.2019, when the wound was reassessed in the Out - Patient Department and further cleaned and immobilized in a plaster splint. He was advised to continue dressings and visit in CMC & H, Ludhiana for further review of the patient. The patient reported back to the Guardian Hospital, the next morning on 18.10.2019 (4 days after the visit to CMC Ludhiana) with severe pain as per the averments made in the complaint. The patient/child was then taken to Mohali for further management due to non - availability of the doctor at Guardian Hospital, Ambala as per the averments made in the complaint. As per CMC & H, Ludhiana records the patient/child was not admitted to CMC at any stage. He was only treated on an Out-Patient basis on 30.09.2019 and 14.10.2019 and paid Rs.500/- only vide Hospital Receipt No.8973129 on 30.09.2019 and Rs.200/- only vide Hospital Receipt No.7764062 on 14.10.2019. The Patient/Child was never brought back to CMC after 14.10.2019 for re-examination. If for a moment the allegation of the complainant averred in the complaint is admitted, then for the sake of arguments and as a matter of fact it is made clear that immediate treatment of gangrene is Amputation of the infected organ of the body for the purpose of preventing the further spread of gangrene in the other parts of the body which is not the case of this patient, thus it is crystal clear that no amputation was done which is sufficient to prove that the patient did not suffer from gangrene due to Plaster affixed by the OPs.  Myelomeningocele is a condition where due to a congenital spinal cord defect at birth, both the lower limbs are weak, often paralyzed partially or completely, numb and insensitive to pain due to damage to the spinal nerves. It leaves the child with instability in the joints, which become floppy, for which it is usual to prescribe support in the form of an Orthosis, to help the child walk with support as was done for Yuven at PGI Chandigarh. Without regular use of a support, the child develops a deformity of the foot, which leads to repeated ulcers (wound) in the foot and ankle. It is common and not unusual for children with Myelomeningocele to also develop ulcers (up to 80% children can develop ulcers) in the foot and ankle due to deformity, loss of normal sensations and instability of the foot and ankle, as happened to the patient much before he presented to CMC. While treating ulcers, in addition to cleaning the wound (debridement) it is also a common practice to give a plaster support to the foot and ankle to allow rest for healing of the ulcer wound. The same was done for the patient Yuven on both visits to CMC. Repeated ulcerations are not unusual with spina bifida, because of the continued persistent deformity and instability of the foot and ankle due to the permanent neurological loss the child was born with. As per alleged averments in the complaint, the child had developed wounds over the toes of both the feet indicating that the child may not have been appropriately protected during the 2 weeks duration of cast application despite appropriate counseling. He may have been walking on the plaster cast. The feet being numb, he may have developed cuts in the toes. After the change of dressing on 14.10.2019 when the child was brought to CMC he was examined and further treatment prescribed in the form of a Plaster splint and regular dressings. The child was apparently well for the next 3 days after that. If there was any concern at any stage, the child should have been brought back immediately to CMC Ludhiana at the earliest, which was not done. The mother instead sought help elsewhere. No calls were made to any doctor in CMC Ludhiana when the child had pain on 18.10.2019. At no point in our interactions was the mother assured of the wound healing completely in 2 weeks or the child ever walking without supports as has been alleged in the compliant. From the alleged complaint it is also clear that both the limbs today are viable on the day of filing the complaint. There were previous history of such infections, which were treated by Dr. Karan Sobti as per the submission on 11.09.2019, when he was treated with an incision and drainage and antibiotics. Despite all these treatments at Max Hospital, the infection continued to persist as on 27.07.2020 more than one year after the treatment. The bottomline is, this child/patient started with an infection in the foot and ankle and continues to have an infection of the foot and ankle which will not disappear because the foot is deformed. We at CMC (The Opposite Parties) were in the process of hoping to correct the deformity so that the foot with decreased sensation could be protected from repeated skin breakdowns and infectons. The complainant is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties and the complainant has intentionally not impleaded the proper and necessary parties in this complaint because the patient got treatment from various other hospitals & doctors. The Patient was treated by well qualified, competent and experienced doctor having more than 20 years experience doing Paediatric Orthopaedic and having handled so many such cases and was given treatment which is universally given world over to such patients. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OPs No.1 to 3 prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
4.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of Neeru wife of Late Krishan Lal, resident of 55-A, Chanderpuri Colony, Ambala Cantt. affidavit of Manoj son of Shri Jagdish Chand, resident of H.No.55-A, Chanderpuri Colony, Ambala Cantt. and affidavit of Babita daughter of Shri Jagdish Chand, resident of 55-A, Chanderpuri Colony, Ambala Cantt. as Annexure CW-1/A to CW-3/A respectively alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-39 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. Learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit of Dr.Bobby John, Professor and HOD, Orthopaedics Department, Christan Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana and Dr. William Bhatti, Director, Christian Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana as Annexure RW/A alongwith documents Annexure R-1 and R-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the case file and also gone through the written synopsis filed by the learned counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3.
6.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that it was on account of medical negligence on the part of OPs No.1 to 3 that gangrene developed in the feet of the complainant as a result of which, fasctiomy was done on his 2 & 5th toe of left feet (index toe and little toe) and 4th & 5th toe of right feet (Fourth toe and little toe). He further submitted that in the present case principal of res ipsa Loquitur is fully attracted. He has placed reliance on the following judgments:-

Shoda Devi Vs. DDU/Ripon Hospital Shimla & Ors., 2019 (2) 795 (S.C.)

M/s Spring Meadows Hospital and another Vs. Harjol Ahluwalia 1998 (1) CLT

Master Abhishek Ahluwalia & Others Vs. Dr. Sanjay Saluja & Others 2014 (3) CLT

J.D.Bagree Hospital & Others Vs. Vandana Goyal 2014 (4) CLT

7.           On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs while reiterating the objections raised in the written version submitted that the mere fact that the fasctomy was performed on the complainant cannot be said that he suffered from gangrene and cannot be made a sole ground to come to a conclusion that there was medical negligence. He has placed reliance on the following judgments:-

Jacob Mathews Vs State of Punjab SC 2005,ALL MR (Cri) 2567

Bolam Vs Friern Hospital Management Committee 1957 (2) All. ELR 118:1957(1) W.L.R.582

C.P. SreeKumar MS (Ortho) Vs S. Ramanujam 2009(6)BCR832

Bombay Hospital and Medical Research Centre Vs Asha Jaiswal and ors. 2022(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 276

Dr. Harish Kumar Khurana Vs. Joginder Singh and ors. 2021 (4) R.C.R.(Civil) 189

Dr. (Mrs.) Chanda Rani Akhouri Dr. Dr. M.A. Methusethupathi and Ors. 2022(154)ALR678

8.           The moot question which falls for determination before this Commission is whether there is any medical negligence on the part of the OPs No.1 to 3 or not. It may be stated here that it is not in dispute that the patient was taken to the OPs No.1 to 3 only on 30.09.2019 with the complaint that he was feeling difficulty in walking from the age of 2 years which aggravated till the date of 5 years and not of any other problem. It is also an admitted fact that the OPs No.2 and 3 affixed plaster on both the feet of the patient for 15 days. In the preliminary objections only, OPs No.2 and 3 have candidly admitted that when the patient was brought to them after two weeks on 14.10.2019, his wound was cleaned and immobilized in a plaster splint and he was advised to continue dressing and visit to their Hospital. At this stage, it is significant to mention here that this admission of OPs No.2 and 3 to the effect that his wound was cleaned and immobilized in a plaster splint and he was advised to continue dressing and visit to their Hospital in itself is sufficient to say that it was on account of medical negligence on their part in affixing the plaster that wound occurred underneath the same.  We have also perused the photographs, Annexure C-12 to C-14 and C-20 to C-23 placed on record by the complainant which clearly depicts the condition of feet of the patient and the said photographs speaks themselves regarding medical negligence of the OPs No.1 to 3. 
9.           It is also an admitted fact that thereafter the patient was taken to the Max Hospital on 18.10.2019 for treatment of the said wound. However, it is also clearly coming out from the record that the said wound was not a normal wound, but was a gangrene, which resulted into fasctiomy of two fingers of feet of the patient on 19.10.2019 i.e. 2 & 5th toe of left feet (index toe and little toe) and 4th & 5th toe of right feet (Fourth toe and little toe) by the Max Hospital. The fact that the said wound which took place due to medical negligence on the part of the OPs No.1 to 3 turned into gangrene can be collected from the discharge summary Annexure C-24, wherein the doctors of the Max Hospital has clearly opined the diagnosis as “BILATERAL LOWER LIMB GANGRENE WITH SEPSIS WITH ANEMIA”. It was also clearly mentioned in the said discharge summary regarding presenting complaints and history of present illness of the patient as under:-

Presenting Complaints:

C/O FEVER FOR 3 DAYS

SWELLING/BLUISH DISCOLORATION OF BOTH LOWER LIMBS SINCE 1 DAY

History of Present Illness:

K/c/o b/1 CTEV WAS UNDERGOING CASTING OF BOTH LOWER LIMBS FROM OUTSIDE HOSPITAL. SINCE REMOVAL OF CAST CHILD HAD C/O FEVER SINCE 3 DAYS, MODERATE GRADE, NO DIURNAL VARIATION, NOT ASSOCIATED WITH CHILLS.C/O PAIN IN BOTH LOWER LIMBS AND C/O BLUISH DISCOLORATION OF B/L LL SINCE YESTERDAY NIGHT FOR WHICH CHILD TAKEN TO PVT HOSPITAL, AMBALA. I/V/O WORSENING IN CHANGING COLOR AND BLACKENING OF DIGITS CHILD HAD BEEN BROUGHT TO ER, MAX HOSPITAL, MOHALI.

10.           Thus, it has been proved on record that the patient suffered gangrene, as a result of which fasctiomy of two fingers of feet of the patient has to be done by the doctors of the Max Hospital on 19.10.2019. Though to wriggle out of the situation, the OPs No.1 to 3 has stated that since the immediate treatment of gangrene is amputation of the infected organ of the body, which has not been done in the present case, as such, it cannot be said that the patient suffered gangrene. It may be stated here that except bald assertions, the OPs No.1 to 3 have failed to prove their case that the patient did not suffer any gangrene,  especially in the face of discharge summary Annexure C-24, wherein the doctors of the Max Hospital has clearly opined that he suffered from gangrene. Thereafter, if the doctors of the Max Hospital saved amputation of part of body of the patient and instead did fasctiomy of two fingers of feet of the patient on 19.10.2019 i.e. 2 & 5th toe of left feet (index toe and little toe) and 4th & 5th toe of right feet (Fourth toe and little toe) then they have to be appreciated only and cannot be used as a tool by the OPs No.1 to 3 to wriggle out of the medical negligence on their part.
11.            In the affidavit of Dr. Bobby John, Professor and HOD, Orthopaedics Department, Christian Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana and Dr. William Bhatti, Director, Christian Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana, Annexure RW1/A it is been mentioned by them that the patient was not even admitted in the hospital on 14.10.2019 and after cleaning and immobilizing the wound, the patient was advised to continue dressings and visit the hospital. It may be stated here that after seeing the wound and condition of the complainant, the OPs No.2 and 3 being doctors, ought to have given proper treatment just to avoid further complications but instead of doing so they have taken vague plea that the complainant was outdoor patient. Under these circumstances, it is a proven case of medical negligence on the part of the OPs No.1 to 3 for which they are liable to compensate the complainant, over and above, the payment of amount incurred on treatment of gangrene of the complainant at the Max Hospital. It may be stated here that from the bills placed on record it is coming out that total amount of around Rs.7 lacs has been spent on the complainant for treatment of the gangrene including grafting etc.
12.            It may be stated here that we have due respect to the ratio of law laid down in the judgments, referred to above, upon which the learned counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3 has placed reliance, yet, we have gone through all the judgments and find that the facts thereof being distinguishable are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In those cases, it has been held that no doctor can assure the life of the patient and can only attempt to treat him/her out of his best skills. Whereas, in the present case, as stated above, medical negligence has been proved on the part of the OPs No.1 to 3 and they can very well be  held liable for the same. In Master Abhishek Ahluwalia and Ors. Vs Dr.Sanjay Saluja and others, (Supra) the Hon’ble National Commission held the doctor liable for medical negligence because gangrene developed in the leg of the patient due to tight application of plaster and awarded compensation.
13.           In the present case also, the life of the patient has been crippled and he will have to live in such condition of fascitomy throughout his life.  In the instant case, it has been proved that the fundamental reason behind medical negligence is the carelessness of the doctors of OP No.1 i.e. OPs No.2 and 3. As a result of which, no doubt complainant is definitely effected badly but one can well imagine the plight of widow mother of the complainant, who was already suffering a lot because of his Lumbosacral Meningomyelocele but now due to gangrene his fasctiomy has also been done solely due to negligence on the part of the OPs No.1 to 3.
14.           So far as the complaint filed by the complainant against the insurance company of Christian Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana, OP No.4 is concerned. It may be stated here that perusal of zimni order dated 26.02.2021, reveals that learned counsel for the complainant submitted that he wants to implead the insurance company whose name has been disclosed by the learned counsel for the OPs and requested for a date for filing amended complaint. However, amended complaint has not been filed by the complainant, as such, the complaint filed by him against OP No.4 is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
15.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint against OP No.4 being not maintainable and allow the same against OPs No.1 to 3 and direct them, in the following manner:-   
    1. To reimburse the amount of Rs.7 lacs incurred on  treatment of the complainant alongwith interest @6% p.a. w.e.f 28.08.2020 i.e date of filing of complaint, till its realization 
    2. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for financial loss & mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
    3. To pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.   

 

It is further directed that OPs No.1 to 3 shall comply with the aforesaid directions, jointly and severally, within the period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which the OPs No.1 to 3 shall pay interest @8% per annum on the awarded amount, from the date of default, till realization. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

 

Announced:- 06.11.2023

 

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President