Delhi

East Delhi

CC/797/2014

ASHOK - Complainant(s)

Versus

DEEPAK MEMORIAL HOSPITAL - Opp.Party(s)

03 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 797/14

 

Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma

S/o Shri C.R. Sharma

R/o K-73A, Laxmi Nagar

Delhi – 110 092                                                                              ….Complainant

Vs.

1. Deepak Memorial Hospital &

Medical Research Centre

5, Institutional Area,

Vikas Marg Ext.-II, Delhi – 110 092

 

2. Kailash Health Care Ltd.

H-33, Sector-27, Noida (UP)

 

3. Dr. Vijay Mahajan

General Physician

Deepak Memorial Hospital &

Medical Research Centre

5, Institutional Area,

Vikas Marg Ext.-II, Delhi – 110 092                                     ….Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 24.09.2014

Judgment Reserved on: 03.11.2016

Judgment Passed on: 22.12.2016

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Shri Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

The complainant Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma has filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against Deepak Memorial Hospital (OP-1), Kailash Health Care Ltd. (OP-2) and Dr. Vijay Mahajan (OP-3) for compensation of Rs. 11,77,803/- and Rs. 20,000/- as cost of litigation on account of deficiency in services.

 2.        On 31.08.2012, complainant Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, who was suffering from fever, body ache, headache and throat pain, on the advice of Dr. Vijay Mahajan, (OP-3), the general physician, who diagnosed the fever as viral fever, was got admitted in emergency ward of Deepak Memorial Hospital (OP-1).  The general condition of the complainant was good at the time of admission, but for three days of admission, there was no improvement in the physical condition of the complainant. 

It is stated that on the fourth day, due to the negligence and wrong line of treatment of OP-1 and OP-3, general condition of the complainant became worse.  He developed difficulty in breathing and high fever.  Since the complainant was feeling uncomfortable, his wife Mrs. Anita Sharma reported the same to duty doctor, who gave nebulizer, but the complainant could not sleep for the whole night. 

            Complainant’s health and general condition got deteriorated after three days.  When his family members enquired about the line of treatment and the diagnosis, the attending doctors did not disclose the same and assured that they were taking care of the patient as it was a special kind of fever. 

On 07.09.2001, the complainant was shifted to ICU of the hospital.  There was no improvement in the condition of the complainant, but  deterioration.  Doctor and hospital staff was unable to diagnose and control the disease of the complainant.  He was on oxygen in ICU. 

On 09.09.2012, when the condition of the complainant got worse and the treating doctors did not disclose and satisfy them, the complainant was got shifted to Max Healthcare Super Speciality Hospital, I.P. Extension, Patparganj in an emergency ward, where an amount of Rs. 69,143/- was deposited by the complainant.

            It is stated that at Max Hospital, he was diagnosed suffering from acute severe bronchitis and LRTI with Sepsis due to the unhygienic condition of OP-1 hospital and wrong line of treatment adopted by the doctor.  Here, the complainant started improving. 

On the fourth day of his admission i.e. 13.09.2012, he got recovered and was discharged from Max Hospital.  The complaint paid a sum of             Rs. 98,303/- in the Max Hospital.  Thus, it was stated that there was gross medical negligence on the part of OP due to wrong line of treatment adopted by the doctors and due to unhygienic condition of the hospital, the condition of the complainant got worse.  Kailash Health Care Ltd. (OP-2) being the main hospital did not take care about the hygienic condition of Deepak Memorial Hospital (OP-1). 

It is further stated that it was due to the negligence on the part of OPs and wrong line of treatment, the complainant could not revive his earlier health.  He has developed leakage of heart valve for which he has to take medicine long time and has regressed his quality of life.  He was feeling difficulty in performing his day-to-day work comfortably. 

Complainant has also referred to the medical records of OP-1 and the proper diagnosis made by OP-3.  It is stated that at the time of admission of the complainant, the Total Leukocytes Counts (TLC) of the complainant was 5,400 (normal 4000-11000), then it got on rising as on 04.09.2012 TLC was 9,500, 06.09.2012 TLC was 12,300, on 08.09.2012,  it was 20,000, on 09.09.2012 TLC reached up to 22,400.  It is stated that rising of TLC was due to ineffectiveness of treatment and failure to control the disease.  It is also stated that OP-3 had used such medicine, which was banned by the Medicine Board of India.

            Complainant sent a legal notice of dated 08.08.2013, which was replied by OP on 03.09.2013.  It is stated that in the reply of Counsel for OPs have also shown that at the time of discharge from Deepak Memorial Hospital (OP-1), the complainant was suffering from sepsis i.e. hospital acquired infection.  OP-3 did not take care of the complainant.  Hence, the complainant has stated that there was gross medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  He has prayed that OPs be directed to apologise; compensation amounting to Rs. 11,77,803/-; Rs. 20,000/- counsel’s fee etc. 

3.         In the written statement, filed on behalf of Deepak Memorial Hospital, Kailash Health Care Ltd. and Dr. Vijay Mahajan (OP-1,2&3), it has been stated that Deepak Memorial Hospital was duly accredited by NABH and NABL.  Further, Kailash Health Care Ltd. (OP-2) was also duly accredited by NABH (National Accreditation Board for Hospitals and Health Care Providers) and NABL (National Accreditation Board for Laboratories).  It was a super-speciality hospital declared by Govt. of India (CGHS).  There was no direct connection with the injury suffered and the treatment given to impute negligence or deficiency in service. 

It was stated that investigations and medications were done keeping in mind the condition of the complainant.  The complainant was examined and treated with reasonable prudence, bonafide intentions, there was no negligence on the part of the OPs. 

It was stated that on admission, the complainant was having high grade fever (102.4^oF) alongwith other symptoms of infection.  He was subjected to medical tests required to identify the root cause of the disease.  It has been denied that condition of the complainant was good at the time of admission rather he was suffering from high fever of 102.4^oF alongwith other problems like headache, chest discomfort, throat infection etc.  It has been denied that due to negligence and wrong line of treatment, the physical condition of the complainant became worse. 

It was further stated that at the time of admission, his disease was in progressive state i.e. his TLC count were increased, but started coming down on 09.09.2012 evening, which fact was mentioned in the discharge summary.  The complainant has deliberately withheld this and not produced the CBC report, which shows declining trend of TLC from 22,400 to 16,000. 

It was also stated that when the complainant started improving, his wife, who was advocate by profession, got him discharged on request for reasons known to her as she wanted to shift the complainant to another hospital.  Duty doctors were available at all times. 

            The complainant did not adequately respond to the treatment, he was shifted to ICU on 07.09.2012.  The allegations of negligency or wrong line of treatment has been denied.  It was stated that in ICU, the complainant showed signs of improvement.  He was in ICU because of clinical findings on auscultation in chest.  The complainant was discharged on 10.09.2014 at request.  They have denied other facts, but has stated that from the papers filed by the complainant, even after 2 years of discharge from Max Hospital, having continuous treatment with Metro and Dr. RML Hospital.  The complainant had applied white fluid on certain portion of Dr. RML Hospital’s OPD card dated 16.05.2014, which creates suspicion on the conduct of the complainant. 

Un-hygienic conditions in OP-1 hospital was strongly refuted.  They have denied that the complainant acquired infection from unhygienic conditions in OP-1 hospital or there was wrong line of treatment.  Other facts have also been denied. 

4.         The complainant has filed rejoinder to the WS of OP, wherein he has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted his pleas.

5.         In support of its complaint, complainant have examined himself on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the complaint.  He has also got exhibited documents such as medical papers of Deepak Memorial Hospital (CW-1/A), ambulance charges (CW-1/B), medical papers of Max Hospital (CW-1/C), medical papers of different hospitals (CW-1/D), copy of legal notice (CW-1/E) and its postal receipts (CW-1/F).

            In defence, Deepak Memorial Hospital (OP-1) have examined             Shri Aatish Sinha, who has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in their written statement.  He has also got exhibited copy of documents such as ICU admission register and radiology investigation reports (OPW1/1) and (OPW1/2); CBC report (OPW1/3) and discharge summary (OPW1/4); sputum culture report (OPW1/5), hospital record (OPW1/6) showing attendants of the complainant, who were informed about the condition of the complainant from time to time, copy of medical record (OPW1/7), ECHO report (OPW1/8), copy of office memorandum showing banned medicines (Dolo and Sumo) (OPW1/9) and copy of re-imbursement cheque by the department of the complainant i.e. Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation (OPW1/10).

                Kailash Health Care Limited (OP-2) have examined Mr. R.N. Sharma, President of the hospital, who has also deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in their written statement.  He has stated that Deepak Memorial Hospital (OP-1) was 100 beds hospital, registered with Govt. of NCT of Delhi, which was duly accredited by NABH and NABL.  He has further deposed that OP-3 was MD in Internal Medicine (1983) from Safdarjung Hospital with experience of more than 30 years.

            Dr. Vijay Mahajan(OP-3) have also deposed on affidavit.  He has also narrated the facts, which he has taken in the written statement.  He has also got exhibited documents such as admission register and radiology investigation reports (OPW3/1) and (OPW3/2).  He has stated that the complainant was given proper treatment.  He has denied his negligence and wrong line of treatment.  He has also got marked CBC report (OPW3/3) and discharge summary stating TLC as 16,000 (OPW3/4).  Report of Sputum culture (OPW3/5), hospital records of attendants of the complainant (OPW3/6). 

He has further deposed that complainant had applied white fluid on certain portion of Dr. R.M.L. Hospital OPD card dated 16.05.2014, which creates suspicion on the conduct of the complainant.   He has also stated that investigation reports filed alongwith the complaint indicate the same disease and the same line of treatment.  It has further been stated that complainant even after 2 years of discharge from Max Hospital have been continuing with the treatment with Metro and Dr. R.M.L. Hospital. 

He has further deposed that OP-1 maintains highest standard of cleanliness and hygiene in the hospital.  There was no negligence and deficiency in medical service provided to the complainant.  Medical records also show that fever was graduating from 99 to 104, which was in view of Septicaemia.  Copy of medical report has been got exhibited as Ex.OPW3/7, ECHO report (OPW3/8), F.No. 12-01/12-DCPT-05 of Director General Health Services showing the banned medicines (OPW3/9).

6.         We have heard Ld. Counsel for complainant and Counsel for OP-1,2&3 and have perused the material placed on record. 

It has been argued on behalf of the complainant that the line of treatment, which was adopted by Dr. Vijay Mahajan (OP-3) did not improve the condition of the patient when he was admitted till he was discharged from the hospital.  It has further been argued that due care and caution was not taken while treating the complainant. 

On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for OP-1,2&3 have argued that there was no medical negligence on the part of medical hospital and the treatment, which was given by Dr. Vijay Mahajan (OP-3) did not differ from the line of treatment taken by the complainant at the Max Hospital.  He has further argued that there was no nexus between the deficiencies in the service provided by the hospital in the treatment given.  He has also argued that for professional negligence, the burden of proof has been greater on the person who alleges such negligence. 

In support of his arguments, Ld. Counsel for OPs have relied upon a judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Martin F. D’Souza Vs.           Mohd. Ishfaq, Civil Appeal No. 3541 of 2002 SC, where it has been laid down that in fixing medical negligence is the standard of the ordinary skilled doctor exercising and professing to have that special skill, but a doctor need not possess the highest expert skill. 

To appreciate the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the parties, a look has to be made to the evidence of both the parties. 

Before analysing the evidence, the general principles laid down for Medical Negligence have to be gathered.  The basic principle relating to Medical Negligence is known as BOLAM RULE which was propounded by Justice McNair in Bolam Vs. Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957)  1 WLR 582 as follows:

“Where you get a situation which involves the use of some special skill or competence, then the test as to whether there has been negligence or not is not the test of the man on the top of a Clapham omnibus, because he has not got this special skill.  The test is the standard of the ordinary skilled man exercising and professing to have that special skill.  A man need not possess the highest expert skill….. It is well-established law that it is sufficient if he exercises the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man exercising that particular Article.”

BOLAM TEST has been approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew’s vs. State of Punjab, 2005 CriLJ3710 and was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Martin F. D’Souza (supra). 

In Halsbury’s Laws of England the degree of skill and care required by a medical practitioner is stated as follows:-

“The practitioner must bring to his task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge, and must exercise a reasonable degree of care.  Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence, judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case, is what the law requires, and a person is not liable in negligence because someone else of greater skill and knowledge would have prescribed different treatment or operated in a different way; nor is he guilty of negligence if he has acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art, even though a body of adverse opinion also existed among medical men.

Deviation from normal practice is not necessarily evidence of negligence.  To establish liability on that basis it must be shown (1) that there is a usual and normal practice; (2) that the defendant has not adopted it; and (3) that the course in fact adopted is one no professional man of ordinary skill would have taken had he been acting with ordinary care.

A medical practitioner is not liable to be held negligent simply because things went wrong from mischance or misadventure or through an error of judgment in choosing one reasonable course of treatment in preference to another.  He would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field.

In the realm of diagnosis and treatment, there is ample scope for genuine difference of opinion and one man clearly is not negligent merely because his conclusion differs from that of other professional men….The true test for establishing negligence in diagnosis or treatment on the part of a doctor is whether he has been proved to be guilty of such failure as no doctor of ordinary skill would be guilty of if acting with ordinary care.

Simply because a patient has not favourably responded to a treatment given by a doctor or a surgery has failed, the doctor cannot be held straightway liable for medical negligence by applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.  No sensible professional would intentionally commit an act or omission which would result in harm or injury to the patient since the professional reputation of the professional would be at stake.  A single failure may cost him dear in his lapse.

Further, current practices, infrastructure, paramedical and other staff, hygiene and sterility should be observed strictly.

Thus, the basic principle relating to the law of medical negligence known as the BOLAM RULE, followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in     Jacob Mathew’s (supra) and reiterated in Martin F. D’Souza (supra) is that the test in fixing medical negligence is the standard of the ordinary skilled doctor exercising and professing to have that special skill, but a doctor need not possess the highest expert skill.

In the light of this test, we have to see as to whether Deepak Memorial Hospital (OP-1), Kailash Health Care Limited (OP-2) and Dr. Vijay Mahajan   (OP-3) were negligent in treating the complainant. 

For this, firstly the testimony of Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, complainant is to be gone into.  He has stated in his testimony that he was got admitted in Deepak Memorial Hospital on 31.08.2012 at the advice of Dr. Vijay Mahajan (OP-3), who diagnosed his fever as viral fever; due to wrong line of treatment, the complainant developed difficulty in breathing after three days;  he was shifted to ICU on 07.09.2012 was put on oxygen and got discharged on 09.09.2012 due to the negligence and wrong line of treatment.

It has been further deposed that since the condition of the complainant got worst, he was taken to Max Hospital where he was put in ICU and on the 4^th day of his admission i.e. on 13.09.2012, he got recovered and discharged from the Max Hospital too.  It is stated that due to wrong line of treatment, the complainant did not recover at Deepak Memorial Hospital, but got recovered at Max Hospital.

From the documents placed on record such as Ex.CW1/A, which are the lab reports and discharge summary, it is noticed that the complainant was admitted in the hospital on 31.08.2012 and discharged on 09.09.2012.  The discharge was at the request of the complainant.  These lab reports show that from time to time, different medical tests were got conducted at the instance of Dr. Vijay Mahajan (OP-3), who was the physician and attending doctor.  These tests have been conducted on 31.08.2012, 03.09.2012, 04.09.2012, 05.09.2012, 06.09.2012, 07.09.2012, 08.09.2012 and 09.09.2012 i.e. the date on which he was discharged.  Dr. Vijay Mahajan, got these tests from time to time, which show that Dr. Vijay Mahajan (OP-3), attending doctor, was taking care of the complainant as per the procedure and condition of the patient. 

The discharge summary (Ex.CW1/A) got exhibited in the testimony of the complainant and discharge summary got exhibited in the testimony of    Dr. Aatish Sinha (Ex.OPW1/4) show the treatment given in the hospital and the condition on discharge has been stated.  It has been stated in the report that all necessary investigations were done.  Patient was shifted to ward and in ICU, patient was re-assessed and treatment continued with antibiotic and inhalation supportive care.  Ex.OPW1/7 is a vital sign chart starting from 31.08.2012 till 09.12.2012. These documents show that the condition of the complainant was monitored from time to time and all necessary medicines were prescribed.  When the complainant has been discharged, it has been stated in the discharge summary that the patient was heamodynamically stable.  When the patient was stable at discharge, and the discharge was at request, no negligence can be attributed to the attending doctor.

With regard to the arguments of Ld. Counsel for complainant that different line of treatment was given at Deepak Memorial Hospital than of Max Hospital, a look has to be made to the discharge summary of           Deepak Memorial Hospital (Ex.CW1/A) and of Max Hospital (Ex.CW1/C). 

Firstly, the discharge summary of Deepak Memorial Hospital (OPW1/4), which has been got exhibited in the testimony of Dr. Aatish Sinha, M.S. of the hospital, is taken up.  In the discharge summary (OPW1/4), it has been stated that the patient was admitted on 31.08.2012 with body-ache, headache, throat pain, fever and after initial clinical assessment, he was shifted to ward.  On 07.09.2012, patient developed severe breathlessness and was shifted to ICU, where his treatment continued with antibiotics, PP1, O2 inhalation, supportive care and enteral nutrition.  During his treatment, he was given oxygen inhalation, Inj. Sudopen, Inj. Tecoplan, Inj. Metrogyl, Inj. Zanocin,       Inj. pantocid/ Pantomore, O2 inhalation, Inj. Viatran, Inj. Falcigo, Inj. Paracip,              Inj. Lesuride, Inj. C-one/Monocef, Inj. Salbacip, Inj. Teicobiotic, Inj. Mistraban, Inj. Amphy and nebulisation with Duolin & Budecort.  He was discharged on 10.09.2012 at request. 

            At Max Hospital, discharge summary (Ex.CW1/C) reflects that the complainant was admitted there on 10.09.2012 and discharged on 13.09.2012.  Here, he was admitted in ICU with complaints of high grade fever associated with chills and rigors, sweating, complaints of breathing difficulty with history of productive cough.  He was managed conservatively on Injection Cilanem, Inj. Amikacin, Tab. Claribid, Nebulization, Inj. Effcorlin, Inj. Driphyllin and Tab. Crocin. 

If discharge summary of Deepak Memorial Hospital (Ex.OPW1/4) is perused, it is noticed that the complainant has been treated with injections as well as oxygen inhalation.  Discharge summary (Ex.CW1/C) of Max Hospital show that the patient was given injections as well as nebulisation and Tab. Crocin.  Though, the treatment given at Deepak Memorial Hospital by way of injections and the treatment given at Max Hospital by way of injections may be different in respect of their names, but it cannot be said that it was different line of treatment.  It is well-settled that in the realm of diagnosis and treatment, there is ample scope for genuine difference of opinion and one man clearly is not negligent merely because his conclusion differs from that of other professional men.  Therefore, the plea of the complainant that the line of treatment given at Deepak Memorial Hospital was different from the treatment given at Max Hospital cannot be accepted. 

Another argument, which has been advanced on behalf of the complainant was that at Deepak Memorial Hospital, the medicine Nimusulide prescribed was banned cannot be accepted as hospital has placed on record a circular Ex.OPW1/9.  As per this memo, use of Nimusulide in case of children below 12 years was prohibited.  In the present case, the complainant was not under the age of 12 years.  Therefore, his this plea does not stand. 

Further, with regard to informing the family members of the complainant from time to time, Dr. Aatish Sinha who have deposed on behalf of OP-1 have categorically stated in his testimony that the attendants were kept informed about the condition of the complainant from time to time.  He has placed on record the hospital record (Ex.OPW1/6) showing attendants of the complainant.  In the presence of this document, it cannot be said that family members were not informed.  Therefore, this argument also goes.

On the touchstone of BOLAM RULE relating to medical negligence, it has to be seen whether Dr. Vijay Mahajan (OP-3) exercised and professed the skill of an ordinary skilled man. From the analysis of the evidence on record and by applying the BOLAM RULE relating to medical negligence, when Dr. Vijay Mahajan (OP-3) was MD (Doctor of Medicine) in Internal Medicine from Safdarjung Hospital in the year 1983; was having experience of more than 30 years in handling patients and was registered with Medical Council of India and Delhi Medicine Council no. 1513 and 3506 respectively, it cannot be said that Dr. Vijay Mahajan (OP-3) did not exercise and profess the skill of an ordinary skilled man.  When he exercised and professed the skill of an ordinary skilled man, he cannot be said to be negligent in diagnosing and treatment given to the complainant. 

Coming to the infrastructure, paramedical and other staff and hygiene, the plea taken by the complainant has been that due to unhygienic condition, the complainant acquired infection, which resulted in deterioration of his health.  For this, testimony of Dr. Aatish Sinha, MS of OP-1 have to be gone into.  He has stated in his testimony that Deepak Memorial Hospital has been             100 bedded hospital registered with Govt. of NCT of Delhi.  It was duly accredited by NABH (National Accreditation Board for Hospital & Health Care Providers) and NABL, which is the highest national recognition in health industry by Government. This hospital have a collaboration agreement with Kailash Health Care Limited (OP-2), which was also duly accredited by NABH and NABL.  Kailash Health Care Limited (OP-2) and was a super-speciality hospital declared by Govt. of India. 

He has denied that complainant acquired infection from unhygienic conditions in Deepak Memorial Hospital. He has stated that Deepak Memorial Hospital maintains highest standard of cleanliness and hygiene.  He has further stated that septicaemia was due to rising in TLC.  It responds only after adequate course of broad spectrum antibiotics given as per standard protocol and further upgraded.  He has also stated that if the complainant would have remained in their hospital, he would have recovered as he recovered in      Max Hospital on continuation of antibiotics.

Shri R.N. Sharma, AR of Kailash Health Care Limited (OP-2) have also narrated the same facts, which have been stated by Dr. Aatish Sinha, MS of Deepak Memorial Hospital. 

From the testimony of these two witnesses, it comes out that Deepak Memorial Hospital (OP-1) being registered with Govt. of NCT of Delhi and accredited by NABH and NABL cannot be said to be lacking in hygiene as the accreditation by NABH and NABL is done only on having an inspection by the officials of National Accreditation Board for Hospitals and National Accreditation Board for Laboratories.  Acquiring of septicaemia by the complainant at Deepak Memorial Hospital cannot be accepted also as the same may be due to rising of TLC and if the complainant would have remained at Deepak Memorial Hospital, certainly, the hospital would have treated him for the said infection.  By getting himself discharged on his own, the complainant have not given a chance to the hospital staff to have him treated for this.  When he himself has got discharged on his own, he cannot raise the question of unhygienic condition at the hospital.

When the complainant fails to point out any deficiency on the part of Deepak Memorial Hospital (OP-1) and Kailash Health Care Limited (OP-2), there is no necessity to go into the other points raised on behalf of Deepak Memorial Hospital, such as the complainant having been treated at Metro and Dr. R.M.L. Hospital even after two years of his discharge from Max Hospital.

      Last but not the least, it would not be out of place to mention that the complainant was an employee of Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation (DTTDC), whose full amount of treatment was paid by them vide cheque no. 590877 dated 12.12.2012 as per Ex.OPW1/10.  When his employer has paid the bill for his treatment, DTTDC, being a Govt. Undertaking, certainly, it would have verified the bill before making the payment to the hospital.  If the treatment would not have been as per the standard norms, certainly, DTTDC, a Govt. Undertaking would not have paid the bill to the hospital.  When DTTDC have borne the expenses of the treatment of the complainant, the question of having raised negligence on the part of hospital and the doctor by the complainant does not arise.

7.         In view of the above, we are of the opinion that Dr. Vijay Mahajan    (OP-3) was not guilty of medical negligence and there was no deficiency on the part of Deepak Memorial Hospital (OP-1) and Kailash Health Care Limited (OP-2).  Therefore, the complaint of the complainant fails, which deserve its dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.         

             File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                 (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                  Member       

 

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President