Delhi

East Delhi

CC/113/2016

NISHI - Complainant(s)

Versus

DEEPAK MEMORIAL HOSPITAL - Opp.Party(s)

30 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No. 113/2016

 

	Smt. Nishi W/o Sh. Hariom Agrawal, R/o C-12/498, Block-C, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi	….Complainant
Versus
	Deepak Memorial Hospital 5-6, Institution Area, Vikas Marg, Extn.-II, Delhi-110092	……OP

 

 

Date of Institution: 9.3.2016

Judgment Reserved on: 1.8.2022

Judgment Passed on: 12.8.2022

                  

CORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Ms. Ritu Garodia (Member)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

 

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

By this order I shall dispose off the complaint of the Complainant filed by her with respect to deficiency in providing medical services and with respect to not infusing the Blood Platelets despite having arranged by her husband. 

Brief facts as stated by the Complainant are that the Complainant was suffering from high fever and as such she was admitted in the Hospital of OP on 19.09.2015 where she was diagnosed as suffering from Dengue fever and on the mid night of 20.09.2015 the treating doctor asked her husband to arrange a donor of Blood Platelets which was duly arranged by her husband at 03:30 AM on 21.09.2015 itself.  The doctor had taken the Blood Platelets Jumbo pack but failed to transfuse the said platelets to the Complainant and the same were not administered to the Complainant and she later on came to know that the said Blood Platelets have been infused to some other patient and since the condition of Complainant became worst, her husband took discharge from the said hospital and admitted her to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and at that time, the counting of her Platelets were 25000.  The doctor at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital also advised for transfusion of the Blood platelets where she was administered the same and her condition became stable but the doctors at OP Hospital did not infuse the Blood Platelets as arranged by her husband and this is the deficiency in service on the part of OP.  It is further stated that the Complainant got the information through RTI i.e. if one Jumbo Pack Unit of blood platelets are administered then platelets listed to increase from 30000 to 40000 per unit and since her Blood Platelets count did not increase at the OPs hospital it is clear that the said Jumbo Pack was not administered to her and if it would have been infused, her platelets would have been 60000 to 70000 but the same were only 40000 at the time of discharge from OP Hospital which proves her contention and despite asking many times, her such queries were not clarified. Therefore despite having charged the amount from the Complainant in the Hospital she was not given proper medical treatment treated well and she has claimed Rs.88,421/- towards the amount paid to the OP, Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony, interest at the rate of 24% on the bill amount and litigation charges. 

The OP has filed its reply taking preliminary objection that the present Complainant is nothing but an abuse of the process of law which is based on the vague ground, there is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of OP, there is no expert opinion placed on record and above all the present Complainant is just to malign the reputation of the OP Hospital which is a 100 bed registered hospital under the Government of NCT of Delhi and is also NABH and NABL accredited.  The Complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost particularly when the Complainant has not substantiated her allegation with any medical expert opinion and it has been held in various cases that without the opinion of an expert with respect to medical negligence if any, the Complaint is not maintainable. 

It is further stated by OP that it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the landmark judgment of Martin F.D’Souza V/s. Modh. Ishfaq AIR 2009 SC2049 that:

“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”. 

It is further stated that even by the Hon’ble NCDRC it has been held in various judgments, that a charge of professional negligence against a Doctor (the treating doctor) stands on a different footing from the charge of negligence against a driver of the vehicle and the burden of proof is much higher in medical negligence cases and a doctor is not to be held negligent simply because something has went wrong.    

On merits the contents of the Complainant are denied and It  is submitted that Complainant was admitted in Hospital on 19.09.2015 with complaint of fever and vomiting for three days, she was treated by Doctor K.P. Singh who is having a 35 years experience, the Complainant was known case of Hypothyroidism and Diabetes Type –II and was suspected having Dengue Fever and at the time of her admission the Blood platelets were 1,06,000  which started reducing to 45000 in the morning of 20.09.2015, 40000 in the evening of 20.09.2015, 30000 at 10:12 PM on 20.09.2015, and since this is the known fact and proven case of Dengue Fever which she was having, she was transferred to HDU at 6:40 PM and was  advised to arrange one unit of Single Donor Platelet (SDP) which was brought by her attendant and one unit SDP which was received at 13:30 AM was immediately transfused and it is specifically denied that Hospital failed to transfuse the Blood Platelets as alleged.  However, since the Complainant did not recover, her husband ask for discharge and she was accordingly discharged and it is specifically mentioned that after the transfusion of the Blood Platelets, the platelets improved from 30000 to 40000 in the early morning of 21.09.2015 and from the documents as are placed on record, it is clear that when she reached Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, her platelets count was again down to 25000 and one unit of Blood Platelets and six units of FFP were transfused  at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital as per their discharge summary and she was accordingly discharged from Sir Ganga Ram Hospital after having recovered but it is denied that one Jumbo Pack Unit of Blood Platelets was not administered to her as alleged.  It is further submitted that as per the medical literature from British Journal of Hematology 2003 the relevant portion reads as under:

“Platelet refractoriness is defined as the repeated failure to obtain satisfactory responses to platelet transfusions.  Some patients may have a poor response to one platelet transfusion and good responses to subsequent transfusion and a diagnosis of platelet refractoriness should only be made after a poor response of two or more platelet transfusions”.

In view of this, it is not safe to assume platelet refractoriness in the case of complainant since she was transfused only one unit and accordingly it is submitted that the opinion expressed by the Pathologist of GTB Hospital as is being relied upon by the Complainant as received by her through RTI cannot be relied upon for the reason that the person who is giving reply to RTI is not a competent person to express opinion in such matters and only an expert should have expressed the opinion, that too based on the actual condition of the patient and accordingly, it is prayed that Complaint of the Complainant be dismissed.  The Complainant thereafter has filed her rejoinder along with documents.  Opportunity was given to both the parties to file the respective evidence.  Complainant has filed her evidence and exhibited the following documents.

1. The photocopy of Election Card as exhibited CW-1/A.
2. The photocopies of Medical Papers and Bills as exhibited CW-1/B.
3. The Photocopies of the Medical Papers and Bills as exhibited CW-1/C.
4. The Photocopy of RTI application and reply as exhibited CW-1/D.
5. The Photocopy of the complaint as exhibited CW-1/E.
6. The contents of the complaint filed by the complainant are true and correct and bears her signature as exhibited CW-1/F. 

OP has filed evidence of two witnesses in the form of affidavit  i.e. affidavit of Doctor Atish Sinha, the Medical Superintendent of OP and Doctor K.P. Singh the treating physician of the OP. They have exhibited Seven documents.

I have heard the arguments and perused the record.  The case of the Complainant in nutshell is that she was suffering from fever which was diagnosed as dengue, she was admitted to the Hospital of OP where her condition deteriorated and her Blood Platelets started coming down and observing this, the OP asked her husband to arrange Blood Platelets one unit which was arranged but the same was not transfused/administered to her and as such she was constrained to be shifted to another hospital where from she recovered and she apprehends that Blood Platelets as arranged by her husband were not transfused.

On the other hand the case of the OP is that the Blood Platelets as brought by Complainant’s attendant were transfused immediately and she was likely to improve more and her Blood Platelets were dropping from this time of admission is OP hospital and came down from 106000 to 30000 and after administering the Blood Platelets they increased to 40000 and much more was to be continued but the Complainant in hurry got discharged with some apprehension and therefore there is no negligence on the part of OP. 

Law with respect to medical negligence is well settled as relied upon by the Counsel for the OP. There is no expert opinion placed on record by the Complainant which may tell or help the Commission in assessing as to whether  the Blood Platelets have actually been transfused or not the contention of the complainant is based on apprehension/presumption that since her blood platelets did not increase, no platelets were infused, but this presumption is not based on the opinion of an expert. Further there is no cogent and direct evidence on record to corroborate this presumption for the complainant. No doubt a general information as sought by the Complainant through RTI has been placed on record but in the considered opinion of this Commission such opinion cannot be termed as an opinion of the expert.  This opinion as relied upon by the Complainant is not based on the actual examination of the patient, her other ailments & the medicines which she was taken further the condition of the patient at the time when the Blood Platelets were transfused is one of the material fact which could have helped and assisted the treating Doctor to bring the patient out of danger and therefore the opinion as received by the Complainant through RTI cannot be of any help to the Complainant.  It is otherwise not disputed that the Blood Platelets which were dropping in the evening of 20.09.2015 had stopped dropping and even the number of platelets increased to 40000 at the time when the patient had taken voluntarily discharge i.e. this number was more than what it were prior to the transfusing No doubt the expected number of platelets had not been increased but in the opinion of the Commission this is not a ground to believe that the platelets were not transfused at all. The complainant is a non-medical person, the opinion of the expert is not placed on record and further, the condition of the complainant improved at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, when more Blood Platelets were infused. If the Blood Platelets would not have been administered to her by OP, her condition would have been deteriorated. Therefore this Commission is of the opinion that in absence of any opinion of the expert the apprehension of the Complainant that Blood Platelets were not transfused has not been proved. Complaint is accordingly dismissed.

Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced on 12.08.2022

Delhi

 

(Ritu Garodia) Member

(Ravi Kumar) Member

(S.S. Malhotra) President