IN THE MATTER OF

Smt Neeraj Kumari W/o Sarnam Singh age  24 years R/o Sihani Faridpur Post office Alampur Fatehpur Atrauli Distt. Aligarh UP

                                           V/s

1. Devarshi Hospital, Sakra Road, Chharra, Aligarh                                            (Through: Advocate S.R. Singh)
2. Sood Medical services Pvt. Ltd. Chharra Aligarh
3. Maxfort Multi Specialty Hospital Kishanpur Tiraha, Ramghat Road, Aligarh (Through: Advocate V.P. Sharma)

CORAM

 Present:

1. Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President
2. Shri Alok Upadhyaya, Member

 PRONOUNCED by Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President

JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this commission for  the following reliefs-

1.  The Ops be directed to pay jointly and severally to the complainant the amount of compensation Rs.1000000/(Rs. Ten Lac only)
2. The Ops be directed to pay cost of the case Rs. 10000/(Rs. Ten Thousand only)

2.  (a) Complainant stated that she is poor house wife and her husband is a farmer. On 18.11.2022 complainant was admitted in OP no.1 hospital where number of medical tests conducted. On 25.11.2022 she was discharged by the hospital and was advised to follow up the treatment as per prescription. On 18.11.2022 she was blessed with a child but some complications developed in health condition of the child which required for higher evaluation and management. There was no such facility in the OP no.1 hospital and the doctors compelled the complainant’s husband on 18.11.2022 at about 9.18 PM after delivery of child to take out the child to another hospital for better treatment. No reference summary of the child was given while asking the complainant’s husband to go to another hospital. Op no.1 hospital was under obligation to provide necessary medical facilities to a newly born baby. Complainant’s husband had to rush to the OP no.2 hospital at about 10 PM same day for treatment of the child and reached the OP no.2 hospital at 10.09 PM where the child was admitted. The Child remained under treatment there from 18.11.2022 to 19.11.2022 and was discharged on 19.11.2022 at 1.30PM. OP no.2 hospital failed to provide necessary medical facility to the child and OP no.2 hospital conducted diagnosis of the aliment of the child and failed to provide treatment or to give advice at the time of admission in the hospital for higher evaluation and better management on 19.11.2022 at about 2PM complainant’s husband rushed to the op no.3 hospital where the child was admitted at 2.37PM. The doctors provided medical treatment to the child and on 20.11.2022 the child was referred to higher center for further evaluation and management. OP no.3 hospital also did not advice the complainant’s husband the exact medical condition of the child on 19.11.2022. On next day 20.11.2022 at about 11 AM child was discharged with reference summary for further evaluation and management. On 19.11.2022 the child could be brought to higher center for better treatment and the delay proved fatal to the child who died on 20.11.2022 at3 P M. OP no.3 failed to discharged its obligation at the earliest which was done at a later stage. The OPs hospital had failed to render adequate services and it was an act of commission or omission and negligence on their parts. Complainant is entitled for compensation to indemnify the loss of sufferings.
3. Op no.1 and 2 have filed WS on 17.3.2023 beyond the period of 45 days from the date of service of notice on 21.12.2022 and their WS were not admitted in view of law laid down in case New India Assurance Company V/s Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 4.3.2020.  
4. OP no.3 stated in WS that on 19.11.2022 at 3’o clock complainant and her husband brought the child at the hospital who were told about the serious condition of the child and the child was admitted at the hospital with the consent of the relatives/ attendants who had come with a complainant without delay and the lab tests were conducted and treatment was started. At the time of admission, the child had been suffering from breathing problem and the level of oxygen was 85%. Blood was infected and the number of WBC was 27800. The child was taken on Ventilator due to low level of oxygen and breathing problem. Complainant and her husband and their relatives/attendants wanted to take the child to another place for treatment and as per their wish the child was discharged on 20.11.2022 at 10.30AM. The answering OP has not committed any delay and the allegation of committing delay is wrong baseless and false.
5.  Complainant has filed her affidavit and papers in support of her pleadings and Ops have also filed their affidavits and papers.
6. We have perused the material available on record and heard the parties counsel.
7. The first question of consideration before us is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?   
8. (a) It is evident from the pleadings of the parties that the complainant was admitted at op no. 1 hospital on 18.11.2022 at about 2 P.M. and she gave birth to a child same day at about 9.00 P.M. At the time of birth of the child, some complications developed in health conditions of the child which required  higher evaluation and management but there was no such facility to provide higher treatment to the child and the child remained without better treatment. Doctors at OP no.1 hospital instead of providing supplementary treatment after birth of the child, forced the complainant on 18.11.2022 at about 9.18 PM to take  her child to another hospital for higher evaluation and management. No discharge summary was given. It is important to note that the complainant was compelled to take her child to another hospital just after 18 minutes of the time of birth of the child without providing discharge summary to enlighten the doctors of another hospital to help in diagnosis and treatment. It is also important to note that the Op no.1 hospital should have facilities to provide higher treatment to the newly born children just after birth. Op no.1 hospital was under obligation to provide better treatment to the child just after birth to meet the complications which were necessary consequences of birth of a child. The pleadings made by OP no. 1 in its WS cannot be taken into consideration for purpose of rebuttal of the pleadings of the complainant and therefore case of the complainant against the Op no.1 stands proved. Op no.3 has stated in WS that at the time admission of the child on 19.11.2022 at its hospital,  the child had been suffering from breathing problems and the oxygen level was 85% meaning thereby child had been suffering from low level of oxygen causing breathing problem since the time of his birth and the facility of providing oxygen to the child after birth was an ordinary facility. The Op no.1 failed to provide the ordinary facility to the child after birth. The Op no.1 failed to render to adequate services to the child after birth and it was an act of omission and negligence on the part of the Op no.1 in providing treatment to the child. It is clear that doctors at Op no.1 hospital failed to exercise due care and skill and knowledge and did not render the medical services with due diligence.

(b) Complainant rushed to the OP no.2 hospital on 18.11.2022 at 10PM for treatment of the child where the child was admitted and remained under treatment there from 18.11.2022 to 19.11.2022 and was discharged on 19.11.2022 at 1.30PM. Op no.2 hospital was under obligation to provide better treatment to the child and after admission of the child, the doctors should have provided promptdiagnosis for better treatment but the child could not be provided higher treatment during the period of his stay at the hospital. The pleadings made by OP no. 2 in its WS cannot be taken into consideration for purpose of rebuttal of the pleadings of the complainant and therefore case of the complainant against the Op no.2 stands proved. Op no.3 has stated in WS that at the time admission of the child on 19.11.2022 at its hospital the child had been suffering from breathing problems and the oxygen level was 85% meaning thereby child had been suffering from low level of oxygen causing breathing problem since the time of his birth and the facility of providing oxygen to the child after birth was an ordinary facility. The Op no.1 failed to provide the ordinary facility to the child after birth. The Op no.2 also failed to renderadequate services to the child after birth and it was an act of omission and negligence on the part of the Op no.2 in providing treatment to the child. It is clear that doctors at Op no.2 hospital failed to exercise due care and skill and knowledge and did not render the services with due diligence.

(c) So far as the question of liability of Op no.3 is concerned, the child was brought on 19.11.2022 at about 2PM at Op no.3 hospital where the child was admitted on 19.11.2022 at 2.37PM and was discharged on next day. Opno.3 has contested the case and it has been pleaded in WS that the child had been suffering from breathing problems and the child was having low level of oxygen 85%. The child was born on 18.11.2022 and since then he had been suffering from breathing problem with low level of oxygen 85% and by the date 19.11.2022 while he was admitted in Op no.3 hospital he was not expected to continue on account of low level of oxygen which could not be improved at OP no.1 and 2 hospital. Under the circumstances OP no.3 hospital cannot be attributed lack of due diligence and reasonable exercise of care and skill.   

9.  The question formulated above is decided in favour of the complainant against the Ops no. 1 and 2.
10. The law laid down in the ruling V. Kishan Rao V/s  Nikhil Super Specialty Hospital decided by Hon’ble  Supreme Court on 8.3.2010 is applicable to the present case. It has been held in this ruling that one of the duties of the doctor towards his patient is a duty of care in deciding what treatment is to be given and also a duty to take care in the administration of treatment. A breach of  any of those duties may lead to an action for negligence by the patient.
11. We hereby direct to Ops no.1 and 2 to pay jointly and severally to the complainant the amount of Rs. 800000/(Eight Lakh) with pendente lite and future interest at the rate 9% per annum and litigation expanses Rs.10000/  
12. Ops no.1 and2  shall comply with the direction within 45 days failing which OPs shall be prosecuted for non-compliance in accordance with section 72 of the Act for awarding punishment against him.
13. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties as per rule as mandated by Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
14. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.