Jharkhand

Bokaro

cc/15/88

Md. Sultan Ahmad - Complainant(s)

Versus

Director of Health Services, Bokoaro General Hospital - Opp.Party(s)

Amardeep Jha and Poonam

11 Mar 2019

ORDER

Complainant Md. Sultan Ahmad filed the case of a claim of Rs. 18,00,000/- (Eight Laks) on compensation of medical negligence and litigation cost of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

2          The case in short is that the complainant is the son of deceased Late Md. Suleman who died on 18-02-2011 after long treatment in Bokaro General Hospital being employee of the SAIL.

            The grievance of the complainat is that his father was treated in B.G.H. on various date since 20-07-2011. It is claimed that the doctors had not treated properly to diagnose the ailment of his father, on 15-09-2011 his father was referred to A.R.M. Apollo, Ranchi for better treatment where it was found that Late Md. Suleman was suffering from NIDDM, hypertension, CVA, IHD, acute coronary syndrome and single versel disease, Doctors found 90% blockage in the heart and advised to take rest.

            On 05-10-2011 again Late Md. Suleman admitted himself in B.G.H. and advised to take rest and having found himself incapable to perform duty, he applied for compassionate appointment of the complainant for recruitment under scheme of medical invalidation. Late Md. Suleman appeared before medical Invalidation Board on 18-10-2011. The doctors of B.G.H. after assessment issued medical fitness certificate on 28-10-2011 and instructed to join duty. Late Md. Suleman joined his duty.

            On 17-12-2011 Late Md. Suleman was admitted in B.G.H. and died on 18-12-2011.

            It is alleged by the complainant that due to wrong diagnosis and treatment by the doctors at B.G.H., his father was died and doctors had negligently issued fitness certificate to join duty although Late Md. Suleman was not fit.

            The matter was also raised at M.C.I. India and there were enquiry by Jharkhand Medical Council regarding the Case and administrative action were taken against all the doctors of B.G.H. involved for treatment of  Late Md. Suleman, father of the complainant.

            It is alleged further that in the facts and circumstance, the O.P. are negligent and this is deficiency in service, for this complainant is filed.

3          In Support of the claim the complainant filed copies of several documents including death certificate and letter of M.C.I, J.M.C., internal letters of department, report of Invalidation Board, M.P.M. council, letter of (M.O. to O.P. ) and legal notice dt. 05-06-2015 and final order of MCI dt. 18-11-2016.

4          A petition of 24-A (2) has also been file to condone the delay.

5          Medical opinion from C.M.O. dt. 07-06-2016 is also available on record for negligence on the part of doctors who treated Late Md. Suleman.

6          Opposite parties appeared and filed join written statement. It is submitted that case is not maintainable on the ground that no cause of action has been shown by the complainant showing medical negligence.

            It is further stated that Complainant is not a Consumer as there is no relationship on service provider between Complainant and O.Ps. Complainant has not paid any fees for service as alleged.

            It is admitted that Late Md. Suleman was employee of the SAIL and he had been given proper treatment at B.G.H. It is also said that Md. Suleman was a known patient of Diabetes Mellitus for four years and suffered Cerebral Stroke right side partial infect, two years back. He was admitted in B.G.H. and was given proper treatment and was treated for accelated Hyper Tension, Hypertension Retinopathy, mild Anemia, Ischaemic Heart Diseases (IHD), Acute coronary Syndrome (ACS) with moderate left ventricular dysfunction. He was advised to rest after treatment. The attendants were negligent in reporting the hospital for treatment, despite Angina chest Pain of the Md. Suleman after discharge from the hospital.

            It is submitted that on 16-08-2011 Md. Suleman was again admitted and diagnosed that he was suffering from Right Lung Pneumonia with septicemia and Multi Organ Dysfunction Syndrome (MODS) involving Lungs with Adult Respiratiory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) Liver (SGPT-876) and blood urea was found. Md. Suleman was treated Intensibly in C.C.U. and on mechanical ventilator support for few days and after significant recovery he was discharged on 05-09-2011 with advice to take rest and thereafter on discussion he was  referred to ARAM Appollo Hospital, Ranchi where he underwent coronary Angiography showing double coronary vessel Disease and after Angioplasty with stenting was done on 16-09-2011 and discharged on 19-09-2011.

            Thus, even after that Md. Suleman was given treatment whenever admitted in the B.G.H. He developed SVT, acute disorder of heart rhythm for which he was treated and put on ventilator in C.C.W. but despite possible efforts, he was remained in state of septicemic shock and expired on 18-12-2011.

            Thus all possible treatment was given to Md. Suleman and in this way there is no medical negligence on the part of the treating doctors and therefore there is deficiency in service.

FINDINGS

7          We perused the record. The delay is condonel having valid ground. The O.P. raised the first question that Complainant is not a consumer and as such dispute is not consumer dispute.

            Complainant is the son of Late Md. Suleman, employee of the SAIL which is admitted and on such ground he is dependent on his father, being unemployed therefore, he is beneficiary and we hold he is a Consumer and dispute is a Consumer Dispute.

8          It is alleged that Md. Suleman, father of the complainant had died during service due to medical negligence as treating doctors had not properly diagnosed. We have report of C.M.O. which do not show any medical negligence on the part of the treating doctors. The documents filed do not suggest any medical negligence on the part of the treating doctors.

            It is also admitted that Md. Suleman, father of the complainant applied for appointment of his son on the ground of medical invalidation for job on compassionate ground.

            On perusal of the order dt. 18-11-2016 of Medical Council of India , it is clear, that the various medical councils do not found medical negligence on the part of the doctors of B.G.H. treated Late Md. Suleman. But he Ethics committee has found the Md. Suleman was indeed  suffering from many morbidities and chronic disease and he should have been declared medically unfit for the job. The arguments of the doctors that they evaluate the patient in medical Invalidation Board based on the guideline and conditions has not been accepted. The Ethics committee has given opinion that MIB did not evaluate the patient with required diligence and sincerity and neglected to exercise their professional judgment as physicians leading to an avoidable loss of life through their unthinking action.

9          Therefore, the grounds of the complaint regarding negligence on the part of the treating has not been proved by the complainant.

            No doubt, order of the MCI Shows that doctors of MIB should have declared Late Md. Suleman unfit for the job which ethics committee has found responsible for that reason the treating doctors names removed from IMR for period of one month after Communication of the order.

            The Ethics committee had taken action for and against the complaint regarding their decision in MIB on the ground of moral responsibility.

10        But in the instant case, no negligence is proved so, we are of view that this case is not maintainable having no merit regarding medical negligence.

            According, this case is hereby dismissed.

            O/C is directed to deposit the record in record room.