Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/185

Narinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

DMC & H - Opp.Party(s)

M.S.Sethi

05 Nov 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                             Consumer Complaint No:  185 dated 16.09.2020.                                       Date of decision: 05.11.2024. 

 

Narinder Singh Age 86 years S/o. Sunder Singh, R/o.2101/16, Ahata Mohd. Tyar, Ludhiana-141008.                                                                                                                                                                ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Unit-Hero DMC Heart Institute, Civil Lines, Ludhiana through its authorized signatory.  
2. Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Civil Lines, Ludhiana through its authorized signatory.
3. Department of Microbiology, Dayanand Medical College & Hospital,         Ludhiana through its authorized signatory.
4. United India Insurance Company Limited, Rani Hospital, G.T. Road, Opposite General Bus Stand, Khanna through its Divisional Manager/Branch Manager.
5. Civil Hospital, Punjab Health System Corporation, through its Senior Medical Officer, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                           …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. M.S. Sethi, Advocate

For OP1 to OP3             :         Sh. B.B.S. Sobti, Advocate.

For OP4                         :         Sh. G.S. Kalyan, Advocate.

For OP5                         :         Exparte.

 

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the complainant is a senior citizen of 86 years of age and he got heart related treatment in past from OP1 and was living healthy and peacefully under the medicine and treatment of OP1. On 23.07.2020, the complainant felt chest pain and as per advice of doctors of CMC Hospital, he visited OP5 hospital where he was tested for Covid-19 test which was found negative. Then he was referred to ESI. The complainant stated that on 25.07.2020, he visited OPD of OP1 due to weakness, chest pain as well as abdominal pain etc. where he was admitted in emergency. OP1 again preferred for Covid-19 test which was declared positive by OP3. Thereafter, OP1 shifted the complainant to OP2 on 26.07.2020 and charged Rs.17,886/- from him including charges for Covid-19 test. The complainant remained admitted in OP2 hospital for 18 days i.e. from 26.07.2020 to 12.08.2020 and was discharged by OP1 and OP2 on depositing sum of Rs.2,13,470/-.

                   The complainant further stated that OP1 to OP3 are negligent and deficient in rendering their services properly and carefully as the Hospital as well as the dealing doctors were required to follow certain duties in case when consulted by a patient. Further a breach of any such certain duties gives cause of action of negligence to the patient. Such duties are reproduced as under:-

1. A duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case
2. A duty of care in deciding what treatment to give.
3. A duty of care in administration of that treatment.

 

According to the complainant, OP1 to OP3 illegally and falsely made the case of Covid-19 and succeeded in charging amount of Rs.2,31,356/- from him, as such, they are guilty of deficiency and negligent services as well as unfair trade practice. The complainant further stated that OP1 to OP3 have violated the guidelines issued by the World Health Organization in laboratory testing for Covid-19 in suspected human cases so either report of OP1 to OP3 is wrong and just prepared to gain illegally or Civil Hospital submitted incorrect report but due to deficiency and negligent act of the OPs, he was made patient of Covid-19. Even the OPs did not disclose the CT value in test report and all his family members i.e. wife, son, daughter in law, grand son were tested negative and they were put under home quarantine. However, despite his request, OP1 and OP2 refused to allow the complainant for home quarantine as well as second time test from some other outside lab due to which he was put on stress, harassment and financial burden etc.

                   The complainant further stated that earlier OP5 gave the test report of Covid-19 as negative so further suspicious positive results, repeating nucleic acid extraction is suggested and then amplification of the extracted RNA simultaneously with template from the previous extraction. If both results are positive then report the specimen as positive, otherwise report as suspicious. When suspicious is reported, consider the following actions: 1) test the specimen with an alternative method; 2) repeat sample collection or collect an alternative specimen type from the patient and repeat the test but OP1 to OP3 done nothing except raising huge hospital bills. Further as per medical analysis, negative results can neither straight forwardly exclude SARS-Cov-2 infection nor the only decision making evidence for treatment and patient management. Optimized specimen type and time of peek virus value induced by SARS-Cov-2 infection has not been finalized and therefore multiply specimen collection (type and time) is necessary.  The complainant further stated that despite his declaring Covid-19 positive, he was not given any medicine or treatment and the OPs illegally charged huge amount from him just for providing bed etc. which amounts to malpractice. According to the complainant, blood was plated due to weakness and oxygen was given for three days due to breathlessness. However, OP3 never took any Covid-19 test of the complainant. Even only three days were required to keep the complainant in the hospital due to other problems but OP1 and OP2 purposely kept admitted in hospital for 18-19 days for gaining huge profits. He was charged for 16 days against the quarantine period of 14 days and was charged excess as determined by the Covid-19 Punjab Government package. The complainant further stated that he was charged Rs.2,25,000/- for 16 days under three head as per progress chart i.e. Severe Sickness ICU without need for Ventilator (Covid-19 PB Govt.) claimed Rs.1,95,000/- @ Rs.15,000/- per day for 13 days and charged the same vide in patient final bill dated 12.08.2020 whereas  the OPs in the discharge summary dated 10.08.2020 diagnosed “Covid-19 +ve/moderate” and as such, as per the Punjab Govt. order No.COVID-19/NHM/2020/4HB4/205 dated 16.07.2020 the OPs were to charge under the head moderate sickness @ Rs.10,000/- per day for 13 days. In this manner, the amount payable comes to Rs.1,30,000/- but the OPs charged Rs.65,000/- in excess which amounts to adoption of unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service. Even the complainant was made to remain hospitalized instead of home quarantine as he was feeling normal condition after giving oxygen and for which the OPs were to charge Rs.5500/- per day for 13 days under the head Mild Sickness as per said letter of Punjab Govt. which comes to Rs.71,500/- but the OPs charged Rs.1,95,000/- for 13 days and as such, the OPs have illegally charged Rs.1,23,500/- from him. On seeing the hospital bill, the family of the complainant lodged protest with OP1 and OP2 due to scarcity of funds. Even the complainant was under mental tension and agony due to death of his younger son due to heart attack in hospital at Shimla in June 2020. In the end, the complainant prayed for issuing direction to OP1 and OP2 to refund the excess amount charged by them under the shelter of Covid-19 i.e. Rs.2,25,000/- and further to penalize OP1 to OP3 for Rs.15,00,000/- for rendering deficient, negligence services and adoption of unfair trade practice etc.

2.                Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of OP5 despite service and as such, OP5 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.07.2021.

3.                OP1 to OP3 appeared and filed joint written statement. Under the column of factual submission, OP1 and OP2 assailed the complaint on the grounds of maintainability; the complainant being not approached with clean hands; concealment of material facts; the complaint being barred by Section 15 of the Punjab Health System Corporation Act, 1996; the compliant being bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; lack of jurisdiction etc. OP1 to OP3 stated that the complainant was admitted in emergency of Hero DMC Heart Institute on 25.07.2020 with the complaint of chest pain, breathlessness abdominal pain and weakness but he purposely concealed the fact of breathlessness from this Hon'ble Commission. Further no COVID-19 Test Report of Civil Hospital, Ludhiana was produced by the complainant at the time of his admission in Hero DMC Heart Institute and even no other document showing the COVID-19 negative report was available with the attendants of the patient as recorded in the patient record. OP1 to OP3 further stated that according to the standard protocol, the COVID-19 test of the complainant was conducted, which came to be positive with CT Value (E-Gene- 33 and RdRP-34). The Covid-19 RT PCR test of the complainant was done by True PCR Test Kit and according to the True PCR kit literature, any patient having CT Value less than 35 is to be declared positive for COVID-19. Since the CT Value of the complainant was less than 35, he was declared COVID-19 positive and treated accordingly. The complainant completely concealed the fact that he was not having any document regarding COVID-19 testing prior to the admission in Hero DMC Heart Institute and the complainant has concealed this fact.

                   OP1 to OP3 further stated that the complainant aged about 86 years was admitted in emergency of Hero DMC Heart Institute on 25.07.2020 with the complaint of chest pain since one week, abdominal pain since one week, weakness since one week, loss of appetite since one week and dyspnoea (shortness of breath). He was a known case of Chronic Artery Disease with Severe LV Dysfunction (Ejection Fraction 25%). He was tested for COVID-19 according to the guidelines and found positive for COVID-19 and since the complainant was having the complaint of shortness of breath, he was shifted to dedicated COVID Isolation Level-II according to the guidelines issued by Directorate of Health & Family Welfare, Government of Punjab. Since the complainant was having shortness of breath and was not maintaining the oxygen saturation, he was put on Binasal Oxygen Support at 2L per minute. He was regularly monitored for oxygen saturation. He was maintaining oxygen saturation only on Binasal oxygen support at 2 liter per minute. On 28th July 2020 the complainant had bradycardia (HR-56 per minute). His electrolytes revealed potassium + 5.9 and he was treated accordingly. The patient was required injectable Remedesevir and its need was explained to the complainant and his attendants but the complainant and his attendants refused to give their consent. The complainant was maintaining oxygen saturation only through the Binasal oxygen support and it was difficult to wean him off from oxygen support and he could be shifted to room air only on 05.08.2020 and accordingly he was shifted to step down facility i.e. Level-I on 08.08.2020 and from there he was discharged on 10.08.2020. However the complainant deposited his treatment bill only on 12.08.2020. The complainant was treated according to the standard medical norms and there is no negligence or deficiency in rendering the treatment to the complainant on the part of any of the treating doctors.                              According to OP1 to OP3, the present complaint is the result of false imagination of the complainant as claimed by the complainant himself in para no. 7 of the complaint where he is saying that either their COVID Test Report is wrong or the Report of Civil Hospital, Ludhiana is wrong. The imagination of the complainant regarding their COVID Report is without any cogent proof. Even the complainant has not produced any expert opinion/medical evidence to substantiate any allegations of medical negligence etc. and as such, in the absence of expert opinion/medical literature, the allegations leveled by the complainant cannot be ascertained. Even the complainant has failed to  specify as to what they have ought to do or not to do in treating the complainant. OP1 to OP3 further stated that there is no any medical negligence or deficiency in service in rendering treatment to the complainant. They have claimed to provide proper treatment to the complainant by their well qualified medical and para-medical staff as per prescribed medical norms.

                   On merits, OP1 to OP3 reiterated the crux of averments made in factual submission. OP1 to OP3 have denied that there is any deficiency of service and have also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                During the proceedings of the present case, OP2 moved an application for impleading United India Insurance Company Limited, Rani Hospital, G.T. Road, Opposite General Bus Stand Khanna through its Divisional Manager/Branch Manager. The counsel for the complainant suffered statement dated 15.12.2020 having no objection for impleading the aforesaid party and as such, the said application was allowed vide order dated 15.01.2021. 

                   Upon notice, newly impleaded OP4 insurance company appeared and filed written statement and by taking preliminary objections, assailed the complaint on the ground of maintainability; lack of jurisdiction; the complainant being estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the complaint; the complaint being not approached with lean hands; concealment of material fats; the complaint being bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties etc. OP4 stated that OP1 to OP3 have not lodged any claim with it.  

                   On merits, OP4 reiterated the crux of averments made in factual submission. OP4 has denied that there is any deficiency of service and has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                In evidence, the complainant tendered her affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated the averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on record documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C16 and closed the evidence.

6.                On the other hand, the counsel for OP1 to OP3 tendered affidavit Ex RB of Sh. Dr. Sandeep Sharma, Medical Superintendent in OP1 hospital along with documents Ex. OP1/1 to Ex. OP1/5 and closed the evidence.

                   The counsel for OP4 tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Ashok Pal, Senior Divisional Manager of OP4 along with document Ex. R1 and closed the evidence.

7.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents as well as written statements, affidavits and documents produced on record by both parties. We have also gone through written arguments submitted by the complainant as well as OP1 to OP3.

8.                 The complainant, an Octogenarian, experienced chest pain on 23.07.2020 and he consulted the doctors of CMC Hospital, Ludhiana, a multispecialty hospital where he was advised to undergo Covid-19 test. On the same day, the complainant visited Civil Hospital, Ludhiana (OP5) and upon “Truenat” testing, he was found ‘Negative’ vide OPD slip Ex. C1. The extract of OPD slip ex. C1 is reproduced as under:-

“Patient truenat test done, which comes out negative. Patient is now being referred to ESI.

Patient not managed further in this hospital”

 

9.                On 25.07.2020, the complainant was got admitted in emergency at Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Unit-Hero DMC Heart Institute (OP1) hospital with the complaint of chest and abdominal pain since one week, weakness and loss of appetite since one week and with the complaint of dyspnoea (shortness of breath). The complainant was a known case of Chronic Artery Disease with severe LV Dysfunction (Ejection Fraction 25%). Considering the medical condition and prevailing guidelines regulating the admissions, he was subjected to Covid-19 RT PCR Test by True PCR Test Kit and his CT Value (E-Gever-33 and RdRP-34) was found less than Standard Protocol of CT Value 35. The test results was uploaded on ICMR Portal and report was generated whereby the complainant was declared Covid-19 positive. The test report Ex. C2 bears the signature of two doctors of the department of Microbiology, DMC, Ludhiana (OP3).

10.              The complainant was shifted to dedicated Covid-19 Isolation Level-II centre of OP2 hospital Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana where he remained admitted from 26.07.2020 to 12.08.2020 for a spell of 18 days. The discharge summary is Ex. C6 wherein the diagnosis, past medical/surgical history of the complainant has been mentioned in detail. It has also been mentioned in the discharge summary  that he was treated Covid-19 Positive and managed conservatively. The complainant spent an amount of Rs.2,13,470/- as depicted in In-patient final bill Ex. C3, Ex. C4 and Progress Chart Ex. C5.

11.              Now the complainant has raised the grievance that he was wrongly diagnosed and declared to be Covid-19 positive by OP1 to OP3 and charged exorbitantly in gross violation of the Punjab Government orders dated 16.07.2020. Further the doctors of OP1 to OP3 failed to discharge their duties to take care in deciding the course and administration of treatment and thereby they have adopted unfair trade practice and have rendered deficiency and negligent medical services to the complainant.

12.              Legally speaking, Medical negligence is a breach of a duty of care by an act of omission or commission by a medical professional of ordinary prudence. Actionable medical negligence is the neglect in exercising a reasonable degree of skill resulting an injury to such person. The standard to be applied for adjudging whether the medical professional charged has been negligent or not, in the performance of his duty, would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in the profession. The law requires neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence to adjudge whether the medical professional has been negligent in the treatment of the patient.

                   A reference can be made to case titled as Jacob Mathew Vs State Of Punjab & Anr. 2005(2) Apex Court Judgments 136 (SC) whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India summed up the law on medical negligence in the following words:-

“48. (1) Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The definition of negligence as given in Law of Torts, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal (edited by Justice G.P. Singh), referred to hereinabove, holds good. Negligence becomes actionable on account of injury resulting from the act or omission amounting to negligence attributable to the person sued. The essential components of negligence are three: 'duty', 'breach' and 'resulting damage'.

(2) Negligence in the context of medical profession necessarily calls for a treatment with a difference. To infer rashness or negligence on the part of a professional, in particular a doctor, additional considerations apply. A case of occupational negligence is different from one of professional negligence. A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional. So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was also available or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or procedure which the accused followed. When it comes to the failure of taking precautions what has to be seen is whether those precautions were taken which the ordinary experience of men has found to be sufficient; a failure to use special or extraordinary precautions which might have prevented the particular happening cannot be the standard for judging the alleged negligence. So also, the standard of care, while assessing the practice as adopted, is judged in the light of knowledge available at the time of the incident, and not at the date of trial. Similarly, when the charge of negligence arises out of failure to use some particular equipment, the charge would fail if the equipment was not generally available at that particular time (that is, the time of the incident) at which it is suggested it should have been used.

(3) A professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings: either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, he did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess. The standard to be applied for judging, whether the person charged has been negligent or not, would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession. It is not possible for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise or skills in that branch which he practices. A highly skilled professional may be possessed of better qualities, but that cannot be made the basis or the yardstick for judging the performance of the professional proceeded against on indictment of negligence.

(4) The test for determining medical negligence as laid down in Bolam's case [1957] 1 W.L.R. 582, 586 holds good in its applicability in India.

13.              Further reference can be further made to 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 931 in M.A. Biviji Vs Sunita & Others whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has made the following observations:-

“…….36. As can be culled out from above, the three essential ingredients in determining an act of medical negligence are: (1.) a duty of care extended to the complainant, (2.) breach of that duty of care, and (3.) resulting damage, injury or harm caused to the complainant attributable to the said breach of duty. However, a medical practitioner will be held liable for negligence only in circumstances when their conduct falls below the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner.

38. To hold a medical practitioner liable for negligence, a higher threshold limit must be met. This is to ensure that these doctors are focused on deciding the best course of treatment as per their assessment rather than being concerned about possible persecution or harassment that they may be subjected to in high-risk medical situations. Therefore, to safeguard these medical practitioners and to ensure that they are able to freely discharge their medical duty, a higher proof of burden must be fulfilled by the complainant. The complainant should be able to prove a breach of duty and the subsequent injury being attributable to the aforesaid breach as well, in order to hold a doctor liable for medical negligence. On the other hand, doctors need to establish that they had followed reasonable standards of medical practice.”

14.              The complainant has challenged the Covid-19 positive report Ex. C2 on various grounds and had presented Covid-19 Negative Report dated 23.07.2020 Ex. C1 as a standard report for comparison.    At the very outset, the pleadings of the complainant as contained in para No.7 of the complaint are material and relevant which reads as under:-

“7.    That the opposite parties 1-3 violated the guidelines issued by the World Health Organization in laboratory testing for Covid-19 in suspected human cases so either report of the opposite parties 1 to 3 is wrong and just prepared to gain illegally or civil hospital submitted incorrect report but due to act of opposite parties, complainant was made patient of Covid-19 by act of deficiency and negligent medically performance.”

Perusal of these pleadings clearly shows that the complainant is not sure of the endorsement of Covid-19 negative made on OPD slip Ex. C1. It is apposite to mention that the said endorsement must have made by the concerned doctor on the basis of some Test Report which has not been produced on record. The referral slip of CMC, Ludhiana is also not on record. These two documents were best evidence which were withheld by the complainant for the reasons best known to him. Therefore, in these circumstances, the report cannot be treated as a conclusively standard report so to draw comparison and declare the other Covid-19 Positive report Ex. C2 as inaccurate or fake.

15.              However, for proper and effective adjudication of the matter in controversy, this Commission proceeds to decide the issues independently raised by the complainant. The complainant has pleaded that the report in question does not disclose the CT value and also does not bear the signs, seal of the competent authority who have issued the same.

                   OP1 to OP3 adduced the “Patient Information” and “Clinical Data” of the complainant as Ex. OP1/1, a screenshot taken from ICMR portal where every minute details have been mentioned. The contents of this screenshot, when read together with the test report Ex. C2, clearly shows that data was analyzed scientifically before declaring the test sample of the complainant as Covid-19 Positive. As per the Interim Clinical Guidelines for Management of Patients  with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) (Ex. OP1/4) the Incubation period for Covid-19 varies from 4 to 5 days from exposure to symptoms onset. In the present case, there was almost three days gap between the two test reports and the possibility of infection during the interregnum cannot be ruled out. According to the contesting OPs, the report was prepared by Resident Doctor Dr. Shivani and cross-checked and approved by Dr. Vandana, a Senior Consultant in OP3 department. Therefore, it is evident that there was no deviation from SOPs while collecting and analyzing the test sample of the complainant.

16.              The complainant has highlighted the fact that his wife, son, daughter-in-law and grand-son were tested negative and the entire family was put under home quarantine but his request for extending facility of Home Quarantine to the complainant was not acceded to by OP1 to OP3.

                   The letter dated 12.06.2020 Ex. OP1/2 regulates the guidelines with regard to home isolation for Covid-19 patients who were tested positive with mild symptoms or asymptomatic. It provides that home isolation can be offered with mild symptoms/asymptomatic persons testing positive for Covid-19 subject to eligibility criteria and verification by District Administration. It also mandates furnishing of an undertaking by such patients and at the same time, they will have to declare that they are not suffering from any co-morbidities. Such undertaking needs to be endorsed by a physician. Further the home isolation facility is required to be verified by Deputy Commissioner or an official not below the rank of an Executive Magistrate.

                   In the case in hand, no such undertaking was ever contemplated or furnished by the complainant or his attendants to the competent authorities nor it could have been furnished because the complainant was suffering from co-morbidities as highlighted in OPD slip Ex C1 and the discharge summary dated 12.08.2020 Ex. C6. Further the complainant being a high risk individual being the age of 86 years and that too with co-morbidities was ineligible for home quarantine and he was required to be isolated on the hospital settings as per Advisory of Strategy for Covid-19 Testing in India (Version VI, dated 4^th September 2020) (Ex. OP1/3). So the contention of the complainant that he was unnecessarily detained in the hospital and is devoid of any logic. Rather the doctors of OP1 to OP3 were conscious of the age, medical condition of the complainant and they provided the best possible treatment to the complainant.

17.              As per OP1 to OP3, the complainant was not maintaining oxygen saturation which was regularly monitored through Binasal Oxygen Support. His electrolytes were found down, which were treated accordingly and the  injectable Remedesevir was recommended but the complainant and his attendants did not accord their consent for its administration. The complainant was shifted to room air only on 05.08.2020 and further he was again moved to step down facility i.e. Level-I on 08.08.2020 and finally on 10.08.2020, he was fit to be discharged. It is the complainant who did not make timely payment and prolonged the discharge of the complainant till 12.08.2020. All the doctors involved in treatment were qualified, skilled and having expertise in their respective fields and they not only prevented the further damage or injury being the complainant, but also helped the complainant to lump back to his normal healthy life.

18.              In Para no.15 to 17 of the complaint, the complainant has challenged the final bill and has referred to the ‘Progress Chart Ex. C5’ and discharge summary wherein the diagnosis “Covid-19 positive/moderate” has been mentioned and further claimed that they have charged Rs.65,000/- in excess. Further the complainant claimed that he was required to be charged under head ‘mild sickness’ and he was only liable to pay an amount of Rs.71,500/- for 13 days as against Rs.1,95,000/- and thereby, an excess amount of Rs.1,23,500/- has been charged by OP1 to OP3.

                   From the perusal of pleadings first of all the complainant is tentative while interpreting the order dated 16.07.2020 Ex. C7 which provides the treatment charges for Covid-19 patients availing treatment at private hospital/nursing home/clinic. Part-I of the order provides the package rates on per day basis while its Part-II deals with the patient with mild disease who do not opt for home isolation Government COVID Care Centres (Level-I). The progress chart Ex. C5 provides the details of about the charges levied by OP1 to OP3 under heads of blood bank, Covid-19 PB Govt. package and dietary. The Covid-19 PB Govt. Package as reflected in progress chart are extracted as under:-

Moderate Sickness Isolation beds including supportive care and oxygen (Covid-19 PB Govt)	10000.00	2.00	Nos	10/08/20	20000.00
Moderate Sickness Isolation beds including supportive care and oxygen (Covid-19 PB Govt)	10000.00	1.00	Nos	10/08/20	10000.00
Sever Sickness ICU without need for ventilator (Covid-19 PB Govt)	15000.00	13.00	Nos	10/08/20	195000.00
				Sub total	225,000.00

 

This Commission is of the view that OP1 to OP3 charged the bill in accordance with the applicable rates.

19.              Further the initial onus to prove the deficiency was on the complainant but he has failed to discharge the same. In this regard, a reference can be made to case title Bombay Hospital & Medical Research Centre Vs Asha Jaiswal & others I (2022) CPJ 3 (SC) whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held in paragraphs 32 and 34 of judgment, which is reproduced as under:-

32. In C.P. Sreekumar (Dr.), MS (Ortho) v. S. Ramanujam12, this Court held that the Commission ought not to presume that the allegations in the complaint are inviolable truth even though they remained unsupported by any evidence. This Court held as under:

“37. We find from a reading of the order of the Commission that it proceeded on the basis that whatever had been alleged in the complaint by the respondent was in fact the in- violable truth even though it remained unsupported by any evidence. As already observed in Jacob Mathew case [(2005) 6 SCC 1 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1369] the onus to prove medical negligence lies largely on the claimant and that this onus can be discharged by leading cogent evidence. A mere averment in a complaint which is denied by the other side can, by no stretch of imagination, be said to be evidence by which the case of the complainant can be said to be proved. It is the obligation of the complainant to provide the facta robanda as well as the facta probantia.”

34. Recently, this Court in a judgment reported as Dr. Harish Kumar Khurana v. Joginder Singh & Others (2021) SCC Online SC 673  held that hospital and the doctors are required to exercise sufficient care in treating the patient in all circumstances. However, in an unfortunate case, death may occur. It is necessary that sufficient material or medical evidence should be available before the adjudicating authority to arrive at the conclusion that death is due to medical negligence. Every death of a patient cannot on the face of it be considered to be medical negligence.”

 

By applying the ratio of above citations, the complainants have failed to prove medical negligence against the opposite parties conclusively.

20.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.   

21.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

 

(Monika Bhagat)                              (Sanjeev Batra)               Member                                         President  

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:05.11.2024.

Gobind Ram.