BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 72 of 2011
Date of Institution : 18.3.2011
Date of Decision : 19.10.2016.
- Ved Parkash aged about 38 years son of Maan Singh, resident of village Burj Bhangu, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
- Ram Kumari, aged about 35 years wife of Shri Ved Parkash son of Sh.Maan Singh, resident of village Burj Bhangu, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainants.
Versus.
- Dr.Naresh Mittal, M.D. Medicines C/o Mittal Hospital Heart Care Centre & General Hospital, Dabwali Road, Sirsa.
- Dr.G.N.Verma, MBBS MD Pathology, C/o Verma Pathology Laboratory, Dabwali Road, Sirsa.
- National Insurance Company, through its Divisional Manager, Branch Office at Sirsa, with which the Verma Pathology Laboratory was insured against error and omission risk, vide policy No.420700/46/10/8700000052 w.e.f. 11.12.2010 to 10.12.2011.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH.S.B.LOHIA………………. ……PRESIDENT.
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……… MEMBER.
Present: Sh.H.S.Bishnoi, Advocate for the complainants.
Sh.A.K.Monga, , Advocate for the opposite party no.1.
Sh.A.K.Gupta, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Sh. Raman Kumar, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
In brief, case of the complainants is that their daughter namely Monika, who was 12 years old and was a brilliant student of 6th class, on 16.1.2011 at about 3.00 a.m. surrounded with heavy temperature. As she did not feel comfortable, so she was taken to Mittal hospital of opposite party no.1, who advised the complainants that she is having some trouble in her body and before starting her treatment, some tests are to be conducted from the laboratory. Accordingly blood hematology was conducted by Dr.G.N.Verma i.e. opposite party no.2 and after carefully analyzing the report, the treatment of Monika was started. But, there was no improvement in the condition of Monika and her condition became deteriorated day by day. The complainants approached Op no.1 several times, but every time they were assured that Monika will be all right. The complainants also visited Op no.2 and verified about the report. Op no.2 assured that due to change of season so many patients are having similar problem and also assured that Op no.1 is one of the best doctor for dealing such type of patients. Op no.1 also consulted Dr.Sanjeev Kaushal and Ultrasound of abdomen of Monika was conducted by Dr.Kaushal. On 17.1.2011, the position of Monika became critical and she lost her senses and body functioning and then she was brought in the hospital of Dr.Ashok Parik c/o Nav Jiwan hospital, who after carefully examining declared that her condition has become critical on account of wrong diagnose. Monika remained admitted in Navjiwan hospital from 17.1.2011 to 20.1.2011 but could not survive inspite of best efforts by the complainants and their family members. Monika died due to wrong diagnose by op no.1 and differentiation between jaundice and Malaria. The op no.2 has not properly examined and prepared the blood test report of Monika and op no.1 treated their daughter in casual manner due to which her condition became uncontrollable. As such both the ops are negligent and responsible for the death of their daughter. Hence, the present complaint for compensation alongwith payment of treatment and medicine charges.
2. On notice, Ops No.1 & 2 appeared and contested the case by filing their separate replies. Op no.1 in his reply pleaded that the complainants themselves gave history of fever to Monika for last six days and they enclosed a laboratory report dated 13.1.2011 in which it was mentioned that earlier they were providing treatment to Monika from Dr.Dalbir, but in complaint they have stated that their daughter suddenly fell ill on 16.1.2011. The detail of treatment from Dr.Dalbir was not given to Op no.1. The complainants have concealed the material facts regarding duration of fever and the treatment of their daughter. Proper treatment was being given to Monika with due caution and care and there was no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of Op no.1. The complainants themselves had taken away Monika from the hospital of Op no.1 without any consent and permission of Op no.1. Remaining averments have been denied.
3. Op no.2 also pleaded on the similar lines as that of Op no.1. However, it is pleaded that the present complaint has been filed by the complainants only to use coercive methods and to defame the ops. The fact remains that Op no.2 had given a correct report on 16.1.2011 as per position of the blood sample after duly analyzing the same. As per the earlier report of Dr.Dalbir dt. 13.1.2011 there were symptoms of Malaria but in his report dt. 16.1.2011, there was no Malaria and typhoid. However, the sample shows SGPT and serum bill-Rubin level at 3.67 much more than the normal value which is 0.2-1.0 which suggested early hepatitis. Thus, there was no negligence and deficiency in service on his part. It is also pleaded that answering op has been insured vide professional indemnity policy from National Insurance Company Ltd., Sirsa which is a necessary party.
4. On the application of op no.2, said insurance company was impleaded as op no.3. On notice, op no.3 appeared and filed written statement asserting therein that this Forum referred the issue to Civil Surgeon, Sirsa, who formulated a committee of experts to examine negligence and the committee (Board of doctors) opined that there was no negligence on behalf of doctors. The complainant has led no evidence of any Medical Specialist to prove negligence. There is no medical certificate to prove the cause of death due to medical negligence.
5. In order to prove their case, the complainants have tendered in evidence
affidavit of complainant no.1 Ex.C1; Ex.C2-affidavit of Sushil Kumar and Ex.C3-affidavit of Krishan Kumar, relatives of complainants; Ex.C4-affidavit of Prabhu Dayal, Ex.C5- laboratory test report of Verma Pathology laboratory, Ex.C6 lab test report of Chandigarh Diagnostic Lab, Ex.C7-Ultrasound, Ex.C8-Ultrasound report of City Diagnostic Centre, Ex.C9 prescription slip of Navjiwan hospital and Ex.C10 to Ex.C12 newspapers. Whereas the Ops produced Ex.RW1/A-affidavit of Dr.Naresh Mittal; Ex.RW2/A-affidavit of Dr.G.N.Verma, Ex.R2-insurance policy, Ex.RW3/A affidavit of Sh. Ashok Kamboj, Assistant Manager of op no.3.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
7. The complainants in their complaint have averred that Monika all of a sudden suffered heavy temperature and fever at about 3.00 a.m. on 16.1.2011 but according to opposite party no.1 the complainants themselves disclosed history of fever to Monika for the last six days and they themselves enclosed a laboratory report dated 13.1.2011 in which it is mentioned that earlier she was given treatment by Dr. Dalbir. The said fact pleaded by opposite party no.1 is also proved from laboratory test report of Chandigarh Diagnostic Laboratory Ex.C6 whereby certain tests of Monika were conducted by the said lab and she was referred by Dr. Dalbir. So, it is proved that condition of patient Monika not became critical due to treatment given by op no.1 on 16.1.2011 rather she was already suffering from fever for the last six days from 16.1.2011 and earlier she was treated by Dr. Dalbir before taking to op no.1. On 17.1.2011, she was taken to Navjeevan Hospital as is evident from prescription slip Ex.C9 but there is no medical opinion of Dr. Ashok Pareek of that hospital that treatment given by op no.1 was not proper and that lab test report of op no.2 was wrong. It is pertinent to mention here that on presentation of complaint, the matter was referred to Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Sirsa to obtain expert opinion about the alleged medical negligence of ops No.1 & 2 and a report submitted by board of doctors consisting of Dr. G.S. Somani, DCH (Pead) SMO, G.H. Sirsa, Dr. Govind Gupta, MD (Medicine) G.H. Sirsa and Dr. P.L. Verma Dy. C.S. (F.W), Sirsa was received which says that as per record, patient was ill since 13.1.2011 or earlier. The patient remained admitted with Dr. Naresh Mittal from 16.1.2011 3.00 a.m. to 17.1.2011 2.00 p.m. i.e. 35 hours. Dr. Naresh got her blood tests conducted from Dr. G.N. Verma and USG Abd. was got done by Dr. Kaushal. He took his rounds and treated on the line of clinic pathological setting. Reports done at Navjeevan Hospitals on 17.1.2011, 19.1.2011 and 21.1.2011 show in consecutive deterioration in LFT in comparison to blood report of 16.1.2011 that means the condition of the patient Monika was deteriorating continuously from 13.1.2011. In the opinion of the board, there is no medical negligence on the part of doctors in discharging the professional services to patient. Thus, the board of doctors have not found any medical negligence on the part of ops No.1 & 2. There is no other expert/ medical opinion on file to show that ops No.1 & 2 caused medical negligence and therefore, case against ops No.1 & 2 is not proved at all.
8. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we see no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 19.10.2016. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
