Haryana

Karnal

CC/18/2019

Sandeep Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Neha Garg Garg Nursing Home And Maternity Centre - Opp.Party(s)

Mange Ram Sangwan

20 Jan 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No. 18 of 2019

                                                          Date of instt.09.01.2019

                                                          Date of Decision 20.01.2020

 

Sandeep Sharma son of Shri Mohar Singh resident of village Aungadh Tehsil and District Karnal.

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Dr. Neha Garg Garg Nursing Home and Maternity Centre opposite Bijli Board, Nissing Tehsil and District Karnal.

2. Dr. Vikas Garg CHC Nissing Tehsil and District Karnal.

 

                                                                         …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

      Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Shri Mange Ram Sangwan Advocate for complainant.

                   Shri I.S.Punia Advocate for opposite parties.

                 

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that Rupa since deceased wife of complainant was got admitted in the PHC Nissing due to labour pain on 19.03.2018 at about 10.30 p.m. where the doctor gave preliminary treatment to the wife of the complainant but on 20.03.2018 in the morning at about 5 a.m. the OP no.2, Dr. Vikas Garg, visited the room of deceased Rupa and advised to the complainant to shift her wife to the hospital of OP no.1, i.e. wife of OP no.2, situated in Nissing in the name of Garg Nursing home and maternity centre and told that at his hospital every type of facility is available, so the complainant orally consented to OP no.2 to shift his wife to the hospital of OP no.1 on 20.03.2018. No documents/treatment history was handed over to the complainant at the time of shifting. In the hospital of OP no.1, the wife of complainant gave birth to a male child but after delivery the wife of the complainant felt breathing problem, so the complainant met with OP no.1 and told her that there is breathing problem to her wife, upon which OP no.1 gave an injection to the wife of the complainant but after the injection the position of the wife of the complainant became critical and ultimately the wife of complainant died at about 12.15 noon in the hospital of OP no.1.  The death of the wife of the complainant occurred due to negligent act and conduct of OP no.1 because she is not a qualified Gynecologist but inspite of this fact, the OP no.2 instigated the complainant to admit his wife to Garg Hospital of OP no.1, where there was not even basic facility like, ICU rooms, oxygen, expert Gynecologist to recover after operation complications in the hospital even not even in the Nissing. The complainant had made a complaint in CM Window on 04.04.2018, which was registered vide no.CMOFF/N/2018/036896 and complaint to S.P. Karnal which was registered vide ID no.101539 dated 4.4.2018 but no action has been taken against the OPs. OP no.1 is only BAMS degree holder and she is not qualified because she is not having Gynecologist as per letter head and other record of the OP, so she is not expert doctor and had wrongly treated the wife of the complainant and due to her negligency the death of the wife of complainant occurred. Due to wrongful act and lack of expertness, the young hale hearted, healthy wife of the age of 25 years died untimely, due to which complainant has suffered mentally, social and economic loss and a newly born child has lost his only caring mother. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is wrong and denied that on 20.03.2018, OP no.2 advised the complainant to shift his wife Rupa to the hospital namely Garg Nursing Home and Maternity Centre of OP no.1 by saying that in the said hospital, every type of facility is available. In fact, OP no.2 was not at PHC Nissing during 4.00 p.m. of 19.03.2018 to 9.00 a.m. of 20.03.2018. Neither name of OP no.2 was in duty roaster nor did he attend/examined any patient at PHC Nissing, including the patient Rupa, during the abovesaid period. In fact, OP no.2 did not even visit the PHC Nissing during abovesaid period. In fact, OP no.2 did not even visit the PHC Nissing during abovesaid period. As OP no.2 never asked the complainant to shift his wife Rupa to Garg Nursing Home and Maternity Centre on 20.03.2018 or on any other date, the question of any oral consent of the complainant to that effect does not arrive at all. OPs have not attended/examined the patient Rupa at PHC Nissing, therefore, they are not in a position to comment regarding providing of document/treatment history to the complainant. Complainant has made averments regarding the admission and treatment of the patient Rupa at PHC Nissing and non-supply of document/treatment history by the PHC Nissing, without even impleading the PHC Nissing as a party. Therefore, the said averments cannot even be looked into. It is admitted fact that patient Rupa gave birth to a male child in the hospital of OP no.1. The said delivery was carried out in an emergency as at around 5 a.m. on 20.03.2018, the complainant brought patient Rupa in a private car while she was bearing down, having labour pains in second stage of labour and head of the child was clearly visible. Blood pressure of the patient Rupa was 140/90 and she was given tablet Labetlol 100 mg. as per accepted practice. A male child weighing 2.2 kg was born through normal delivery at 5.17 a.m. Patient was stable and her vitals were monitored at 8.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m., the same were found to be normal. At 10.30 a.m. the patient had a vomit with stomachache and backache. Her B.P. was 100/60 and HB was 10 gm and on P/V examination no bleeding was found. Patient was given injection Pentoprazole, DNS, Ranitidine & Ondansetron and she felt relieved. Subsequently, when the patient became panic and again complained of pain in epigastrium, her BP came down to 90/60, she was administered 500 ml. RL. As the patient was not showing improvement, the complainant was advised to shift the patient to Cygnus Hospital, Karnal for better treatment under some Cardiologist. The story concocted by the complainant to the effect that his wife Rupa was feeling breathing problem after delivery, he intimated OP no.1 in this regard and OP no.1 gave injection, thereafter, the position of the patient became critical and ultimately she expired at about 12.15 noon in the hospital of OP no.1 is totally false. It is vehemently denied that death of the patient Rupa occurred due to negligent act and conduct of OP no.1 as she is not a qualified Gynecologist. In fact, OP no.1 is a well qualified doctor and is holding 5½ years professional Degree in Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and Surgery (B.A.M.S.). She is trained to perform deliveries as the subject (Prasuti Tantra-Obstetrics) was part of the B.A.M.S. syllabus and practical training is also imparted in this regard during internship. OP no.1 has more than 5 years of experience in the field of Obstetrics and Gynecology. At around 5 a.m. on 20.03.2018, the complainant brought patient Rupa in a private car while she was bearing down having labour pains in second stage of labour and head of the child was clearly visible. Blood Pressure of the patient was 140/90 and she was given tablet Labetlol 100 mg. as per accepted practice. A male child weighing 2.2 kg was born through normal delivery at 5.17 a.m. The patient was not operated upon, therefore, the issue of any post operation complication does not arise at all in the present case. OP no.1 has all the necessary equipments for conducting deliveries. It is denied that the patient died due to negligent act of OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and closed the evidence on 12.09.2019.

4.             On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Dr. Neha Garg Ex.O1, affidavit of Dr. Vikas Garg Ex.O2 and documents Ex.O3 to Ex.O7 and closed the evidence on 19.12.2019.

12.12.2019.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             Admittedly, on 20.03.2018, the wife of the complainant namely Rupa (since deceased) was got admitted in the hospital of OP no.1 due to labour pain. She gave birth to a child in the hospital of OP no.1. Prior to referring the deceased to the hospital of OP no.1, the deceased was got admitted in PHC, Nissing where OP no.2 Vikas Garg is working as doctor. The allegations of the complainant are that the OP no.2 has advised to the complainant to shift his wife to the hospital of OP no.1 and on his advice he shifted his wife but due to the negligence on the part of the OP no.1, his wife expired.

7.             The wife of the complainant was referred by the OP no.1 to KCGMCH, Karnal due to her serious condition but complainant shifted his wife in Amritdhara Hospital, Karnal. When the doctor of Amritdhara Hospital, checked the patient she declared her “brought dead.”

8.             Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that OP no.1 was not competent for treating pregnant patient as she has not qualified as a Gynecologist but inspite of this fact OP no.2 instigated the complainant to admit his wife in the hospital of OP no.1. He further submitted that there are not even basic facilities like ICU rooms, oxygen, all those which an expert Gynecologist covers after post operative complications in the hospital.

9.             Pre-contra, learned counsel for OPs submitted that OP no.1 is qualified doctor as she has taken a subject Prasuti Tantra and Strirog in the BAMS. In this regard copy of her certificate is exhibited as Ex.OP5 in which the said subject has been mentioned. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for complainant placed on record office Memorandum dated 30.03.2017, issued by Ministry of AYUSH wherein Ministry of Health and Family Welfare MH has held that the doctors posing qualification included in 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th schedule of IMCC Act, 1970 are entitled to perform deliveries of pregnant women. He further argued that OP no.2 was not on duty at time of shifting to the wife of complainant in the hospital.

10.            The complainant moved complaint to the Hon’ble Chief Minister through CM Window with regard to negligence on the part of the OPs. On this complaint, the Medical Board constituted at KCGMCH, Kanral consisting Dr. Ashwani Kumar, Dr. Vinod, Dr. Sangeeta, Dr. Anju and Dr. Prabhjot. The matter was got investigated by the said Committee and after investigation Committee submitted his enquiry report alongwith statement of the parties Ex.O3 and came to the conclusion that there may be many reason i.e. Pulmonary Embolism, Post Partum Haemorrhage and PIH (high B.P.). (They further submitted that the BP of the patient was found higher side at PHC Nissing as well as in the hospital of OP no.1). They further submitted in their report that as no Post Mortem of the deceased was conducted, therefore, the specific reason for death of deceased cannot be ascertained.

11.            In a case of medical negligence, what is expected of a doctor is ordinary skill, care and expertise and not an extraordinary or super human skill, judgment or expertise. Simply, because a mishap had occurred, neither the hospital nor the doctors can be made liable. A doctor is not guilty of negligence if he has acted in accordance with the practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art. A doctor or a hospital is expected to take reasonable care in administration of the treatment. They cannot be condemned in case of misadventure. What is the duty of a doctor is to take care and caution while giving the treatment as per the established medical practice. If he has acted in the same manner, no question of deficiency would arise.

12.            In case Naraingiben Suboodhchandra Shah and others Versus Gujarat Research and Medical Institute and others III (2012) CPJ 509 (N.C), in which Hon’ble National Commission has held that “Besides the complainants themselves having requested this Commission to obtain an expert opinion which goes in favour of the OPs, the only inference that can be drawn from this case is that the OPs have followed the most desirable and expected course of treatment/operation and if in the process the patient has died, they cannot be held liable merely on the allegation of the complainants. After all doctors can only treat but cannot guarantee the success of a surgical operation which inevitably is fraught with risks.”

13.            In case Jacob Mathew Versus State of Punjab and another, III (2005) CPJ 9(SC) in which Hon’ble Supreme Court held that no sensible professional would intentionally commit an act or omission which would result in loss or injury to patient as the professional reputation of the person is at stake. A single failure may cost him dear in his career. Simply because a patient has not favourably responded to a treatment given by a physician or a surgery has failed, the doctor cannot be held liable.

14.            The best piece of evidence in this case is the opinion of the medical board Ex.OP3 and the Board of Doctors have not reached to the conclusion that OP no.1 was negligent. Without expert opinion with regard to medical negligence, doctor cannot be held negligent.

14.            In view of the above the law laid down, fact and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that there is no force in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:20.01.2020

                                                                        President,

                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)          (Dr.Rekha Chaudhary)

           Member                      Member