Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 207.
Instituted on : 05.04.2017.
Decided on : 11.09.2019.
Sh. Santram age 32 years son of Partap Singh, House No.595, Village Chuliana Distt. Rohtak, Haryana.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Dr. Prem Singh Mann, Maan Multi Speciality Hospital, Subhash Road, Rohtak, Haryana-124001.
- Dr. Sonika Mann, Maan Multi Speciality Hospital, Subhash Road, Rohtak, Haryana-124001.
- Maan Multi Speciality Hospital, Subhash Road, Rohtak, Haryana-124001 through Dr.Prem Singh Mann.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
Present: Smt.Sarita Ahlawat, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.R.S.Kharab, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that on 07.01.2017, complainant got admitted her wife to the hospital of opposite parties and on 9th January 2017, the baby was born successfully through Caesarean operation of the wife of complainant. On 12.01.2017, the baby and the mother got discharged from the hospital and it was informed that the baby was suffering from Neonatal jaundice. That on 14.01.2017, the complainant took his wife and baby to Mann Hospital Rohtak for routine check up and it was informed that the growth of baby was normal however, there was a mild jaundice of 12.7 but it was told that there was nothing to worry. That on 17.01.2017, complainant again visited the hospital with his baby and this time the jaundice was increased to 17.1. That Dr. Prem Singh Mann recommended admission under observation and diagnosis at Mann Hospital to control the increase in count of Neo Natal Jaundice and baby was admitted in the hospital. That at night, the nurse on duty gave an oral syrup to the baby and it was told that the same was approved by Dr. Prem Singh Mann and payment of the alleged drug was also made separately to the Sai Medicos, operating from the campus of Mann Hospital. That on 18.01.2017, in the morning, wife of complainant observed dullness in the activity of the baby, which was told to the doctor but the doctor said that the baby is fit and will be discharged on 19.01.2017. That on 18.01.2017 in the wee hours of morning, mother of the baby observed high body temperature of the baby and the baby was looking dull and not taking the feed even. Sensing the problem, she raised alarm. On great persuasion, the staff on duty informed the doctor. That Dr. Prem Singh Mann and Dr. Sonika Mann arrived at the hospital at 6.00A.M. and a pediatrician from outside has been called for his opinion to diagnose the deteriorating health condition of the baby. Looking at the critical condition of the baby, all the doctors present there got panicked and suggested to take the baby to some specialized hospital. That complainant took his baby discharged and admitted him to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi in emergency condition. Complainant was informed by the doctors of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital that the baby was under the influence of the medicine which was admitted on 17th January 2017 at Mann Hopsital, Rohtak and the same was the root cause of deteriorating health of the baby. That in discharge summary from Mann Hospital, medicine which was administer on baby has no mention of oral syrup that got administered to the baby on the night of 17th January 2017. That due to negligence act of Dr. Prem Singh Mann, the life of the baby got jeopardize. That complainant spent an amount of Rs.188119/- on the treatment of his baby. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the cost of treatment Rs.188119/-alongwith interest @ 18% p.a., to pay a sum of Rs.1500000/- towards the physical strain and mental agony and Rs.45000/- towards the cost of petition.
2. On notice opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply. Opposite party No.1 & 2 in their reply has submitted that the baby born premature so the respondents got admitted the baby in nursery and informed timely to complainant that the baby is thirty three weeks mature and pre-mature baby can have any complication like mental retardation, cpalsy and even dead. It is well documented that the system of the baby are immature and can have any complication. Respondents have not prescribed the syrup of Triclofos/Pedicloryl nor the same was given to the baby. It is clear from the treatment given by the respondent. That if the Triclofas/Pedicloryl syp. was given to the baby at night of 17.1.2017 then the effect of this syrup is only for 8 hours and after that the effect of this syp. is decreasing when the complainant admitted his baby in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital at Delhi on 19.01.2017, the effect of the syp. does not affect or seen on the baby of complainant. That there is no negligence or fault on the part of the respondent. The baby of the complainant suffered disease of immatureness. That all the bills are wrong and denied. It is prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Opposite party No.3 in its reply has submitted that the present matter under controversy does not come under the ambit of Consumer Protection act. That as and when the wife and son of the complainant visited for their medical treatment, they were duly checked by the treating doctor by following the proper medical guidelines and proper treatment as per requirement was provided. That no alleged such syrup was prescribed by the doctor or nurse. No such fact is mentioned in the treatment file. That on seeing the condition of patient as per medical guidelines, proper medical treatment and advise was suggested. That there is no negligence on the part of answering opposite party and dismissal of compliant has been sought.
4. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
5. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.C1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C36 and has closed the evidence on dated 08.01.2019. Thereafter, an application for additional evidence was filed by the complainant on dated 03.06.19, which was allowed and complainant tendered documents Ex.C37 to Ex.C39 and has closed his evidence on 19.06.2019. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A, document Ex.R1 & Ex.R2 and closed his evidence on dated 07.03.2019. Ld. counsel for opposite party has also tendered documents Ex.R3 to Ex.R4 in additional evidence and has closed the evidence on dated 19.06.2019. Further an application for submitting the affidavit was also filed by the opposite party No.1, which was allowed and affidavit Ex.R5 of Dr. P.S.Dhatt was also placed on record by the opposite party No.1.
6. Written arguments filed on behalf of complainant on dated 29.07.2019 and written arguments were also filed on behalf of Dr. P.S.Maan on dated 08.07.2019. Again some written notes were filed on behalf of respondent on 05.08.2019. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
7. In the present complaint, the grievance of the complainant is that on 17.01.2017, complainant got admitted his baby with the respondent hospital for the treatment of Jaundice. At night, the nurse on duty gave oral syrup to the baby which was approved by Dr. Prem Singh Mann and payment of the alleged drug was also made separately to the Sai Medicos of Mann Hospital. That after giving the alleged syrup, the condition of baby got deteriorated and after looking at the critical condition of the baby, the doctor suggested to take the baby to some specialized hospital. Complainant got admitted the baby at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and he was informed by the doctors of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital that the baby was under the influence of the medicine which was administered on 17th January 2017 at Mann Hopsital, Rohtak and the same was the root cause of deteriorating health of the baby. That due to negligent act of opposite party, the life of the baby got jeopardize. To prove his case, complainant has placed on record copy of treatment record of Mann Hosptial and copy of bills Ex.C1 to ex.C15 and copy of discharge card Ex.C16. As per Ex.C16, the patient was referred to higher centre for further management because of non-recovery of baby(poor G.C, not accepting feeds, hypothermia). Complainant has also placed on record copy of treatment record and bills of Sir Ganga Ram hospital Ex.C16 to Ex.C28. However, complainant has not placed on record any document to prove the fact that due to administration of drug given by the hospital of opposite party, the condition of the patient become deteriorated. As per the discharge summary Ex.C16 and Emergency Certificate Ex.C17 of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, it is written as : ? Triclofos overdose. But the same does not mean that the doctor has confirmed that there was overdose of Triclofos whereas it is a quarry mark which means that the same is not confirmed. No other document e.g. affidavit of doctor of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital or any other doctor has been placed on record to prove that there was overdose of Triclofos given to the baby at Mann Hospital, Rohtak.
8. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite parties have placed on record affidavit Ex.R5 of Dr. P.S.Dhatt, who has submitted in his affidavit that: “He had seen the discharge summary of the baby issued by the Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi. Baby was hemodynamicaly stable(i.e. B.P, CFT(CAPILLARY FILLING TIME), pulse and temperature was normal on admission and discharge. Overdose has to confirmed by blood test, which has not done by Ganga Ram Hospital Delhi and nothing is on file regarding overdose ?(query). Overdose(pedicloryl) is not the confirmation and it is not lethal dose. It is further submitted that he had not found any medical negligence after going through the treatment record of the baby”. Hence from the alleged affidavit, it is established that there is no negligence on the part of the opposite parties. Ld. counsel for the opposite parties has also placed reliance upon the ratio of law laid down in 2006(1)CPC80 titled as Umed Singh Berwal RMP Doctor Vs. Sripal, 1998(1)CPC325 titled as Biju @Paul Joseph Vs. Dr.K.Kunhu Mohammad which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the complainant has not placed on record any expert evidence to prove the negligence on the part of opposite parties and the law cited by ld. counsel for the complainant, II(2019)CPJ382(NC) titled as C.Pramod Kumar & Ors. Vs. Amareshwara Nursing Home & Ors., II(2019)CPJ12(SC) titled as Shoda Devi Vs. DDU/RIPON Hospital Shimla and Ors. and 2017(1)CCC115(S.C) titled as Sheela Hirba Naik Gaunekar Vs. Apollo Hospital Ltd. & Anr. are not fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case.
9. In view of the above referred case law, it is observed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
10. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
11.09.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
