Haryana

Sonipat

124/2014

urmila w/o vikram Parsad - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Sudhir Verma,2. Cygnus J.K. Hindu Hospital,3. united Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Himashu jawa

16 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

                     SONEPAT.

 

                             Complaint No.124 of 2014

                             Instituted on:07.05.2014

                             Date of order:16.01.2017

 

Smt. Urmila wife of Vikram Parsad, r/o H.No.688, Ward no.21, Panshil Colony, Milton road, Sonepat.

                                      ...Complainant.

 

                      Versus

 

 

1.Dr Sudhir Verma Employed at Cygnus JK Hindu Hospital, at Industrial Area Rohtak road Sonepat.

2.Cygnus JK Hindu Hospital through CMO Industrial Area, Rohtak road, Sonepat.

3.United India Ins. Co., Office at 42-C IIIrd Floor, Mool Chand  Commercial Complex, New Delhi.

                                      ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Ankur Dhaka Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. SK Kaushik, Adv. for respondent no.1 to3.

 

BEFORE-    Nagender Singh, PRESIDENT.

          Prabha Wati, MEMBER.

          J.L. Gupta, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

         Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that her daughter Shikha was ill and under the influence of fever,  which was in between  99 to 100 degree Celsius since previous week, the complainant approached on 4.9.2013 to the respondent for her treatment.  The complainant is Govt. employee and is protected under Employee State Ins.  On 4.9.2013 the respondent no.1 advised to take one day medicine alongwith some tests. The respondent no.1 again called the complainant and her daughter on 6.9.2013. The tests were got conducted and the report was normal and there was no danger to the life of the patient.  The progress sheet dated 6.9.2013 issued by the respondents clearly shows that on the recommendation of respondent no.1, the complainant’s daughter was given different types of injection.  But there was severe infection by the said injections.  The respondents tried to cover up their wrong, but the patient could not be saved and was finally declared dead in the morning of 7.9.2013.  It was the duty of the respondents to control the fever of the patient, but unfortunately the respondents had not did so as they had provided over dose to the patient as they give her two antibiotic fluids through injections IV without examine the suitability of them which reacts the patient and leads her towards the unnatural death and this has caused unnecessary mental agony and harassment to the complainant. So, she has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       The respondents no.1 and 3 have filed their separate reply.

         The respondent no.1 in his written statement has submitted that no specific, scientific and justified allegations in regarding to negligence or deficiency in providing services has been made by the complainant against the respondent no.1. The patient Shikha was brought to OPD on 4.9.2013 with a history of fever.  The patient was attended carefully. Administration of any medicine cannot assure that there would be a definite improvement in the symptoms and that too in a very limited period i.e. two days as seems to be claimed by the complainant.   After prescribed the medicines in OPD, the patient was referred to an emergency department for carrying out the treatment.  Unfortunately in the emergency deptt. the patient suffered unforeseen complications of anaphylasix allergy and the patient was immediately shifted to the intensive care unit for better care for avoid her deteriorating condition. Every possible care was provided to the patient.  The allegations of overdose of injections are wrong as the dose of both the antibiotics were prescribed in normally acceptable does as routinely used in the clinical practice.  The patient was treated diligently, prudently, with utmost due care and caution.   There was  no negligence or unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1.  Every due care was taken while administering the injections and that proper testing of the injections was advised.  So, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint qua respondent no.1.

         The respondent no.3 has submitted that United India Ins. Co. has issued Profession Indemnity Policy no.041200/46/13/00001723 effective from 13.6.2013 to 12.6.2014 to respondent no.1 and the standard terms and conditions with its exclusion of this policy are applicable in the present case.

         The respondent no.2 in its reply has submitted that the present complaint is wholly misconceived and has been filed without any justified reasons only to cause unnecessary harassment to the respondent no.2. Rather it is a fact that the respondent no.2 has not committed any negligence in any manner.   The complainant has totally failed to explain as to how the respondent no.2 was negligent.  There was no negligence, unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2.  Every due care was taken while administering the injections and that proper testing of the injections was advised.  Everything was done by the respondent no.1 and 2 diligently, prudently, with utmost due care and caution while treating the patient.    The respondent no.2 has only provided the infrastructure alongwith ICU to the respondent no.1 for treating the patient.  So, the respondent no.2 is not liable to pay anything to the complainant and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.       Both the parties have been heard at length.  All the documents placed on record by both the parties have been perused carefully & minutely.

         Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that due to negligence act and deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 and 2, the younger daughter of the complainant had died and thus, the respondents are liable to compensate the complainant.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant in support of his case has relied upon the case law titled as Dr. Indu Sharma Vs. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital New Delhi, order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission on 22.4.2015 in Consumer Case No.104of 2002 and order dated 1.7.2015 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.8065 of 2009 titled as V.Krishnakumar Vs. State of Tamilnadu and others.

         Ld. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that there was no negligence or deficiency in service of any kind while treating the daughter of the complainant by the respondent no.1.  The respondent no.1 has not committed any negligence in the case of daughter of the complainant while providing the treatment and thus, the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.

4.       In the present case, vide order dated 25.8.2015, the Medical Suptt. PGIMS Rohtak was requested to constitute the board of doctors specialists in the field and the Medical Board of doctors was directed to examine the treatment record of Shikha and to report whether there is any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 Dr Sudhir Verma or not.

         Report of Special Medical Board from Medical Suptt. PGIMS Rohtak was received in this Forum vide diary no.339 dated 28.11.2016. The relevant opinion of the Members of Board is as under:-

         “After reviewing the provided records (not arranged chronologically) the patient Ms. Shikha 16 years old female, d/o Smt. Urmila Rani wife of Devi Deen Gaur, resident of H.No.688, Ward no.22, Panch Colony, Sonepat seem to have developed sever allergic reaction leading to anaphylactic shock after receiving inject table treatment (injection Azithral) as a consequence of which she developed cardio-resp. collapse.  As per records ventillatory and ICU support was provided to the patient immediately. However, the patient died in ICU later-on. There seems to be no gross deviation from standard treatment protocol and the cause of death appears to be anaphylactic shock as per record.

         From the above report, it is clearly established that the injection Azithral were given twice to the daughter of the complainant by the respondent no.1 without any test dose.  The daughter of the complainant was not suffering from any serious disease as she was suffering from fever only i.e. 100 temperature.  The daughter of the complainant was also not in any emergency condition.  The medical board has specifically mentioned that the cause of death appears to be anaphylactic shock as per record.

         The respondent no.1 has committed medical negligence while providing treatment to the daughter of the complainant, which in the end has resulted into her death.  Thus, the respondent no.1 is held to be negligent and deficient in his services.

         The complainant has lost her young daughter aged about 16 years only.  She was the student of Class X and was studying in Hindu Kanya Sr. Sec. School, Sonepat.  In our view, the complainant due to untimely death of her young daughter has suffered unnecessary mental agony and harassment at the hands of the respondents no.1 and 2.  The complainant has suffered an irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in terms of money in any manner.

         The respondent no.1 has obtained the insurance policy from the respondent no.3 insurance company for an amount of Rs.10 lacs for the period 13.6.2013 to 12.6.2014. The complainant’s daughter has taken the treatment from the respondents no.1 and 2 on 4.9.2013 and she has expired on 7.9.2013.  The above said ill-fated incident has been covered in the insurance policy.  Thus, we direct the respondent no.3 insurance company to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs.Ten Lacs) on behalf of the respondent no.1 for committing medical negligence and for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

         Since the complainant has been able to prove that there is direct negligence and deficient services on the part of the respondent no.1 doctor, we also hereby direct the respondent no.1 to compensate the complainant personally to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.one lac) for rendering deficient, negligence services, for causing harassment, humiliation and mental agony to the complainant.

         With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed qua respondent no.1 and 3.

             Certified copies of order be provided to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record-room.

 

(Prabha Wati)    (JL Gupta)                (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF     Member DCDRF              DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:16.01.2017