Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/230/2013

Parmeel Kumar S/o Jasmer Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr.Nirmal Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Mohit Saini

29 Sep 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT AJGADHRI.

 

                                                                        Consumer Complaint No.230 of 2013.

                                                                        Date of Institution:20.3.2013.

                                                                        Date of Decision:29.9.2017.

 

Parmeel Kumar aged  son of Late Sh. Jasmer Singh Resident of Village, Topra Khurad, Tehsil- Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                …complainant.

                                                Vs.

1.         Dr. Nirmal Singh, Nirmal Hospital, Radaur Road opp. Main Bazar, Camp, Yamuna Nagar.

2.         Uniterd India Insurance Company Ltd., 54, Jan Path Connaught Palace, New Delhi its Divisional Manager vide policy no. 040100/46/12/35/00005651 w.e.f 12.11.12 to 11.11.13.

…Respondents.

 

                                                Complaint under section 12 of the

                                                Consumer Protection Act.

CORAM:        SH.SATPAL………..PRESIDENT,

                        SH.S.C.SHARMA,    MEMBER.

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh.Mohit Saini, Adv. for complainant.

               Sh.S.C.Jindal, Adv. for OP No.1.

               Op No.2 already ex parte.

 

ORDER:         (SH.SATPAL PRESIDENT)

 

1.                     The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the respondents (hereinafter the respondents shall be referred as Ops).

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint are that the father of the complainant came to the hospital of the OP No.1 on 31.12.2012 at around 12.20 P.M. with the complainant of chest pain.  At that time, the Op No.1 had examined late Sh.Jasmer Singh and had also mentioned in the treatment card that the patient complained of chest pain and was diagnosed as suffering from Coronary Artery Disease/CAN and acute MI/Myocardial infarction.  At that time, ECG was conducted by the OP No.1 at 12.38.53 PM and it was confirmed that the father of the complainant was suffering from CAN and acute MI i.e. Heart Attack.  In spite of diagnosis and consequent knowledge of the fact that the father of the complainant was in critical condition, he was not given any proper treatment by the Op No.1, even the father of the complainant was made to wait while sitting on sofa and no treatment was provided to him by the OP No.1.  Although, it has been mentioned on the card of OP No.1 that the facility of Oxygen, ICU, Cardiac Monitor etc. were available in the hospital of Op No.1 but for these facilities even the father of the complainant was not given any bed in ICU/Ward/Private room.  It was the medico-legal duty of the Op No.1 to attend any patient coming to the hospital in critical condition, whereas the OP No.1 had failed to do his duty and had neither started treatment of the father of the complainant nor referred him to any specialized hospital, in spite of repeated requests of the complainant to immediately admit his father and to start treatment.  Because of such apathy, father of the complainant namely late Sh.Jasmer Singh died at 2.10 P.M. in the toilet of the hospital of the Op No.1 when the complainant was sent by the OP No.1 to nearby chemist shop for purchasing the medicines. It is beyond comprehension that why a patient in such critical condition was permitted to go to toilet unattended and was not admitted in ICU in spite of diagnoses of acute MI.  For a patient suffering from acute MI/heart attack, the immediate requirement is to provide him oxygen, angiography and stunting if required.  There is gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 and prayed for acceptance of complaint by directing the Ops to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for death of father of the complainant due to deficiency in service on the part of the Op No.1 and also to pay Rs.3,00,000/- for mental agony, harassment as well as cost of litigation. 

3.                     Upon notice, the Ops appeared and filed their written statement separately.  The Op No.1, while filing the written statement, took some preliminary objections alleging therein that the complaint is false and frivolous; the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands; the present complaint is totally false and baseless which has been synthesized on the basis of unscientific laymen conjectures, misbelieves, assumptions and presumptions, where it is fact that the complainant does not know ABC of disease pathology from  which his father was suffering from and progress of disease pathology and line of treatment available; the complainant approached to this Forum without any expert view; the father of the complainant was properly examined, investigated and diagnosed; no experimentation has been done by the OP No.1 in this case; no specific scientific and justified allegations has been made by the complainant;  there is no cause of action to file the present complaint; the complaint is not maintainable for mis-joinder and non joinder of proper parties as the OP No.1 is insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-; the answering Op always maintained the higher standard of professional conduct; the complainant approached this Forum just to waste the time; the complainant himself was negligent.  On merits, controverted the plea taken by the complainant and alleged that the answering OP is an expert and qualified physician and has treated thousands of patients in this field and is having experience of about five years after post Graduation course in  various clinical settings.  Answering Op qualified his MD Physician in 2003 from Lugansk State Medical University Lugansk Ukraine.  Answering Op had served for two years in Government Multi Speciality Hospital, Sector-16, Chandigarh as Physician in Medicine Department and after that he has established his private hospital since June 2008, having well equipped Emergency, ICU with multi para monitor and centrally Oxygen, Operation Theater, Pharmacy and clinical laboratory and in the concerned fraternity of medical science and he had not only been treating these types of cases but had also been managing and treating more serious cases.  The true facts are that Shri Jasmer Singh aged about 65 years was first time brought to the OP No.1 OPD on dated 31.12.2012 at 12.20pm in his hospital with the history of Gabhrahat since two days with pain chest with difficulty in breathing. On systemic examination, heart sounds were normal.  CNS (Central Nerves System) was conscious oriented, general condition was stable.  P/A (per abdominal) NAD means nothing abnormal detected.  Chest bilateral clear and there was no abnormal sound heard.  Patient was investigated and his HB was 11gms%, his total leucocyte count (TLC) was 9000 cmm with a differential leucocyte count (DLC) of Polymorphs 72% Lymphocytes 24%, Monocytes 2%, Eosinophils 2%.  His random blood sugar was 145mg % SOGT was 1575, SGPT 780I.U per liter. The patient was subjected to ECG, (at 12.38 pm) which showed CAD (Carnory Artery Disease) Acute anterior Wall Myocardial infraction since two days old as per ECG.  After seeing the ECG the patient was advised to get admitted immediately in ICU.  The Op no.1 have clearly mentioned the first line treatment of the patient prescribed in the form of various injections, tablet forms which were required to the patient immediately.  These facts have clearly been mentioned in the OPD slip (Annexure C.2 and clinical laboratory slip (Annexure C.1).  The advice of the OP No.1 for immediate admission of patient was declined by the patient as well as complainant and did not consent for treatment.  The complainant remained busy in consulting his relatives and friends and wasted about one and half hours and during this period the patient remainined walking outside the hospital and took juice from outside shop.  The complainant felt some urinal pressure and came in the hospital premises to ease out in toilets constructed in front of the reception.  This fact was not in the knowledge of the Op No.1 doctor nor in the hospital staff nor the complainant i.e. his son Parmeel when his son came back in the hospital, he enquired from the staff about his father.  After searching a while, the patient was found in the toilet who was brought out side and OP doctor after examining him, declared him dead.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering Op and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

4.                     Op No.2 was summoned through registered post dated 31.10.2013 but failed to appear, hence, he was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 6.12.2013.

5.                     To prove the case the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as annexure C.X, documents such as copy of clinical laboratory report as annexure C.1, prescription of Op No.1 as annexure C.2, copy of ECG as annexure C.3, copy of legal notice as annexure C.4, copy of reply of legal notice as annexure C.5, copy of pass book as annexure C.6 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                     The counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit as annexure RA, documents such as copy of policy as annexure R.1, copy of certificates as annexure R.2 & R.3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the OP No.1.

7.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings as well as documents place on the file.  During the course of arguments the counsel for the complainant reiterated the stand taken in the complaint and draw the attention of this Forum towards authority reported in IV (2014)CPJ P.110 (TN) titled as Kovai Medical Center and Hospital Ltd. & Ors. Vs., K. Suppannan & Anr wherein it has been held that, “Medical Negligence-Delay in diagnosis-Abdominal pain-Carelessness in handling-Death of patient-Deficiency in service-District Forum allowed complaint-Hence appeal-Case has been handled very casually without taking any serious and alternative step and made the patient wait for two and half hours-Negligence and deficiency in service on part of appellants proved”. Lastly prayed for acceptance of complaint.

8.                     On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP No1 reiterated the stand taken in the written statement and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9.                     After hearing the learned counsel for the complainant as well as OP No.1 and going through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file, it is clear and admitted fact that the complainant took his father with severe chest pain to the Op No.1 whereupon the OP No.1 got conducted some tests and ECG and also prescribed some medicines.  The plea taken by the complainant that when he went to take the above prescribed medicines from the medical store/chemist shop then the OP No.1 permitted the patient to go to toilet unattended and was not admitted in the ICU is not tenable because until and unless the patient was admitted in the hospital then how he can say that the patient was left unattended.  Prior to admission in the hospital, the patient might have been under the hands of his attendants of the patient.  There is no evidence on record to show that the deceased patient (OPD) had gone to toilets upon the directions or advice of OP No.1 or this fact was in the notice or knowledge of Op No.1 or his staff. The OP No.1 took a plea that he advised the complainant to admit his father/patient immediately but the complainant remained busy in consulting his relatives, even the complainant declined for admission and did not give the consent for treatment of his father.  This version of Op No.1 has nowhere been controverted by the complainant that he did not decline the advice of the doctor to admit his father.  No cogent evidence as well as affidavits of their relatives, who were present in the hospital at that time have been filed to rebut the version of OP-doctor.  During the pendency of the complaint, the complainant had also filed replication to the written statement in which also the complainant did not deny the plea of the OP No.1 specifically with some cogent evidence.  The authority (supra) tendered by the complainant is not disputed but not identical to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. 

10.                   In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1 and the complainant is not entitled for any relief.

11.                   Resultantly, we find no merit in the complaint of the complainant and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of cost as per rules.  File be consigned to the record-room.

Announced in open Court:29.9.2017.

                                                                                                (SATPAL)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT.

 

(VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)                    (S.C.SHARMA)

MEMBER                                                      MEMBER.