Haryana

StateCommission

A/941/2016

SAMARJEET SINGH MANN - Complainant(s)

Versus

DR.SACHIN - Opp.Party(s)

GAURAV GUPTA

15 Dec 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      941 of 2016

Date of Institution:      07.10.2016

Date of Decision :       09.10.2017

 

Samarjeet Singh Maan s/o Sh. Prem Singh, Resident of DC 721, Shiv Colony, G.T. Road, Palwal, District Palwal.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      Dr. Sachin MO, Sachin Hospital, New Sohna Road, Panchwati Chowk, Palwal.

2.      Dr. Manvi Gupta, MBBS, MD (Pathology), Sachin Hospital, New Sohna Road, Panchwati Chowk, Palwal.

3.      The Oriental Insurance Company Limited M/s Chauhan Tyre & Battery Centre, Railway Road, Palwal, through its Branch Manager (insurer of Dr. Sachin Gupta vide policy No.272401/48/2015/1264 w.e.f. 27-01-15 to 26-01-16.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.            

 

Argued by:          Shri Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Tanmoy Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                             None for respondent No.2.

                             Shri S.S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.3.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

BALBIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

        This appeal has been preferred against the order dated September 06^th, 2016 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint was dismissed.  

2.                Samarjeet Singh Maan-complainant (appellant herein) filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 averring that Dr. Sachin Gupta-Opposite Party/respondent No.1 is Incharge of Sachin Hospital, New Sohna Road, Panchwati Chowk, Palwal and Dr. Manvi Gupta is Incharge of Dr. Manvi Pathlab, Sachin Hospital, Palwal. On October 06^th, 2015, the complainant Samarjeet Singh Maan and his wife Jaya Sorot Maan, got admitted their daughter Karshika in Sachin Hospital as she was having fever. After admission of the patient, certain blood investigations were carried out by the opposite parties and the complainant was told that Karshika    was suffering from blood infection and she needed conservative treatment. The opposite parties within a period of 20 hours administered the patient 25 injections. On October 07^th, 2015, the opposite parties again carried out blood investigations and told the complainant that condition of the patient was under deterioration. The infection was spreading towards brain and stomach and she needed Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) of the brain and some other tests. The complainant and his wife were advised to shift the patient to Metro Hospital, Faridabad for further treatment.

3.                Considering advice given by the opposite parties, the complainant got their daughter admitted in Asian Institute of Medical Sciences, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Asian Hospital’) instead of Metro Hospital. The complainant and his wife were told by the treating doctors of Asian Hospital that Karshika did not need any medicine and they kept Karshika admitted in their hospital only for observations. The treating doctors told that Karshika was fit and fine and she needed no treatment. In this way, it was found that reports and treatment given by the opposite parties were not correct. The opposite parties in connivance with each other fabricated medical reports and provided wrong treatment which may prove hazardous to health of Karshika. The complainant spent an amount of Rs.6,000/- when Karshika was admitted in Sachin Hospital and also spent an amount of Rs.20,000/- during the period the patient remained admitted in Asian Hospital, Faridabad. An amount of Rs.4,000/- was spent for transportation. The complainant has prayed that the complaint filed by him be allowed and the opposite parties be directed to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- spent for treatment of Karshika and conveyance charges to the complainant with interest at the rate of 18% per annum; to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of un-necessary harassment, mental agony and an amount of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

4.                The opposite parties No.1 and 2 in their written version have taken plea that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. It is admitted fact that Karshika-daughter of the complainant aged about three years, was brought to Sachin Hospital for treatment on October 06^th, 2015. She was diagnosed with Febrile seizure which is a disease having high grade fever. She was suffering from severe fever. Considering seriousness of the disease, Karshika was admitted in emergency ward of the hospital on October 06^th, 2015. During the course of investigation, her T L C was found increased and C R P was also found high as compared to normal. The abnormalities in both the factors were not good sign for the health of the baby. The abnormal increase in C R P directly denote the infection. It is denied that she was given 25 injections during a period of 20 hours. It is also denied that infection was spreading towards brain and stomach. It is also denied that the opposite parties suggested MRI of the patient. In fact, the complainant himself was pressing hard the opposite parties to refer the patient to some other medical centre. The complainant himself opted to take her daughter to Metro Hospital, Faridabad. In these circumstances, the opposite parties discharged the patient on October 07^th, 2015. The opposite parties have no knowledge regarding treatment given by doctors at Asian Hospital, Faridabad. It is denied that the opposite parties received an amount of Rs.6,000/- from the complainant. The opposite parties are not liable to pay any amount as claimed by the complainant. Moreover, the opposite parties have already obtained an Indemnity insurance policy bearing No.272401/48/2015/1264 for a sum of Rs.10.00 lacs regarding the period from January 27^th, 2015 up to January 26^th, 2016 from The Oriental Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’) and in case any amount is awarded to the complainant, the Insurance Company shall be liable to pay the same. It is prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant be dismissed.

5.                The Opposite Party No.3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited in its written version has taken plea that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and that the complainant cannot be allowed to take benefit of his own mistakes. It is pleaded that neither the complainant nor the opposite parties informed the answering opposite party regarding the treatment given to the patient and also did not provide any treatment record. It is not a case of deficiency in service. It appears that the complaint has been filed by the complainant to grab money from the opposite parties. Moreover, a professional would not have been negligent and careless in his profession, as alleged by the complainant. The complaint filed by the complainant is false and fabricated. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with cost.

6.                Parties adduced evidence in support of their respective claims before the District Forum.

7.                After hearing arguments, vide impugned order dated September 06^th, 2016 the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.

8.                Aggrieved with the impugned order dated September 06^th, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant-complainant has filed the present appeal bearing No.941 of 2016 with a prayer to set aside the impugned order and to grant relief claimed by the complainant in his complaint.

9.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

10.              During the course of arguments, there was no controversy of any type that on October 06^th, 2015 Karshika, a three years old daughter of the complainant, was brought to Sachin Hospital, Palwal for her treatment as she was suffering from fever. Admittedly, Karshika was discharged from Sachin Hospital, Palwal on next day October 07^th, 2015 and she remained admitted in Sachin Hospital for a period of 20 hours. As per version of the complainant he spent an amount of Rs.6,000/- for treatment of Karshika during the period she remained admitted in Sachin Hospital and thereafter spent an amount of Rs.20,000/- when she remained admitted in Asian Hospital, Faridabad for two days.

11.              As per version of the complainant wrong treatment was given to the patient as 25 injections were given to the patient during a period of 20 hours. She was kept admitted in the hospital for 20 hours un-necessarily and blood investigations were also conducted which were not needed. The complainant was also advised for MRI of the brain and was advised to approach Metro Hospital, Faridabad. As per version of the complainant himself he got his daughter admitted in Asian Hospital, Faridabad instead of Metro Hospital, where he spent an amount of Rs.20,000/- for her treatment. Patient remained admitted in Asian Hospital from October 07^th, 2015 evening till October 08^th, 2015 at about 2.00 A.M. when the patient was discharged from the hospital mentioning that the patient was alright and she did not need any medicine.

12.              After close perusal of the entire pleadings and evidence on the file, it is clear that Karshika-daughter of the complainant was not free from any disease when she was got admitted in Dr. Sachin Hospital, Palwal. The complainant himself has admitted that Karshika was suffering from high fever when was brought to Dr. Sachin Hospital. In our view, a doctor cannot tell only by touching hand of the patient or seeing his/her face that as to whether the patient is suffering from normal fever, dengue fever, malaria fever, typhoid or viral fever. A doctor can be able to make correct observation after blood investigation and other tests following the latest technology. We feel the opposite parties have committed no mistake by conducting blood tests and other tests to come to a right conclusion regarding disease of the patient.

13.              We feel as and when the patient was brought to the hospital, it was required to conduct certain blood investigations and other tests to find out what type of fever the patient was suffering. In case the opposite parties would not have got conducted blood tests and other tests, in that eventuality also in case of any mis-happening, the complainant would have blamed the opposite parties that they have shown carelessness and negligence regarding providing treatment to the patient. The complainant has not placed on the file any report in writing from the treating doctor of Asian Hospital, Faridabad with the observations that the blood investigation and other tests were conducted un-necessarily. The complainant-appellant did not produce any expert opinion to prove that the opposite parties have shown any carelessness or negligence on their part at the time of treatment of their daughter- Karshika. This fact also cannot be completely overlooked that as and when the patient is shifted to some other hospital, more particularly against the recommendations of the earlier treating doctor, there may be possibilities of finding fault in the treatment given by the earlier doctor to attract more and more patients in his hospital. Possibilities cannot be ruled out that treating doctors from Asian Hospital might have told orally to the complainant that blood tests etc were conducted un-necessarily. Moreover, it also appears to be strange that the complainant has grievance only against the opposite parties in whose hospital the complainant had to spent only an amount of Rs.6,000/- including blood investigation charges and emergency ward charges for a period of two days and appears to be satisfied with the treatment given by the doctors of Asian Hospital where Karshika remained admitted for a lesser period and the complainant had to spend an amount of Rs.20,000/-. If Karshika was perfectly alright and was not having any problem, certainly the doctors of Asian Hospital should not have advised the complainant to get the patient admitted in hospital. Moreover, it will be pertinent to mention here that Karshika was got admitted in the hospital of the opposite parties for treatment on October 06^th, 2015 where she remained under treatment up to October 07^th, 2015 and on that date she was shifted to Asian Hospital, Faridabad for treatment. There may be possibilities that improvement in the condition of the patient might have taken place due to treatment provided to her by the opposite parties. It is admitted fact that Karshika was suffering from fever when she was taken to hospital of the opposite parties and observation can be safely made that Karshika was not perfectly alright on the date of her admission in the hospital of the opposite parties.  

14.              As per discussions above, it does not appear to be a case of carelessness or negligence on the part of the opposite parties. It also does not appear to be a case of providing treatment to the patient un-necessarily and intentionally only to grab money from the complainant.  From the facts and circumstances of this case, it clearly appears that treatment was given to the patient by the opposite parties to the best of their skill and ability. Merely because the patient could not get relief, findings cannot be given that there was any carelessness or negligence on the part of the opposite parties.  

15.              What constitutes medical negligence, based on the touchstone of Bolam Vs. Friern Hospital Management Committee, (1957), 1 WLR, 582 (the Bolam’s test), is well settled through a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, including in Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (2005) 6 SCC 1, Indian Medical Association Vs. V.P. Shantha and Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 651 and Kusum Sharma & Ors. Vs. Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre & Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 480.

16.              A medical practitioner cannot be held liable simply because things went wrong from mischance or misadventure or through an error of judgment in choosing one reasonable course of treatment in preference of another. A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field. In Jacob Mathew’s case (supra), a three Judge Bench, elaborating on the degree of skill and care required of a medical practitioner quoted Halsbury’s Laws of England (4^th Edn., Vol.30, para35), as follows:-

“35.   The practitioner must bring to his task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge, and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence, judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case, is what the law requires, and a person is not liable in negligence because someone else of greater skill and knowledge would have prescribed different treatment or operation in a different way…”

17.              There is no doubt of any type in this regard that medical profession is a noble profession. People involved in the medical profession, more particularly the doctors command respect in our Society.  At the same time, expectations of the public persons are also much more from the doctors than the other institutions and sections of the Society. In fact, a doctor cannot give complete assurance and guarantee regarding treatment of a patient. A doctor can help a patient by providing him best possible medicines/treatment.  After all, a doctor is also a human being. Working of a doctor cannot be expected like a machine or a computer.

18.              As a result as per discussions above in detail, we feel that the impugned order dated September 06^th, 2016 passed by the learned District Forum is perfectly right and does not require any interference. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant-complainant stands dismissed. 

 

Announced 09.10.2017

Diwan Singh Chauhan Member

Balbir Singh Judicial Member

Nawab Singh President

 

CL