Haryana

StateCommission

A/1120/2015

SARVODYA HOSPITAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

GOPAL AGGARWAL - Opp.Party(s)

AMAN PAL

08 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.1120 of 2015

Date of the Institution: 24/28.12.2015

Date of Decision: 08.09.2016

 

1.      Sarvodya Hospital, Faridabad through its Medical Superintendent Shri Rajesh Gupta.

2.      Dr.Mrs.Anjali Gupta, Sarvodaya Hospital, Faridabad.

3.      Dr.Shalini Jain, Sarvodaya Hospital, Faridabad.

…..Appellants

Versus

1.      Gopal Aggarwal S/o Sh.Banbari Lal R/o near Gayatri Mandir Behind Bohra Public School, Chawla Colony, Ballabgarh, Distt.Faridabad.

…..Respondent

2.      M/s New India Assurance Company Ltd. 5R/2, Ist Floor, B.K.Chowk, NIT, Faridabad-121001.  (Insurance Co. of Dr.Shalini Jain, vide policy No.354000/36/07/00000064 valid for 25.02.2008 to 24.02.2009).

3.      M/s United India Insurance Company Ltd. P-19-20, Pandav Nagar, Delhi-110092, Insurance Company of Dr.AnjaliGupta vide policy No.221504/46/3500000179 valid from 01.03.2008 to 28.02.2009.

    …..Performa Respondents       

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mr.Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Neeraj Sheoran proxy counsel for Mr.Aman Pal, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr.Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.1.

                   Mr.Vinod Chaudhary, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

                   Mr.Munish Goel, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.3.

 

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          Complainant came for compensation due to death of his wife (Vandana) during the treatment. It was alleged that she was having pregnancy of six months.  At about 12.30 A.M. (during the night) of 31.05.2008 she was taken to Sarvodya Hospital i.e. O.P.No.1 due to abdominal pain.  It was told that baby in the  fetus was not having heart beat and emergency operation was required to save life.  Dr. Anjali Gupta aborted fetus and did not allow them to meet Vandana on the ground that she was in intensive-care-unit (ICU).  After 11 hours of operation, she was referred to higher centre to do the needful. It was told that  her condition was stable but further investigation was required.  He took her to Safdarjung Hospital New Delhi where the doctors tried their level best to save her life, but, could not succeed.  Ultimately she breathed her last at about 6.00 A.M. on 01.06.2008.  It was told by the doctors of Safdarjung Hospital that there was negligence on the part of doctors at Sarvodya Hospital. Vandana was kept at O.P.No.1 just to extract money whereas she should have been referred immediately to Safdarjung Hospital for better treatment.  Had it been done her life could have been saved.  The card of treatment and regular check-up record of Civil Hospital, Ballabgarh was handed over to the doctor at Sarvodya Hospital, but, it was intentionally mentioned that no ante-dated investigation/check-up records were available. Exact post operative position was also not mentioned in the discharge summary.    No qualified surgeon remained with patient after the operation.  O.P.No.1 charged Rs.26280/- from the complainant without giving proper treatment.  Death took place due to negligence on their part, so he be granted compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- alongwith interest as mentioned in the complaint.

2.      O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 filed reply controvering their averments and alleged that  Vandana was brought to hospital at about 2.00 A.M. (in the night) on 31.05.2008 having severe bleeding  with pain in abdomen having history of seven months pregnancy.  High risk of life of the patient was duly explained to attendants of the patient prior to admission and operation.  She was diagnosed as a case of Abruptio with severe pre-eclampsia with severe anemia with previous history of caesarian section. Dr.Anjali Gupta performed successful LSCS and as a result thereof pre-term still born female baby was extracted out. In ICU patient’s urine output remained to be less, FFP fluids for which blood was also arranged. The patient’s attendant failed to arrange more blood and was referred to higher centre. The patient was discharged from the hospital at 01.30 PM on 31.05.2008 (as mentioned in reply).  Thus there was no negligence in service on their part.

3.      O.P.No.4 filed separate reply and refuted the claim of the complainant and alleged that O.P.No.3 conducted as prescribed under medical jurisprudence and conventional methods. Objections about cause of action, locus standi, complaint as false and frivolous etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss complaint.

4.      O.P.No.5 filed separate reply and alleged that  O.P.No.2 obtained insurance policy which was valid from 29.02.2008 to 28.02.2009.  The complaint was not accompanied by expert evidence against o.p.no.2.  Other averments were also denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (In short “District forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated  19.10.2015 and directed as under:-

“xxxx Thus this forum is of the opinion that though no medical negligence has been established against opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 in the treatment of the complainant’s wife due to absence of any expert opinion but deficiency in service and carelessness stands proved against opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 for their failure to transfer the complainant with to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi with the required alacrity. Hence the complaint is allowed.  Opposite parties Nos.1 to 3 are directed to pay, jointly and severally, a lump sum compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- (six lakhs) to the complainant.”

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, opposite party Nos.1 to 3 have preferred this appeal.

7.      Arguments heard. File perused.

8.       Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that doctors at O.P.No.1 did not refer Vandana immediately and kept her just to inflate the bill.  Had she been referred to higher centre immediately her life could have been saved, so learned District forum rightly granted compensation as mentioned above. He placed his reliance upon opinion of  Hon’ble National Commission  expressed in revision petition No.946 of 2013 titled as Grewal Hospital Vs. Sher Singh decided on 11.11.2014.

9.      This argument is of no avail. Therze is no evidence on the file showing that there was any negligence on the part of the O.Ps and Doctors working with O.P.No.1.  Complainant has failed to point out any evidence on the basis of which it can be presumed that there was any laxity on their part. 

10.    It is alleged by O.Ps. that the complainant was told about situation of the patient and risks involved at that time, which is clear from the perusal of Annexure R-3. From the perusal of  Annexure R-3 it is clear that the complainant was informed about heavy bleeding and that condition of the patient was serious and there could be danger to her life.  After his consent the operation was performed.  So it cannot be presumed that there was  any negligence on their part.  After operation she was kept in ICU and lateron she was referred to Safdarjung Hospital.  It was no-where opined by the doctors of Safdarjung Hospital that  had she been referred immediately she could have been saved.   There is no opinion of any expert about any negligence on the part of the O.P.Nos.1 to 3. She was brought at O.P.No.1  at about 2.32 A.M.  and necessary action was taken at 03.15 A.M.  She was admitted at Safdarjung Hospital  at about 6.00 A.M.  It cannot be opined that she was kept unnecessarily at O.P.No.1 and there was delay in reference.  So it cannot be presumed that there was any failure on the part of the O.P.No.1 regarding transfer of patient to Safdarjung Hospital .  It has no-where come that due to this reason patient had died. Findings of learned District Forum qua this fact are not correct  and  liable to be set aside. Complainant cannot derive any benefit from the cited case law because that is based on altogether different facts. In that case hospital did not provide Ambulance to carry patient to other centre. There was specific allegation about this fact, whereas it is no where alleged in the present complaint that O.P.Nos.1 to 3   did not provide any ambulance. 11. As a sequel to above discussion, it is clear that impugned order dated  19.10.2015 cannot be sustained. Hence the same is hereby set aside, appeal is allowed and complaint is dismissed.

12.  The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-  deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

September 08th, 2016

Mr.Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.