Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/941/2022

Mrs. Kavita - Complainant(s)

Versus

Government Multi Specialty Hospital - Opp.Party(s)

Deepak Aggarwal

09 Dec 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/941/2022
Date of Institution	:	23/11/2022
Date of Decision	:	9/12/2024

 

Mrs. Kavita mother of deceased Gurpreet Kaur, Resident of House No. 224 A, Sector 42 B, SBI Colony, Chandigarh.

...Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.   Government Multi Specialty Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh through its Director.

2. Ivy Hospital, Sector 71, Mohali through its Director.

3. Dr. Gurpreet Singh Babra, Department of Internal Medicine, Ivy Hospital, Sector 71, Mohali.

4. Dr. Chetan Goel, Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Ivy Hospital, Sector 71, Mohali.

5. Dr. Rajiv Dhunna, Department of Anaesthesia, Critical Care & Pain Management, Ivy Hospital, Sector 71, Mohali.

...Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for complainant.
	:	Sh. Sachin, ADA for OP No.1
	:	Sh. Inderdeep Singh, Advocate for OPs No. 2 to 5 (defence of OPs No. 2 to 5 struck off)

Per SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, Member

     Briefly stated the on 19.12.2021 due to diarrhea for three days the daughter of the complainant Ms. Gupreet Kaur was taken to GMSH, Sector 16, Chandigarh i.e. OP No.1  where the doctors after clinical check up and in a rash manner without making any diagnosis or advising any blood tests and investigation simply prescribed some medicine  and  did not admit the daughter of the complainant and even did not refer to any hospital.  Thereafter the complainant took her daughter to OP No.2 hospital on 20.12.2021  where OP No. 3 doctor at 9:30 A.M. recorded that patient Ms. Gurpreet Kaur had complaints of loose motions, vomiting's, slurred speech, toxic look respiratory effort-shallow, care of tachycardia and tachypnea. After observing the above said, OP No. 3, recommended various blood tests including random lipids, thyroid profile, covid by RTPCR, chest x-ray, dengue serology. Further recommended her admission to ICU with central line cannulation. It is alleged that deceased Ms. Gurpreet Kaur had no complaints of dysnea/respiratory effort shallow as stated and recorded by Op No.3, doctors. The OP No. 2, Hospital including its treating doctors in complete contrast to above, at triage area on examination recorded the history of the complainant/chief complaints as loose motions for 3-4 days. Further care of vomiting. Further decreased power in all limbs including slurred speech. It was further observed that Ms. Gurpreet Kaur has no history of any chronic disease. Further on primary survey all the criteria's of Ms. Gurpreet Kaur were shown to be proper and active. It is alleged that whatever record has been prepared by OP No. 3 doctors at 9:30 A.M. was incorrect and manipulated. It is stated that Ms. Gurpreet Kaur at 10:00 A.M on 20.12.2021 was having no fever, her pain score was zero, further respiratory rate was proper, further BP including pulse did not showed that the condition of Ms. Gurpreet Kaur was life threatening. She was not having hypoxia or difficulty in breathing in view of oxygen saturation levels at 98% F. Even the discharge planning form which was prepared by doctors of Op No. 2 hospital did not anticipated any requirement of medical equipment at home including oxygen therapy at home on discharge. It is further stated that on 20.12.2021, Ms. Gurpreet Kaur came walking all the way from parking area to the triage area of the hospital. In the above circumstances, it cannot be said that her condition was life threatening or had poor prognosis. The treating doctors of OP No. 2, hospital at 11:00 A.M., only includes injection pantocid 40 mg IV stat, injection emeset IV stat further IV fluid normal saline 100 ml per litre and recommended stay for 2-3 days with soft diet. In a utmost rash and negligent manner on the recommendations of Op no. 3, Ms. Gurpreet Kaur was shifted from triage to respiratory intensive care unit at 12:00 noon on 20.12.2021. At 12:00 noon doctors in OP No. 1, hospital now after receiving Ms. Gurpreet Kaur made diagnosis of acute gastro-enteritis with hypoklaemia. On receiving Ms. Gurpreet Kaur at RICU, the vitals reads as BP 130/90, patient conscious and oriented and was maintaining oxygen saturation at 98%. Further as per blood reports HB of Ms. Gurpreet Kaur was 15.5. On 20.12.2021, at around 1:00 P.M history of the Ms. Gurpreet Kaur was once again taken by attending doctors and after taking history the injection IV Vitamin K 10 mg in 10 ml normal saline stat were advised. Further tablet Rifagut was advised TDS. Further KCI infusion fluid including central line. Further it was once again advised test of dengue serology which was not yet conducted despite of the same been recommended by OP No. 3 as per records at 9:30 A.M on 20.12.2021. Thereafter, Ms. Gurpreet Kaur was prepared for central line insertion by OP No. 4, doctor, i.e. Chetan Goel, department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care. OP No. 4 in most rash and negligent manner and without taking proper consent and explaining about the consequences of the procedure tried many times in utmost rash and negligent manner for insertion of central line but was unsuccessful and while carrying out the procedure Ms. Gurpreet Kaur went into shock. Due to lots of loss of blood due to unsuccessful attempts in inserting triple limen catheter there was pool of blood all around on the gown of Ms. Gurpreet Kaur as well as on the entire bed sheet. At this juncture OP No. 4, doctor got panic and called mother of Ms. Gurpreet Kaur i.e. the present complainant and told her that Ms. Gurpreet Kaur had poor peripheral access and due to which OP No. 4, is unable to insert CVP Line. At this juncture complainant reached ICU Ward and witnessed that Ms. Gurpreet Kaur was lying in pool of blood all around and her daughter was screaming for help and saying these people will kill me. Further she told complainant that please take her for a walk and give her Khicdi but OP No. 4, told that there was nothing to worry.  It is alleged that once OP No. 3 i.e. doctor Gurpreet Singh Babra suspected dengue on receipt of patient at triage area at 9:30 A.M., OP No. 4 doctor should have inserted the central line under SDAP Cover at least apart from taking other precautions but he was seriously remiss in his duties and negligent in his duties. After insertion of central line after serval attempts as mentioned above and that too not successfully achieved as ultimately it transpired that it was coiled in internal jugular and due to which fluid started to collect in the same and due to which she had difficulty in breathing for the first time. Further at around 4:20 P.M., on 20.12.2021, dengue NSI antigen, provisional report had come and was stated to be provisionally positive and platelet count at that point of time was 72000. In the said circumstances, Ms. Gurpreet Kaur was now shifted to intensive care unit, hereinafter referred to as ICU at around 5:35 P.M on 20.12.2021. Once again history of the patient was taken by the attending doctors at around 7:30 P.M., now in ICU on recommendations of OP No. 3, despite of Ms. Gurpreet Kaur having no temperature.  Thereafter deceased Ms. Gurpreet Kaur was shifted to the ICU at 5:30 P.M. on 20.12.2021 on the pretext of stabilizing her condition. OP No. 5 who was In-charge of ICU, informed the complainant that the shifting to the ICU was temporary and that she would be shifted back to the ward in around 12 hours. Further at around 10 P.M. on 21.12.2021 it transpired to the treating doctors that the central line which was inserted on 20.12.2021 at about 2:00 PM was coiled in internal jugular and due to which patient had difficulty in breathing due to collection of the fluid. In the circumstances, triple lumen catheter was withdrawn and again inserted. Op No. 4 was playing with the life of Ms. Gurpreet Kaur. Due to above patient went into deep shock and at this juncture treating doctors told mother of Late Ms. Gurpreet Kaur for intubation and mechanical ventilation. Thereafter, patient was put on mechanical ventilation as due to act and conduct of treating docotrs she was not maintaining oxygen saturation levels due to wrong insertion of central line and collection of fluid and ultimately she was declared dead at 9:00 A.M on 22.12.2021.  Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2. The Opposite Parties NO.1 in its reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that on 19.12.2021 at about 2:07 PM, patient namely Ms. Gurpreet Kaur, D/o Sh. Raj Kapoor aged 19 years old female came to the Emergency Department, Govt. Multi Specialty Hospital, Sector-16, Chandigarh with the history of Diarrhea and admitted by issuing OPD Card No. 20210412050. The patient was examined by the Emergency Medical Officer and initial treatment with Iv fluids was given to the patient. Thereafter, she was further examined by the Doctor of Medicine Department who started treatment accordingly and during the treatment, Aciloc, Injection Buscopan, Iv fluid, Tab. Leedot have been given to her. It is further submitted that during the treatment, she remained in Emergency Department till 08:10 P.M. and the condition of the patient was stable and further oral medication i.e. T. Ciplox TL, T. PAN 40 mg, T. SPOROLAC, ORS 200ML/per loose stool was prescribed to the patient by the doctors. Thereafter, she was advised to follow up the further treatment in medical OPD. But she did not follow further treatment in GMSH-16 and she never visited again in GMSH-16, Chandigarh. It is averred that proper treatment was given to her after examination by the concerned doctor with due care and caution and there is no question of any negligence on the part of doctors of answering opposite party. All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3. Since the OPs No. 2 to 5 have failed to file the written reply within the stipulated period of 45 days hence, the defence of the Ops No. 2 to 5 was struck off vide order dated 17.9.2024.  
4. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. The main grievance of the complainant is that her daughter (now deceased) had problem of diarrhea for the last 3 days  and was taken to emergency of
   GMSH, Sector 16 i.e. OP No.1  but the doctors did not made any diagnosis and after prescribing some medicine did not admit her daughter and even did not refer to any hospital.  Whereas the allegation against OP No.2 to 5  is that they did not take due care of her deceased daughter and her case was mishandled  throughout  and due to continue negligence of all the OPs the daughter of the complainant died.
8. We have perused the reply of OP No.1 and have gone through the entire record thoroughly. It is observed that the patient was admitted in the emergency of OP No.1. The doctor in protocol  gave symptomatic treatment and once the condition of the patient had become stable  then only she was advised to follow up  in the hospital OPD for further treatment, where  she did not visit.  Since the hospital’s  doctors had taken due care of the patient hence, the  complaint qua OP o.1 is dismissed.
9. It has come on record that when the patient came to OP No.2 hospital she was very sick and critical and her condition  was gradually worsening. On perusal of the reports annexed by OP No. 2 to 5, it is observed that the hospital of OPs No. 2 to 5  are well equipped to handle any type of emergency  and the doctors are also well qualified to handle and take care of the patient.
10. We have also gone through the report of technical/expert opinion dated 28.3.2022 annexed by OP No.2  as Annexure OP-2/2 which was submitted on 29.3.2022. As per opinion of the Committee treatment protocols were followed as per prescribed norm.
11. Needless to mention here that the OPs have attempted to treat their patient to the best of their ability. Therefore, we do not find that OP No.2 Hospital and its well qualified and experienced doctors guilty of any negligence, much less medical negligence.
12.  We are supported by the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Dr. Harish Kumar  Khurana Vs. Joginder Singh  &  Ors., Civil   Appeal   No. 7380  of  2009  decided  on 07.09.2021. Relevant part of the said order is reproduced hereunder:-

 “….To indicate negligence there should be material available on record or else appropriate medical evidence should be tendered. The negligence alleged should be so glaring, in which event the principle of res ipsa loquitur could be made applicable and not based on perception. In the instant case, apart from the allegations made by the claimants before the NCDRC both in the complaint and in the affidavit filed in the proceedings, there is no other medical evidence tendered by the complainant to indicate negligence on the part of the doctors who, on their own behalf had explained their position relating to the medical process in their affidavit to explain there was no negligence ….”

14.      Here we may also like to refer case titled as Dr.Laxman Balkrishna Joshi vs. Dr.Trimbark Babu Godbole and Anr., AIR 1969 SC 128 and A.S.Mittal v. State of U.P., AIR 1989 SC 1570, wherein, it was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that when a doctor is consulted by a patient, the doctor owes to his patient certain duties which are: (a) duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case, (b) duty of care in deciding what treatment to give, and (c) duty of care in the administration of that treatment. A breach of any of the above duties may give a cause of action for negligence and the patient may on that basis recover damages from his doctor. In the aforementioned case, the apex court interalia observed that negligence has many manifestations – it may be active negligence, collateral negligence, comparative negligence, concurrent negligence, continued negligence, criminal negligence, gross negligence, hazardous negligence, active and passive negligence, willful or reckless negligence, or negligence per se. Black's Law Dictionary defines negligence per se as “conduct, whether of action or omission, which may be declared and treated as negligence without any argument or proof as to the particular surrounding circumstances, either because it is in violation of statute or valid Municipal ordinance or because it is so palpably opposed to the dictates of common prudence that it can be said without hesitation or doubt that no careful person would have been guilty of it. As a general rule, the violation of a public duty, enjoined by law for the protection of person or property, so constitutes.” Thus, it has been made clear by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that a doctor owes to his patient certain duties of care in deciding whether to undertake the case and duty of care in the administration of that treatment and any breach thereof may give a cause of action for negligence and the patient may on that basis recover damages from his doctor. In the present case, the OPs did not fail in their duties to take due care of the Complainant.
15.  In these set of circumstances, it can safely be concluded that there has been no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and the whole gamut of facts and circumstances leans towards the side of the OPs. The case is lame of strength and therefore, liable to be dismissed.
16.     Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant has failed to prove that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. As such, the Complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

13. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
14.   Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			[Pawanjit Singh]
			President
9/12/2024			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member