BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.416 of 2014
Date of institution: 09.06.2014
Date of Decision: 07.09.2016
Mohinder Pal Sharma son of Satpal Sharma, resident of House No.3251, Sector 71, Mohali.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. Healthcare at Home Pvt. Ltd., First Floor, Sector 37, Link Road, Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi 110024 through its Directors.
2nd Address
Branch Office SCO 79, 2nd Floor, Phase-XI, Mohali.
2. Dr. Deepti Arora (Business Development).
3. Savita Sharma (Superintendent of Nursing).
4. Gurpreet Kaur (Nurse)
5. Gaganpreet Kaur (Nurse)
All c/o Healthcare At Home, SCO 79, 2nd Floor, Phase-XI, Mohali.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Presiding Member.
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Shri Sandeep Bhardwaj, counsel for the complainant.
Shri Munish Kapila, counsel for the OPs.
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Presiding Member)
ORDER
The complainant filed the present complaint pleading that his father namely Shri Satpal Sharma, aged 77 years, was being treated at Fortis Hospital, Mohali for his ailment of heart cervical and respiratory problems since the year 2011. The O.Ps came into the contact of the complainant in Fortis Hospital on 26.02.2014 and assured him that their company is providing the medical facilities/services of their expert medical staff to the patients at home upto their satisfaction. As per their assurance, the complainant availed the services of the O.Ps to look after his ailing father at home and provide the medical aid as prescribed by the doctors of Fortis Hospital. The O.P. No.1 through O.P. No.2 to 4 started providing their services to the father of the complainant and he paid the amount as demanded by the O.Ps. On 03.04.2014 the condition of the father became critical for which the father of the complainant was to be admitted in Fortis Hospital, for which the O.Ps has to provide ambulance and doctors for emergency as assured by the company but the same were not provided by the O.Ps. After discharge from the Fortis Hospital, Dr. Deepti Arora and Savita Sharma gave assurance to the complainant that the same will not happen in future and they will provide medical aids and upon the assurance of the O.Ps, the complainant continued their services and also paid them as per their demand.
On 08.05.2014, in the morning, the attendant/nurse namely Gurpreet Kaur, who was taking care of the father of the complainant, when changed the catheter then wrongly inserted it, as she was not experienced holder, due to which urine could not pass for the whole day and when Gaganpreet Kaur take the charge from Gurpreet Kaur then on checking she found that no urine was passed for whole day. When she removed the catheter, which was wrongly inserted in urine bladder, due to which blood, in heavy flow, in urine started coming after changing the catheter and the condition of the complainant’s father became critical due to their medical negligence. On seeing this, the O.P.No.4 Gurpreet Kaur and her associates got panic and left the spot without intimating the complainant or any other family member, instead of giving emergency medical aid to the patient as assured by officials of O.P. company. Complainant immediately took his father to Fortis Hospital at 23.07 on 08.05.2014 and the health of complainant’s father became very serious. At that time, the doctor on duty in Fortis Hospital disclosed the complainant that if there occurred some delay in admitting the patient, then he would have died due to heavy blood loss and internal injuries caused due to inexperienced staff provided by the O.Ps. The father of the complainant was treated in Fortis Hospital upto 10.05.2014. After discharge of complainant’s father, he again contacted the O.Ps for their negligence and intentionally avoiding the services and cheating the complainant for not providing sufficient service as assured by them inspite of receiving the huge amount from the complainant. Moreover, they have left the patient at that time when he was in dire needs of medical aid of their expert doctors and their staff. Moreover, they have not informed the complainant about the ill condition of the patient which occurred due to their negligence. The father of the complainant suffered physically very badly due to negligence and careless attitude of the staff on duty who did not take care of complainant’s father who was in a critical condition. The complainant filed a complaint against the O.Ps to SSP, Mohali which is under investigation. The complainant has suffered huge financial loss as well as mental and physical harassment due to medical negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of O.Ps. So the O.Ps are liable to pay compensation to the complainant for the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for actual financial loss, medical expenses, mental agony and physical harassment besides expenses of litigation of Rs.20,000/-.
2. After service of notice, the Opposite Parties filed written version taking preliminary objections that this complaint has been maliciously filed by the complainant; O.P. No.1 provides specialized services to patients through its staff including qualified nurses at home; round the clock nursing care was provided by the OPs to the father of the complainant; patient Satpal Sharma’s initial assessment was carried out by Specialist Nurse Anubhav George. After assessment, Opposite Party No.1 provided services as Critical Care Package which started from 26.02.2014 till 05.08.2014. On 03.04.2014 at 12 P.M. the oxygen saturation of the father of the complainant decreased to 44% and it was immediately brought to the notice of attendant of the patient and in order to avoid loss of time, he was given necessary first aid and shifted to Hospital in the car of the complainant. On the way to hospital, the patient was given mouth to mouth respiration to save his life due to which the saturation improved to 71% when the patient reached the hospital. From 26.02.2014 to 03.04.2014 the OPs never received any complaint from the complainant. The services provided by the staff of OP No.1 were highly appreciated by the attendants of the patient. Had there been any complaint, the complainant would not have got the contract renewed. Neither the complainant nor any of his family members raised any request for ambulance at the time of emergency. Catheter care was provided to the patient at regular intervals to prevent complications.
On 08.05.2014 Ms. Gurpreet Kaur, Staff Nurse changed the catheter taking all aseptic precautions. The catheter was fully inserted, clear urine outflow was noted, balloon inflated and catheter secured. Post catheterization the vitals were normal and the patient was pain free and there was no bleeding from the catheter site. The patient was handed over to Opposite Party No.5, Gagandeep Kaur (who was wrongly mentioned as Gaganpreet Kaur in the array of parties) and she noticed inadequate urine output and called Devreet (male nurse) who on arrival inspected catheter and found it in situ with no evidence of bleeding. During the course of checking urine came out which was tinged with blood. The clinical head advised that the patient should be taken to hospital. The patient was taken to Fortis Hospital, Mohali in complainant’s car. In the hospital, bleeding stopped on its own in few minutes. The very fact that the patient was not shifted to ICU of hospital and discharged within 2 days of admission clearly shows that the patient’s condition was not life threatening as being projected by the complainant.
On merits also, the opposite parties denied all the allegations made against them and lastly prayed for the dismissal of complaint with exemplary costs.
3. Evidence of the complainant consists of his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1; affidavit of Anubhav George Ex.C-24 and copies of documents Ex.C-1 to C-23A.
4. Evidence of the Opposite Parties consist affidavit of Pardeep Sharma, their Unit Head Ex.OP-1/1; affidavit of Ms. Savita Sharma, Ex.OP-13 and affidavit of Ms. Deepti Ex.OP-14 and copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to OP-12.
5. We have heard the arguments and also gone through the file of the case.
6. It is an admitted fact that complainant has availed services of Opposite Party No.1 for the benefit of his father for consideration, so it can safely be concluded that complainant is consumer of Opposite Party No.1. The O.Ps took objection that District Consumer Forum, SAS Nagar (Mohali) does not have territorial jurisdiction as per agreement which is Ex.OP-2. Only courts of New Delhi has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties. This objection is not sustainable because it is settled principle of law that consent of parties does not create jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is a creation of law. As the O.Ps carrying on business and cause of action arose to the complainant against the O.Ps within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum so this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate on the present consumer dispute as envisaged in Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date).
The complainant alleged that the representatives of O.P. No.1 assured that their company is providing all medical facilities/services of their expert medical staff to the patients at home upto their satisfaction and as per the advice of doctor as their company has expert medical staff but failed to provide same when his father was in dire need of it during emergency on 08.05.2014 created due to negligence of attendant/nurse Gurpreet Kaur, who was taking care of the patient, wrongly inserted the catheter in urine bladder of the patient as she was not experience holder, due to which urine could not pass for whole day and when Gaganpreet Kaur (Gagandeep Kaur) took charge from Gurpreet Kaur and on checking found that no urine was passed for whole day, then she removed the catheter which was wrongly inserted in urine bladder, due to which blood, in heavy flow, alongwith urine started coming after changing the catheter and the condition of the complainant’s father became critical due to their medical negligence. Gurpreet Kaur and her associates got panic and left the spot without intimating the complainant or any other family member, instead of giving emergency medical aid to the patient. Complainant immediately took his father to the Fortis Hospital at 23.07 on 08.05.2014 and the health of complainant’s father became very serious.
O.Ps in Para No.7 of their reply stated that in evening of 08.05.2014 Opposite Party No.4 Staff Nurse was on duty and she changed the catheter as a routine care procedure taking all aseptic precautions. Catheter was fully inserted, clear urine outflow was noted, balloon inflated and catheter secured. Post catheterization the vitals were normal and the patient was pain free and there was no bleeding from the catheter site. This clearly shows that the procedure was performed as per best practice guidelines. The patient was handed over to Opposite Party No.5 Gagandeep Kaur at around 8.30 P.M. in a stable condition. After resuming her duty and evaluating the patient for an hour or so Gagandeep Kaur noted inadequate urine output. She informed Savita Sharma (who is the Clinical Head) and called Davreet (male nurse) for further management. Devreet on arrival inspected the catheter and found it in situ with no evidence of bleeding. The catheter was checked as a general practice and during the course of checking urine came out which was tinged with blood. This observation was again escalated to the Clinical Head who further advised that the patient should be taken to hospital in view of his past medical condition. The same was conveyed to the family who started harassing and abusing them and threatening the staff of O.P. No.1 with dire consequences and illegal confinement instead of appreciating their promptness and proactive behavior. However, on persuasion of Devreet and Gagandeep Kaur, the patient was taken to Fortis Hospital, Mohali in the complainant’s car and both Gagandeep Kaur and Devreet accompanied them. On reaching the hospital, the history of the patient was given by the accompanying nurses to the resident doctor on duty. In the hospital, the bleeding stopped in its own in a few minutes. The nurses of Opposite Party including Gurpreet Kaur, Gagandeep Kaur and Devreet were qualified and trained nurses.
So the allegations of the complainant were that on 08.05.2014 in the morning attendant Nurse Gurpreet Kaur, when changed the catheter of patient, wrongly inserted it in urine baldder due to which urine could not pass for whole day and when Gagandeep Kaur, on checking that no urine was passed for whole day, removed the catheter which was wrongly inserted in urine bladder due to which blood, in heavy flow, started coming alongwith urine and the condition of patient became critical due to their medical negligence whereas the O.Ps denied it stated that post catheterization the vitals were normal and the patient was pain free and there was no bleeding from the catheter side. Gagandeep Kaur noticed inadequate urine output and called Devreet (male nurse) for further management. Devreet on arrival inspected the catheter and found it in situ with no evidence of bleeding. The catheter was checked as a general practice and during the course of checking urine came out which was tinged with blood. Thus in simple words, complainant alleged that patient was taken to Fortis Hospital in emergency in serious condition while bleeding which was caused by negligence and carelessness of attendant/nurse due to wrong insertion of catheter in urine bladder of the patient. The O.Ps claim that post catheterization was normal and pain free and there was no bleeding from the catheter site. The catheter was checked as a general practice and during the course of checking urine came out which was tinged with blood. This observation was again escalated to the Clinical Head who further advised that the patient should be taken to hospital in view of his past medical condition.
Now the main question arises whether patient was taken to hospital in a bleeding condition caused by attendant/nurse while inserting catheter in urine bladder as alleged by the complainant or with a view of his post medical condition without any evidence of bleeding as submitted by the O.Ps. To find answer to this question, we perused record of Fortis Hospital as it is well said that person may tell lie but the chain of facts and circumstances don’t tell lie. The discharge summary dated 10.08.2014 of Department of Urology of Fortis Hospital, Mohali which is Ex.3 states that the present illness of patient that patient presented with history of blood in urine after changing the catheter on 09.05.2014. Further title course in the hospital states that patient present with history of blood in urine due to traumatic urethral injury post catheterization. All routine investigations were done and patient was managed with intravenous fluids, antibiotics, analgesics and other supportive treatment. Urinary bladder irrigation was started till urine becomes clear. Dr. J.P. Singhvi’s consultation was taken in view of Cervical Myelopathy. No Haematuria’s at present. Patient is now discharged in stable condition with flowing advice.
So the discharge summary which is Ex.C-3 clearly proves that patient presented with history of blood in urine due to traumatic urethral injury post catheterization. It removes all the doubts and fully support the version of the complainant that bleeding was caused due to wrong insertion of catheter in urine bladder of patient by negligence and carelessness of attendant nurses of O.P. No.1. It not only support version of complainant but also falsify the concocted story of the O.Ps that patient was not bleeding and admitted in hospital due to his post medical condition.
It has been specifically mentioned by the Fortis Hospital while treating the patient that patient presented with the history of blood in urine due to traumatic urethral injury post catheterization as such the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor is fully applicable in the present case as the facts prove the complaint itself. The complainant has discharged his burden of proof sufficiently to the extent of probabilities of possibilities. The O.Ps failed to rebut this evidence (Ex.C-3) of complainant in any manner.
The counsel for the O.Ps during arguments heavily relied upon literature of Urethral Catheterization in Men which is Ex.OP-10 that mention post procedure complications include bleeding. This defence is of no use to the O.Ps because the O.Ps have specifically denied in their reply that patient suffered from bleeding on 08.05.2014 and, therefore, patient was taken to the Fortis Hospital, Mohali on account of his bleeding which is caused due to post catheterization and the O.Ps took specific stand that patient was taken to hospital in view of his post medical condition without any evidence of bleeding. The O.Ps have specifically mentioned in sub para No. (viii) of Para No.1 of preliminary objections of their written version that Devreet on arrival inspected the catheter and found it in situ with no evidence of bleeding and during the course of checking urine came out which was tinged with blood and patient was taken to hospital in view of his post medical condition. Thus, the O.Ps took specific stand that patient was taken to hospital with a view of his post medical condition.
Therefore, the O.Ps now cannot take U turn and say that bleeding is caused due to post procedure complications. If O.Ps want to take this stand then they should have fairly admitted that patient was bleeding due to post procedure complications and he was taken to the hospital for its treatment while he was bleeding. Thereafter, the O.Ps should have discharged their burden of proof that bleeding occurred due to post procedure complications without any negligence on the part of attendant nurses of O.P. No.1. The O.Ps failed to file their reply to this effect and further there is nothing on record that proves that bleeding occurred due post procedure complications.
Further Authorization Certificate which is Ex.OP-1 reveals that Mr. Pradeep Sharma and Mr. Sinu Abraham officials are authorised to represent the company in the courts of Chandigarh. Thouugh technically this authorization certificate does not authorise them to represent them within territory of Mohali in the eyes of law yet this technically is ignored in the interest of justice.
Further Diploma Certificate in General Nursing and Midwifery of Mrs. Gagandeep Kaur Mundi d/o Sh. Balbir Singh which is Ex.OP-5 does not bear the signatures of the concerned President on the certificate. In the absence of signatures of President on certificate, it cannot be said that it is a valid Diploma Certificate in the eyes of law.
Further Healthcare at Home India Catheterization Literature which is Ex.OP-7 states that ideally a male nurse should catheterize a male patient and a female nurse for a female patient. However, if it is not possible due to resources, then a nurse of the opposite sex can perform the procedure if trained and competent. In the present case though Devreet, Male Nurse is available yet O.P. No.1 employed female nurses to catheterize a male patient which is also a deficiency in service as O.P. No.1 despite availability of Male Nurse employed female nurse to catheterize male patient and further claims to provide specialized services of care at home.
Anubhav George, Specialist Nurse also filed his affidavit which is Ex.C-24 in favour of the complainant and against the O.Ps stating that he joined as Specialist Nurse with Healthcare at Home Pvt. Ltd. in November, 2013 and worked till July, 2014. He provided services to look after complainant’s father as a specialist nurse. He further stated that on 08.05.2014, Gurpreet Kaur Nurse and Gagandeep Kaur Nurse changed the catheter without his instructions and supervision, which proved fatal to the patient due to negligence and carelessness of the O.Ps. The treatment was given by the nurses negligently without knowledge and his instructions. The O.Ps opposed affidavit of Anubhav George, whereas they admitted him as their specialist Nurse employee in sub parar No.(iii) of para No.1 of preliminary objections of the written version to the complaint, on the ground, that it is a hearsay evidence as he was not present there. This affidavit of Anubhav George, Specialist Male Nurse, which is Ex.C-24 is a hearsay evidence as far as other facts are concerned but it prove his absence and the fact that proves that attendant/nurses conducted treatment without his supervision and instructions as he was not present there. O.Ps failed to lead any evidence that in the absence of specialist Male Nurse namely Anubhav George, which another specialist male nurse was present at the time of treatment. It is also admitted by reply of the O.Ps that another male nurse namely Devreet also came later when patient was taken to the hospital by the complainant. So both nurses, one of them namely Gurpreet Kaur Mundi d/o Balbir Singh without holding a valid Diploma in the eyes of law as the Diploma Certificate which is Ex.OP-5 does not bear signatures of President provided treatment of catheterization without male specialist nurse. It not only amounts to deficiency in service but also medical negligence as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. O.Ps cross examined complainant and witness Anubhav George by way of interrogatories but nothing material is exchanged from them which is against the contents of complaint.
Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-13 and Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-14 are receipts/invoice bills which proves that complainant has paid huge amount of more than Rs. Eight lacs and Fifty thousand (including Rs.58,000/- which the O.Ps withdrawn from the account of complainant through cheque) to the O.Ps for availing specialized/critical care services of the O.Ps which the O.Ps not only failed to provide but also guilty of medical negligence for causing traumatic urethral injury post catheterization which ultimately proved fatal to the patient. Patient’s slip of Fortis Hospital, Mohali which are Ex.C-15 to Ex.C-22 proves that patient is being mainly treated for the complications occurred due to traumatic urethral injury post catheterization on 08.05.2014 besides other ailments. Besides above mentioned, huge payments to O.Ps complainant might have spent lacs of rupees for treatment of his father in Fortis Hospital. Unfortunately he has not placed on record bills and invoices of those expenditure.
7. Therefore, in view of above mentioned findings the O.P. No.1 is held not only deficient in services in providing medical care services to the patient but also guilty of medical negligence and O.P. No.1 is directed to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs. Ten lacs only to the complainant within 45 days failing which O.P. will be liable to pay 9% p.a. interest on the above mentioned amount.
The arguments on the complaint were concluded on 26.08.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
September 07, 2016.
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Presiding Member
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
