NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2407/2010

A.L. SEBASTIAN & ORS. - Complainant(s)

Versus

HOLY FAMILY HOSPITAL & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. WILLS MATHEWS

24 Sep 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 2407 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 16/04/2010 in Appeal No. 491/2005 of the State Commission Delhi)
1. A.L. SEBASTIAN & ORS.Residing at 35A, East Laxmi MarketDelhi - 110092Delhi2. HESSEL DENNIS, S/O. SHRI A.L. SEBASTIANResiding at 35A, East Laxmi MarketDelhi - 110092Delhi3. CASSIUS KELVING, S/O. SHRI A.L. SEBASTIANResiding at 35A, East Laxmi MarketDelhi - 110092Delhi4. HENSEL SEBASTIAN (MINOR)Residing at 35A, East Laxmi MarketDelhi - 110092Delhi ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. HOLY FAMILY HOSPITAL & ANR.Through Director/Medical Superintendent Okla RoadNew Delhi - 110025Delhi2. VIDYASAGAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL HEALTH AND NEURO SCIENCE, (VIMHANS)I-Institutional Area, Nehru NagarNew Delhi - 65Delhi ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 24 Sep 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

The complaint of the revision petitioner is in relation to the treatment of his wife who was taken to the Holy Family Hospital (HFH) on 2.09.2002 and died the next day in the Vidya Sagar Institute of Medical Health Neuro Sciences (VIMHANS), New Delhi. The complaint in this behalf has been filed by the husband and three children of Mrs Helen Sebastian against the above two Hospitals. Mrs. Sebastian was taken to the HFH in such a condition that after her general examination the Casualty Medical Officer and Registrar HFH recommended her admission to the hospital. As no bed was available, the patient was advised to be brought back the next morning. However, the same night, her condition became serious and she was rushed to the VIMHANS. She was treated in the ICU and died the next day. The District Consumer Forum came to a conclusion that there was no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the two respondents. In the appeal No.FA-491/05, the Delhi State Consumer Commission held that “the appellant could not prove their allegations regarding deficiency in service or that of medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties.” The State Commission accordingly, confirmed the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal of the complainants. In the revision petition before us, the following are the main grounds on which the revision petitioners have based their allegations of medical negligence and deficiency in service against the respondents:- 1) Refusing admission to a known heart patient, who needed immediate medical attention. 2) Not referring her to a cardiologist when she was known to be a heart patient. 3) Sending the patient back as “reserve” without recommending admission to another hospital. On the first ground the case of the complainants is that denying admission to a patient with serious medical complications like vomiting, chest pain and extremely low BP was indefensible. She was already under treatment of Dr. B.Agnihotri of HFH for Bronchial asthma since March 2002. On this issue, before the District Consumer Forum respondent HFH took the stand that the condition of the patient was stable. She was advised admission for the purpose of observation. Had she been critical, she would have been admitted even making her to lie down on the stretcher. On this point, the State Commission has rightly observed that the complainants could have summoned the records of the hospital or could have examined the VIMHANS doctor who allegedly told them that the condition of the patient deteriorated because of non-admission in HFH. This was not done. The second allegation is that non-referral to a cardiologist by the Registrar of HFH in itself constituted an act of medical negligence. It is apparently based on the averment in the Revision Petition that the report of the Registrar of the HFH and of the CT scan had suggested “right parietal cortical substance infarct, another infract in right caudate nucleus.” On this point we do not find that any evidence was produced or witnesses examined before the District Forum. Nor was this matter agitated before the State Commission. Another ground for revision is that the patient was sent back due to non-availability of bed, without recommending her admission to another hospital. The State Commission has observed that the complainants could not substantiate their allegations that the deceased was so critical on 2.9.2003 that she needed emergent hospitalization. Moreover in such an eventuality Petitioner No.1 himself could have taken his wife to another cardiologist or another hospital for admission and reference for the same is not required. They also could not produce any evidence to show that non admission of the deceased on 2.9.2003 led to the deterioration of her condition. In any case, non availability of beds in a hospital can neither be treated as medical negligence nor a deficiency in service. It has been held by this Commission in Sukumari Sahu and another V/s. Tata Memorial Hospital and others III (2006) 293 (NC) that mere non admission by the hospital when no vacant bed was available does not constitute medical negligence or deficiency in service. For the reasons discussed above, we do not find any grounds to interfere with the findings and order of the State Commission of Delhi in Appeal No. FA-491/05.


......................JR.K. BATTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................VINAY KUMARMEMBER