DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.     The Petitioner filed this Revision Petition against the impugned order dated 24.04.2009 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT of Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’) passed in Appeal No.891 of 2008 whereby the State Commission dismissed the Appeal filed by the Petitioner with costs and affirmed the compensation awarded by the District Forum as just and fair.

2.     The brief facts are that on 17.04.2004 at about 4.30 P.M. Mr.Harsh Sudan (Since deceased here in referred to as ‘ Patient’) met with a road accident and suffered fracture to left leg(femur) and grievous injuries. He was immediately rushed to Civil Hospital at Dera Bassi and then admitted in the emergency at Govt. Medical College. He was treated under Ortho unit  from 17.04.2004 to 19.04.2004 headed by Dr. Raj Bahadur (OP-2).  He was put on traction. On 18.04.2004 the patient complained of chest pain and breathing problem, same was informed to the doctors on duty but they neglected it. At 2.00 a.m. in the night  it was reported to be ‘Fat Embolism’, but the patient was not given  treatment till next day up to 10.30 a.m. and just  continued with traction.  The patient’s condition became worse.  There was emergency need to put the patient on ventilator support but the treating doctors informed about non-availability of ventilator in the hospital. Therefore, immediately the parents shifted their son to INSCO hospital having ventilator facility, but, in spite of the best treatment, patient expired on 25.04.2004 at about 2:00 a.m.  The Complainants further alleged that the life of their son could have been saved if there was timely medical intervention done from the doctors by operating the patient immediately on 17.04.2004 and/or 18.04.2004. Being aggrieved, by the deficiency and negligence of OPs, the Complainants (Parents of the deceased) filed Consumer Complaint before the District Forum and prayed Rs.15 Lacs as Compensation, Rs.3.5 lacs towards cost of medical treatment and   Rs.22,000/- as cost of litigation.     

3.     The OPs in their reply denied negligence or any deficiency in treating the patient. It was submitted that, only 4 ventilators out of 19 were functioning. The remaining were defective. The 4 ventilators are in use for other critical patients.  

4.     The District Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh vide its order dated 24.04.2008 held the OPs negligent in providing medical services and allowed the complaint. It awarded compensation of Rs.10 lacs along with Rs.3,50,000/- towards medical expenses incurred and Rs.2,500/- as cost of litigation. The District Forum observed that not operating urgently and keeping the patient on traction till he was finally discharged from the hospital itself the deficiency in service. 

5.     Being aggrieved by the Order of the District Forum, the Opposite Party -Hospital filed Appeal No. 891/2008 before the State Commission. The Appeal was dismissed vide order dated 24.04.2009 with  cost of Rs.5,000/- The State Commission observed as below:

We find that there was glaring medical negligence and administrative deficiency in service on the part of OP hospital in providing medical care to the son of Respondents (Complainants). It is also unfortunate that in spite of availability of abundant medical literature on the subject confirming that in such cases immediate surgery was lifesaving procedure, the committee of doctors under Dr. R. Sen has tried to justify the delay in operating the patient even though admittedly basic parameters of the patient at the time of admission in the OP hospital were stable and he could have been easily operated at that time. Such an effect on the part of doctors only reinforces perception in the mind of general public that the doctors firstly do not come forward to give any expert opinion in the cases of medical negligence to prove the same and they only give views to cover up negligence on the part of doctors.

Based on the totality of circumstances of the case we agree with the view held by the Learned District Forum that no negligence can be attributed to OP No. 2 (Dr. Raj Bahadur) for the reason stated in the impugned order and as per law settled by Delhi State Commission in the case of S.C. Marhur & Ors vs. AIIMS and Ors – 2006(3) CLT-523.’

6.     Being aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the Petitioner/Opposite Party ‘Govt. Medical College & Hospital, Sector-32, Chandigarh’ preferred this Revision Petition. 

7.     Heard the arguments from the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. None present for the Respondents. Perused the material on record.

8.     The learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argued that the lower fora failed to appreciate that all the 4 working ventilators were preoccupied by the critically ill patients before the admission of the deceased. The petitioner was wrongly held negligent on the ground that 15 out of 19 ventilators were not put to use for patient care. The installation of the ventilator in a particular area requires time and technical manpower . from the Engineering Department. The fora below have not considered such practical difficulties while deciding the case.  No expert opinion or expert was examined and the complaint is not maintainable as INSCOL Hospital was not impleaded as a necessary party to the instant proceedings.

9. We have perused the death summery issued by the hospital, it is evident that the patient Harsh Sudan was taken to INSCOL hospital  when he had already developed fat embolism and was in need of ventilator support. The patient was discharged by OP-1 hospital when there was less chance of survival. Ignoring fat embolism amounts to grave deficiency in service. It was due to continuous suspended traction which could be avoided, if the surgery could have been done immediately. 

In our view, the District Forum correctly held that even though there were 19 ventilators available with the OP hospital only 4 of them were being put to use and the balance 15 were lying defective. However, it was clarified that, those ventilators were not defective but due to lack of infrastructure lying in the store.  We do not see any justification that a major government institution failed to deliver specialized care to the needy despite availability. In the instant case the critically ill patient had to be shifted to another hospital for want of ventilator support.  Thus, even though shifting the patient under those circumstances to another hospital having ventilator support was  correct, but yet it was a glaring administrative negligence on the part of OP hospital to keep 15 ventilators in store without being put to effective use and thus it was negligence of the OP hospital, which resulted in to loss of valuable young life.

10.    In the instant case, there are concurrent findings of fact and the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. Within the meaning and scope of section 21(b), we find no jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, as may necessitate interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction from this Commission.  We would like to rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd.[1].  Similarly, in the recent judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.’[2], it was held that the revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission is extremely limited by observing as under:-

“9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

11.    Based on the afore discussion and respectfully following the precedents of Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra) there is  no illegality in the Order of the State Commission and the District Forum.

The Revision Petition accordingly stands dismissed.