PER VINEETA RAI, MEMBER 1. This first appeal has been filed by Smt. Saroj Diksha (Appellant No.1), widow of Late Dr. Prashant Kumar Vedalankar (hereinafter referred to as the Patient) and their children (Appellants No.2 and 3) and original complainants before the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) being aggrieved by the order of that Commission which had dismissed their complaint of deficiency in service against International Airports Authority of India and others (Respondents herein). 2. In her complaint before the State Commission, Appellant No.1 contended that her late husband alongwith a group of about 100 persons was to travel by Air India Flight No. AI-112 on 01.12.1993 to participate in the Fourth World Hindi Conference at Mauritius between 2nd to 4th of December, 1993. Appellant No.1 accompanied her husband alongwith some relatives to see him off at the Airport. After checking in and near the immigration counter, the Patient fell down on the floor gasping for breath and a doctor arrived after 15 minutes and after examining the Patient administered two injections and also directed for an ambulance and stretcher to take him for further treatment to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi. Appellant No.1 and some relatives accompanied the Patient in the ambulance alongwith a Medical Assistant. However, when the attendant in the ambulance wanted to administer oxygen to the Patient, he could not do so because there was no oxygen in the cylinder. The attendant, therefore, tried to give him oral resuscitation, which was not effective. On arrival at the AIIMS, the Patient was examined by doctor and after 15 minutes he was declared dead. According to Appellant No.1, her husband’s premature death occurred because of the negligence on the part of Respondents, who did not ensure that the required medical facilities are available to the passengers and visitors. Therefore, alleging that the Respondents were jointly and severally liable for the death of the Patient due to their negligence and deficiency in service, Appellants filed a complaint before the State Commission and requested that she be given a compensation of Rs.13,10,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing the complaint as also cost and damages of Rs.50,000/-. It was specifically stated that her husband was drawing a consolidated salary of Rs.10,902/- as also other perquisites, as indicated in the salary certificate placed before the State Commission. 3. The allegations of the Appellants were denied by the Respondents. It was contended that on receipt of information that a passenger had fallen on the ground, the Medical Officer on duty alongwith a Medical Assistant fully equipped with a first aid kid rushed to the site within 2 to 3 minutes and on examination of the Patient it was noted that neither his blood pressure nor pulse was recordable. Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation, which was already being given to the Patient by co-passengers, was continued by the Medical Officer with the help of a Medical Assistant for about 15 minutes. In between, two life-saving injections were also administered and though the Patient was clinically dead, on the insistence of the Patient’s relatives, it was decided to shift him to AIIMS. An ambulance was immediately summoned by the Respondent (Airports Authority of India) and the Patient was taken to AIIMS in the ambulance accompanied by a qualified Medical Assistant. It is not correct that the oxygen cylinder was empty and even in the ambulance all efforts were made through oral resuscitation to revive the Patient. The Patient was declared dead at AIIMS although, as stated earlier, he was clinically dead by the time the Medical Officer had attended to him within minutes of his having fallen down near the immigration counter. In view of the above facts, there was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of Respondents. 4. The State Commission after hearing the parties and on the basis of evidence produced before it held only Respondent No.1 i.e. International Airport Authority of India deficient in service on administrative grounds and not for any medical negligence and directed that Respondent No.1 should pay Appellant No.1 compensation of Rs.25,000/- for deficiency in service alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost within two weeks. The relevant part of the order of State Commission is reproduced here. “29. In our view the IAAI was deficient in service in not maintaining the requisite standard and nature of performance of their duty unto the consumers but at the same time we cannot be oblivious to the fact that OP No.1 had provided available medical aid immediately. The Doctor gave facilities available at the Airport and though they may be sufficient for attending to minor ailments or minor suffering of the consumers but are not at all commensurate with the medical requirement of consumers like the deceased. 30. High sounding name of OP No.1/IAAI is not upto the mark of services which it should provide. We hope that the Airport Authorities will wake up and come upto the expectations of the consumers and be ready with the medical facilities that are required to attend patients, particularly the patients requiring emergent treatment who may suffer heart attack or some such other disease which may prove fatal with delayed treatment or delayed during the transit from Airport to the Hospital. OP No.1/IAAI has been enjoined with the duty to provide at the airports such services and facilities as are necessary or desirable for the operation of Air Transport Services Thereat. In discharge of these obligatory functions and duty, the Authority arranges and manages, inter-alia, provisions of all services, facilities and conveniences as may be normally required to meet the reasonable needs of the travelling public including medical need. They are hereby directed to upgrade the medical centre/dispensary immediately in order to cater to the needs of the passengers particularly for treatment of emergency case of heart-attack or a stroke that is likely to prove fatal for want of timely treatment. 31. In the given facts and circumstances of the case we only hold OP No.1 liable for deficiency in service on administrative side, which in terms of Section 2(1)(g) means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.” 5. Aggrieved by the lesser compensation awarded by the State Commission, Appellants have filed the present first appeal. 6. Counsel for both parties made oral submissions. 7. Counsel for the Appellants stated that when the Patient first fell on the ground, it took about 15 minutes for the doctor to arrive and after giving Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation and two injections, the Patient had in fact revived. Thus, Respondents’ contention that he was already clinically dead is not correct and it was under these circumstances that a decision was taken to shift him to AIIMS by an ambulance. The Medical Doctor who should have accompanied the Patient did not do so and only an attendant was sent alongwith the relatives. Even in the ambulance, the required oxygen, which is necessary and life-saving in such cases, was not given to the Patient since the oxygen cylinder was empty. Had oxygen been given, the Patient in all likelihood would have survived. Instead admittedly only oral resuscitation was given, which under the circumstances was not adequate in the instant case. Counsel for the Appellants further contended that for the deficiency in service, the Respondents were solely responsible because it was their contractual obligation having charged fees, rent etc. to ensure that proper amenities were made available to the passengers and visitors at the airport and related areas. Counsel for the Appellants cited a judgment of this Commission in Geeta Jethani & Ors. V. Airport Authority of India & Ors. rendered in O.P. No. 81 of 2001 decided on 5th of August, 2001 in support. 8. Counsel for Respondent No.1 on the other hand contended that the State Commission erred in holding it guilty of administrative deficiency. It was reiterated that all possible medical and administrative care was taken in the treatment and care of the Patient, who suffered a fatal heart attack. It was specifically contended that it is not in dispute that the Patient was attended to by a doctor from the Respondent’s organization, who administered life-saving injections and also continued Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation with the help of a medical attendant. Since there was only one doctor on duty at that time, it was not possible for him to have accompanied the Patient to AIIMS and, therefore, a qualified para-medical assistant accompanied him in the ambulance. It was denied that the oxygen cylinder in the ambulance was empty. In fact the Patient was clinically dead but still oral resuscitation measures continued to be given in the ambulance and till such time that the Patient reched AIIMS. Patient was declared dead on arrival despite all efforts having been made promptly to treat him for a very serious ailment. It needs to be appreciated that the airport is not a hospital and, therefore, highly specialized medical services and in ICU to treat very serious cases are not expected to be made available at the airport. Under the circumstances, the first appeal does not have any merit and may be dismissed. 9. We have considered the submissions of both learned Counsel and have also gone through the evidence on record. The fact that the Patient suffered a serious heart attack near the immigration counter prior to his boarding the Air India flight to Mauritius to attend a conference is not in dispute. It is also a fact that a doctor who was available on duty had attended to the Patient within minutes and after due examination administered two injections and tried to revive him through Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation, which is a standard procedure, particularly when Intensive Care Unit (ICU) facilities are not available. We further note that within minutes an ambulance was arranged to take the Patient to AIIMS where he was examined and within minutes declared dead. This lends credence to the contention of the Respondents that the Patient was already clinically dead at the airport but was shifted to AIIMS at the insistence of his relatives. Appellants have sought to prove negligence by stating that medical facilities at the airport were not adequate to treat patients suffering from medical incidents whereas the Respondents were contractually bound to do so since fees are charged for making available services to both passengers and visitors at the airport, which would also include specialized medical services at the airport. On a perusal of the evidence, we note that admittedly a doctor had attended to the Patient within minutes and administered him life-saving injections. Airports are not expected to have ICU facilities, which is what is required in cases of serious heart attacks. In the instant case, we note, that the Respondents exercised whatever reasonable care was possible at that time in attending to the Patient and also in arranging an ambulance to immediately take him without delay to a specialized referral facility i.e. AIIMS. The State Commission being a court of fact has concluded that though there was no medical negligence because the Patient was given immediate medical aid, yet there were some administrative deficiencies since the required medical facilities to treat serious cases were not available at the airport, including the presence of more than one doctor on duty. No doubt, the presence of more than one doctor and somewhat more upgraded facilities beyond First Aid at the medical centres and dispensaries has now become necessary in view of the increasing use of air travel by a very large number of passengers. The State Commission taking cognizance of the above administrative deficiency on the part of Respondents has awarded an amount of Rs.35,000/- as compensation and costs. We feel that this is adequate keeping in view the circumstances of this case where there was no delay in providing the best possible medical assistance available at that time at the airport. 10. We, therefore, uphold the order of the State Commission and dismiss the present first appeal for enhanced compensation. No costs. |
