BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.259 of 2013

Date of Institution: 04-04-2013

Date of Decision: 22-07-2015 

Ashok Bhandari son of late Sh.Khishi Ram Bhandari, resident of House No. 7, Mahindra Colony, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

1. Dr.J.S.Sidhu care of Parvati Devi Hospital carries on its business at Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar having his residence at House No. 154, Shastri Nagar, Amritsar.
2. Parvati Devi Hospital through its owner/ M.D/ Manager Carrying on is business at Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar.
3. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, having its office at SCO-122, Ranjit Avenue, Opposite Amritsar Improvement Trust Complex, Amritsar through its Branch Manager.
4. United India Insurance Company Limited, 59, Janpath Connaught Place, New Delhi through its Manager.        

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh. Deepinder Singh, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Party No.1: Sh.A.K.Popal, Advocate

              For the Opposite Party No.2:Sh.Updip Singh, Advocate

              For the Opposite Party No.3:Sh.P.N.Khanna, Advocate

              For the Opposite Party No.4:Sh.A.K.Popal, Advocate.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Ashok Bhandari,  under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that on 2.7.2011 Rupesh Bhandari  son of the complainant was got admitted in Opposite Party No.2- Hospital with a complaint of high fever as well as increase in the level of SGOT and SGPT. Opposite Party No.1-Doctor gave I.V.Fluids of different types and certain antibiotics and injections namely Augmentin of 1 gm etc. Complainant alleges that on 3.7.2011 at about 11 AM, the condition of patient became deteriorated. The complainant immediately went to Opposite Party No.1 as he was not present in the hospital at that time and apprised him about  the condition of his son and to let him know about the nature and seriousness of disease, but instead of telling him, the Opposite Party No.1 advised the complainant to have a second opinion of local expert Hepatologist namely Dr.Harpreet Singh. The complainant immediately  made a telephonic call to Dr.Harpreet Singh and at about 2.30 PM, the Opposite Party No.1 came at Opposite Party No.2 Hospital to see the condition of patient. Dr.Harpreet Singh examined the patient and advised that no  medicine is required for disease suffered by patient at this stage. The patient was required to have complete bed rest and further advised the test namely Hepatitis A & E. On  such advice of Dr.Harpreet Singh, the complainant got done the said tests of patient and tests namely Hepatitis-A was found positive and Hepatitis-E as found negative as per the report given by Nalanda Diagnostic Centre dated 4.7.2011. Despite the advice of Dr.Harpreet Singh that no medicine is required at this stage, Opposite Party No.1 gave numerous medicines on hi sown such as he gave one injection Hepamerz and injection SYNS on next day of admission and  several other medicines which ought not to have been given by Opposite Party No.1. Both the injections were given in 100 ml normal saline  within very short interval of time i.e. 3 times within difference of 10-15 minute in whole day in morning, afternoon and night respectively. In fact, said injections ought not to have been given in less than 30 minutes per dose. During this period the patient felt very uneasiness, but Opposite Party No.1 did not bother for the same and keep on experimenting by giving  after one and other medicines to the patient. On the next date, same treatment was given to patient i.e. 3 times within difference of 10-15 minute in whole day in morning, afternoon and night respectively. On 5.7.2011 upon request of complainant again Dr.Harpreet Singh came to see the condition of the patient and further advised no medicines, but inspite of this, Opposite Party No.1 gave similar treatment to the patient.  On 6.7.2011, the patient became very serious and condition of the patient became bad to worse and was deteriorating minute to minute, as such, the complainant made number of calls to Opposite Party No.1, but he did not turn up nor picked up even a single call of the complainant. Eventually, in the evening, Opposite Party No.1 came and told the complainant that condition of the patient is very serious and advised him to take the patient anywhere else  he likes. However, complainant advised Opposite Party No.1 to shift the patient  in ICU as the condition of the patient was  such that complainant was not willing to take any risk of the life of patient, but to the utter dismay of the complainant, the Opposite Party No.1 told the complainant that their ICI was not in working codnition as it was locked at that time and advised to shift the patient in Fortis/ Escort Hospital, Verka Bye Pass, Amritsar. The complainant paid Rs.10,000/- to Opposite Party No.2 vide two different receipts besides other expenses such as on various tests or medicines which he purchased from as advised by Opposite Party No.1 from the medical store namely Amrit Medical Store. On 6.7.2011 at about 10.42 PM, the complainant reached Fortis/ Escort Hospital, Verka Bye Pass, Amritsar with patient in a semi conscious state, high grade fever with vomiting. The patient was having Hepatitis-A. All the tests of patient were conducted in Fortis/ Escort Hospital, Verka Bye Pass, Amritsar. The case summary of patient revealed that the value of SGPT and SGOT was reached  beyond the level of 1000 i.e. at 3079 & 1220 respectively. At that time, the complainant was suffering from fatty liver with thickened and oedamatous gall bladder/ Hepatitis. Acute renal failure, mild ascities, B/L pleural effusion. In case summary, the patient was diagnosed as suffering from Hepatitis-A, Hepatic Encephalopathy, Acute Renal Failure. It was also apprised by them that both the kidneys of patient have been failed because with Folis Cathedor. Complainant was also  told that the creatinine level of the patient was also high ad during 4 days of stay in Opposite Party No.2 Hospital, the treating doctor did not get it done even a single time. The patient was kept in IC for 39 days and the complainant spent Rs.11,92,036/-  at Fortis/ Escort Hospital, Verka Bye Pass, Amritsar. Complainant alleges that when the patient was admitted in Opposite Party No.2 Hospital, the patient was not suffering from such diseases as diagnosed by Fortis/ Escort Hospital, Verka Bye Pass, Amritsar in case summary. The condition of the patient deteriorated to such an extent only due to the reasons that from the first day of admission, Opposite Party No.1, Paramedical staff and nurses employed at Opposite Party No.2 Hospital did not attend the patient properly much less at regular intervals. The Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 did not disclose at any point of time i.e. from the date of admission to date of shifting of the patient to Escorts abut the seriousness of disease of patient or about the exact diagnosis about disease, the patient as suffering from. The Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 did not get the test  namely Urea Creatnine done even a single time during period of admission and urine output was not measured by Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 before giving of any medicines and despite the advice of specialist Dr.Harpreet Singh. Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 did not bother about the fat that due to increase in level of SGOT, SGPT, the liver of the patient was being affected badly and that was also affecting the kidneys of the patient, but the doctor did not take care of all these facts and circumstances. The Nephrology consultation was not done at Opposite Party No.2 Hospital which also ought to have been done if the kidneys of the patient were also involved. Moreover, Opposite Party No.1 Doctor at Opposite Party No.2 Hospital does not possess required degree in the field of Hepatology/ Gastroenterologist. Opposite Party No.1 is not possessing of such skill or competency, which must be required before dealing with such diseases like patient was suffering from. However, Opposite Party No.1-Doctor openly exhibiting this fact that he is a gastroenterologist by mentioning on the board and misrepresenting the innocent people/ patients thereby.  On 13.8.2011, patient passed away after fighting with death for over a month’s leaving behind his wife and two daughters aged 10 yrs and 7 years. After the death of his son, the complainant approached Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 and solicit necessary information/ medical records including bed head ticket, all investigations/ tests results/ OT records as well as drugs/ other therapies/ medicines used at he time of treatment of deceased, but the Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 for the best reason known to them did dot provide any information. Further, the complainant also served a legal notice dated 14.6.2012 calling Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 to provide requisite information, but of no avail. In such an eventuality, the complainant invoked remedy under RTI Act and solicit such information vide his application dated 18.8.2012, but it also did not yield any fruitful result. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 to pay a sum of Rs.11,92,036/- paid at Fortis/ Escort Hospital, Verka Bye Pass, Amritsar and Rs.10,000/- paid at Opposite Party No.2-Hospital.  Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Party No.1  appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that Rupesh Bhandari son of the complainant was admitted in Opposite Party No.2-Hospital vide admission code No. 9618 on 2.7.2011 as a case of acute viral hepatitis. After necessary examination the patient was put on conservative management. The patient was conscious- oriented and self voiding. The patient was treated with due care and diligence. The treatment administered was in accordance with the set medical standards and in consultation with Dr.Harpreet Singh. The vitals of the patient were monitored  regularly at a frequency of two hours. All the pathological examinations of the patient were conducted in the laboratory of the complainant himself i.e. at Real Diagnostic Centre on 1.7.2011 and 4.7.2011. Subsequently the patient developed irritability on 6.7.2011 which was a sign of hepatic encephalopathy and which could  further progress to fulminant hepatic failure. The complainant was apprised of the situation and was advised to shift the patient to a higher centre as the patient would require ventilator support, dialysis and even liver transplant. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant feared that it would involve high costs and was therefore reluctant to shift the patient. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No.1 had a telephonic conversation with a senior political and social figure of city of Amritsar who is related to the complainant and apprised him of the seriousness of the patient and the need to shift him to a higher centre. Opposite Party No.1 subsequently had a telephonic conversation with Dr.H.P.Singh, Director of Fortis Escort Hospital regarding the  status of patient  and the need to shift to higher centre who advised the Opposite Party No.1 to talk to a higher centre in Delhi for shifting the patient.  The Opposite Party No.1 accordingly acted as per the advise of Dr.H.P.Singh. The patient was subsequently shifted to Fortis Escort Hospital, Amritsar.    While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite Party No.2  appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the present complaint is gross abuse of the process of this Forum as purported complainant has not  approached this Forum with clean hands. There is no negligence or deficiency in service at the hands  of the Opposite Party No.2 or any of the treating doctor or other para medical staff at Opposite Party No.2 Hospital during the course of treatment of the patient in question  during relevant times nor any act of deficiency or negligence or  delay or omission or commission was committed while giving treatment to the said patient which was on standard scientific lines as per condition of the patient who was treated by qualified and competent doctors. The condition of  patient, as well as treatment prescribed and given is as per patient treatment record. With regard to availability of Opposite Party No.1 in Opposite Party No.2-Hospital, it is pertinent to reply that Opposite Party No.1 conducts OPD in the hospital till 2 PM every day and on 6.7.2011 he was  very much present in the  Opposite Party No.2 Hospital. It is wrong and incorrect that ICI of the Opposite Party No.2 was not functional on 6.7.2011. The patient was referred to Fortis Escorts Hospital, Amritsar for further management as per condition of the patient in the evening of 6.7.2013 as endorsed in the patient treatment record. There is no evidence worth its name to show that there is any negligence or deficiency or delay in service at the hands of the Opposite Party No.2 or any of the treating doctor or other para medical staff at Opposite Party No.2 Hospital during the course of treatment of the patient or delay or omission or commission was committed while giving treatment to the said patient which was on standard scientific lines as per condition of the said patient who was treated by qualified and competent doctors. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4. Opposite Party No.3  appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and Opposite Party No.3, hence the present complaint filed by the complainant against the answering Opposite Party. However, no such original policy with terms and conditions has been placed on the court file nor supplied to the Opposite Party No.3 in spite of repeated requests. Even otherwise, this Forum can not fix any direct liability qua Opposite Party No.3, because jurisdiction of this Forum is only to determine liability against Opposite Party No.2 and if any such liability is fixed, the same is to be considered by the competent authority of Opposite Party No.3 as per the terms and conditions of the alleged policy. Moreover, as per the said policies, there are certain deductions which are to be made and the liability is to be considered as per said terms and conditions and sum insured under the particular policy. The complainant has demanded a sum of Rs.11,92,036/- whereas, only Rs.10000/- stated to have been paid  in Opposite Party No.2. Hence, the major part of expenses alleged to have been spent by the complainant pertains to Fortis Escorts Hospital, Amritsar, but the said hospital has not been made as party to the present complaint.   While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
5. Opposite Party No.4  appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the written statement filed by Opposite Party No.1 be considered as part of written statement on behalf of answering Opposite Party. The answering Opposite Party has issued Professional Indemnity Medical Establishment Policy to Opposite Party No.1, the standard terms and conditions with its exclusion of this policy are applicable in the present case.  It is, prayed, to this Forum that the complainant is not entitled to get any alleged amount of compensation. 
6. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C38 alongwith Ex.CA, Ex.CB and Ex.CC and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
7. Opposite Parties No.1 & 4 tendered into evidence affidavit of Dr.J.S.Sidhu Ex.OP1/A alongwith documents Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/9 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 4.
8. Opposite Party No.2 tendered into evidence copy of resolution Ex.OP2/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.2.
9. Opposite Party No.3 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Sanpreet Pahuja Ex.OP3/1 alongwith copy of policy Ex.OP3/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.3.   
10. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
11. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that Rupesh Bhandari  son of the complainant was admitted in Opposite Party No.2- Hospital on 2.7.2011 at 1.35 PM as per Indoor Patient’s Record Ex.OP1/1, with a complaint of high fever as well as high increase in the level of SGOT and SGPT. Opposite Party No.1-Dr.J.S.Sidhu treated the patient and gave I.V.Fluids of different types and certain antibiotics and injections namely Augmentin of 1 gm etc. to the patient. Complainant alleges that on 3.7.2011 at about 11 AM, the condition of patient deteriorated. The complainant went to the house of  Opposite Party No.1 as he was not present in the hospital and apprised him about  the condition of his son and requested him to let him know about the nature and seriousness of disease, but Opposite Party No.1 did not tell the true facts, rather  advised the complainant to have a second opinion of local expert Hepatologist namely Dr.Harpreet Singh. The complainant then  made a telephonic call to Dr.Harpreet Singh and at about 2.30 PM, the Opposite Party No.1 came at Opposite Party No.2 Hospital to see the condition of patient. Dr.Harpreet Singh examined the patient and advised that no  medicine is required for disease suffered by patient at this stage. The patient was required to have complete bed rest and  advised the test namely Hepatitis A & E. On  such advice of Dr.Harpreet Singh, the complainant got done the said tests of patient and tests namely Hepatitis-A was found positive and Hepatitis-E was found negative as per the report given by Nalanda Diagnostic Centre dated 4.7.2011. Complainant alleges that  despite the advice of Dr.Harpreet Singh that no medicine is required to be given to the patient at this stage, Opposite Party No.1 gave numerous medicines on his own such as he gave one injection Hepamerz and injection SYNS on 3.7.2011 and  several other medicines which should not have been given by Opposite Party No.1. Both the injections were given in 100 ml normal saline  within very short interval of time i.e. 3 times within difference of 10-15 minute in whole day in morning, afternoon and night respectively. Complainant further alleges that in fact, said injections should not have been given in less than 30 minutes per dose. During this period the patient felt very uneasiness, but Opposite Party No.1 did not bother for the same and kept on experimenting by giving  medicines  one after the other to the patient. On the next date, same treatment was given to patient i.e. 3 times within difference of 10-15 minute in whole day in morning, afternoon and night respectively. On 5.7.2011 on the  request of complainant again Dr.Harpreet Singh came to see the condition of the patient and further advised no medicines, but inspite of that, Opposite Party No.1 gave similar treatment to the patient.  On 6.7.2011, the patient became very serious and condition of the patient became bad to worse and was deteriorating minute to minute, as such, the complainant made number of calls to Opposite Party No.1, but he did not turn up nor picked up even a single call of the complainant. In the evening, Opposite Party No.1 came and told the complainant that condition of the patient is very serious and advised him to take the patient anywhere else  he likes. However, complainant advised Opposite Party No.1 to shift the patient  in ICU as the condition of the patient was  such that complainant was not willing to take any risk of the life of patient, but the Opposite Party No.1 told the complainant that their ICU was not in working condition as it was locked at that time and advised complainant to shift the patient in Fortis/ Escort Hospital, Verka Bye Pass, Amritsar. The complainant paid Rs.10,000/- to Opposite Party No.2 vide two different receipts  and also spent money on  various tests and  medicines purchased  by the complainant for the treatment of patient. On 6.7.2011 at about 10.42 PM, patient was admitted in Fortis/ Escort Hospital, Amritsar in a semi conscious condition, high grade fever with vomiting. The patient was having Hepatitis-A. All the tests of patient were conducted in Fortis/ Escort Hospital, Verka Bye Pass, Amritsar. The case summary of patient was prepared which revealed that the value of SGPT and SGOT had reached  beyond the level of 1000 i.e. at 3079 & 1220 respectively. The Patient was  suffering from fatty liver with thickened and oedamatous gall bladder/ Hepatitis at that time,  Acute renal failure, mild ascities, B/L pleural effusion. In case summary (Ex.C4) prepared by Fortis/ Escort Hospital, Verka Bye Pass, Amritsar, the patient was diagnosed as suffering from Hepatitis-A, Hepatic Encephalopathy, Acute Renal Failure. Complainant was  also apprised by them that both the kidneys of patient have failed. Complainant was also  told that the creatinine level of the patient was also high and during 4 days of stay in Opposite Party No.2 Hospital, the treating doctor did not get it tested/ done even a single time. The patient was kept in ICU for 39 days as doctors at Fortis/ Escort Hospital, Verka Bye Pass, Amritsar told the complainant that the condition of patient is very serious. The complainant spent Rs.11,92,036/- on the treatment of his son Rupesh Bhandari and paid  at Fortis/ Escort Hospital, Verka Bye Pass, Amritsar. Complainant alleges that when the patient was admitted in Opposite Party No.2 Hospital, the patient was not suffering from such diseases as diagnosed by Fortis/ Escort Hospital, Verka Bye Pass, Amritsar in case summary Ex.C4. The complainant further alleges that   Paramedical staff and nurses employed at Opposite Party No.2 Hospital did not attend the patient properly at regular intervals  nor the doctors at Opposite Party No.2 Hospital conducted the tests of the patient at regular intervals nor  checked  the outcome of the treatment of the patient.  Even Opposite Party No.2-hospital authorities did not disclose to the complainant or to any other  attendants about the  seriousness of disease of patient or about the exact diagnosis about disease, the patient was suffering from. The Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 did not get the test  namely Urea. Creatinine done even a single time during period of admission and urine output was not measured by Opposite Party No.2 Hospital authorities before giving  any medicine and despite the advice of specialist Dr.Harpreet Singh. Opposite Party No.2 hospital authorities did not bother about the fact that due to increase in level of SGOT, SGPT, the liver of the patient was being affected badly and that was also affecting the kidneys of the patient. Opposite Party No.1-Dr.J.S.Sidhu did not take care of all these facts and circumstances. The Nephrology consultation was not done at Opposite Party No.2 Hospital which should have been done if the kidneys of the patient were also involved/ being effected adversely. Complainant further alleges that Opposite Party No.1- Doctor J.S.Sidhu, who was treating doctor at Opposite Party No.2-Hospital does not possess required degree in the field of Hepatology/ Gastroenterologist. He  is not possessing of such skill or competency, which must be required before dealing with such like diseases as the patient was suffering from. Opposite Party No.1-Doctor openly exhibiting this fact that he is a gastroenterologist, whereas he has no degree of DM. Ultimately, due to medical negligence and ill treatment of the patient at Opposite Party No.2 Hospital by Opposite Party No.1-Doctor J.S.Sidhu, the patient passed away on 13.8.2011   after fighting with death for over a month’s leaving behind his wife and two daughters aged 10 years and 7 years. Complainant further alleges that after the death of his son, the complainant approached Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 to get  necessary information/ medical records including bed head ticket, all investigations/ tests results/ OT records as well as drugs/ other therapies/ medicines used at he time of treatment of deceased, but the Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 did dot provide any information to the complainant, then the complainant served a legal notice dated 14.6.2012 Ex.C10 through registered post on 15.6.2012 calling upon Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 to provide requisite information to the complainant, but of no avail. Then the complainant invoked remedy under RTI Act  vide his application Ex.C8 dated 18.8.2012, but the same did not yield any  result. So, the complainant had apprehension that Opposite Party No.2 Hospital authorities may manipulate all the papers/ records relating to the treatment of patient Rupesh Bhandari. It was further alleged that  when the patient was admitted in Opposite Party No.2 Hospital under the treatment of Opposite Party No.1-Dr.J.S.Sidhu, the patient was not suffering from the diseases which were diagnosed at Fortis/ Escort Hospital, Verka Bye Pass, Amritsar  and all this happened due to improper  care of patient, by Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 as well as their staff, nurses, etc. More particular when Opposite Party No.1 Dr.J.S.Sidhu was not having such skill/ degree which makes him competent to deal with such cases and not by taking Nephrology opinion, which constitutes gross negligence, deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, as a result of which, the complainant has lost his only son at young age. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to great medical negligence as well as deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2.
12.  Whereas the case of the Opposite Party No.1-Dr.J.S.Sidhu is that the patient Rupesh Bhandari son of the complainant was admitted in Opposite Party No.2-Hospital  vide admission code No. 9618, on 2.7.2011 as a case of acute viral hepatitis as per Indoor Patient’s record Ex.OP1/1. The patient was put on conservative management. The patient was conscious- oriented and self voiding. The patient was treated with due care and diligence. The treatment administered was in accordance with the set medical standards and in consultation with Dr.Harpreet Singh. The vitals of the patient were  monitored regularly at frequency of two hours. The pathological examination of the patient were conducted in the laboratory of the complainant i.e. Real Diagnostic Centre on 1.7.2011 and 4.7.2011. Subsequently, the patient developed irritability on 6.7.2011 which was a sign of hepatic encephalopathy and which could further  progress in fulminant hepatic failure. The complainant was apprised of the situation and was advised to shift the patient to a higher centre as the patient would require ventilator support, dialysis and even liver transplant, but the complainant was reluctant to shift the patient. Opposite Party No.1 subsequently had a telephonic conversation with Dr.H.P.Singh, Director of Fortis/ Escort Hospital, Verka Bye Pass, Amritsar regarding the status of patient and the need to shift to higher centre. Then the patient was shifted to Fortis/ Escort Hospital, Verka Bye Pass, Amritsar. During the stay of patient at Fortis/ Escort Hospital, Verka Bye Pass, Amritsar, the patient was  examined twice by Dr.Harpreet Singh, Senior Most Gastroenterologist on 3.7.2011 and 5.7.2011. The treatment  at Opposite Party No.2 Hospital was administered in consultation with Dr.Harpreet Singh. Opposite Party No.1 further alleges that  there were some outstanding dues from the complainant towards the treatment costs of Opposite Party No.2 Hospital which were not paid by the complainant on the ground that complainant was known to Opposite Party No.1 as complainant Ashok Bhandari is well known of Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.1 further alleges that patient Rupesh Bhandari was admitted in Opposite Party No.2 Hospital with complaint of high fever as well as increase in the level of SGOT and SGPT. Rupesh Bhandari was admitted as a case of acute viral hepatitis. However, he denied that Opposite Party No.1 gave I.V.Fluids of different types and certain antibiotics and injections namely augmentin of 1 gm etc. Opposite Party No.1 further denied that complainant called Dr.Harpreet Singh by making telephonic calls at about 2.30 PM on 3.7.2011. He also denied that Dr.Harpreet Singh, Gaestrologist advised that no medicine is required for disease suffered by patient. He also denied the allegations that despite advice of Dr.Harpreet Singh that no medicine is required, Opposite Party No.1 gave numerous medicines of his own such as injection Hepamerz and injection SYNS and  several other medicines which should not have been given by Opposite Party No.1 to the patient. He also denied that on 5.7.2011 it is the complainant who called Dr.Harpreet Sigh to see the condition of the patient. He also denied  that on 6.7.2011 the condition of the patient became serious and the complainant made number of calls to Opposite Party No.1, but he did not turn up nor picked up even single call of the complainant. He further denied that on 6.7.2011 the ICU of Opposite Party No.2 Hospital was not functioning. He further denied that  the case summary of patient was prepared which revealed that the value of SGPT and SGOT has reached  beyond the level of 1000 i.e. at 3079 & 1220 respectively. He also denied that the patient (since deceased) suffered Acute renal failure, mild ascities, B/L pleural effusion due to negligence and deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2. He also denied that  the patient was kept in ICU for 39 days by doctors at Fortis/ Escort Hospital, Verka Bye Pass, Amritsar. He also denied that the complainant spent Rs.11,92,036/- on the treatment of his son Rupesh Bhandari which he had to pay to Fortis/ Escort Hospital, Verka Bye Pass, Amritsar, rather the Opposite Party No.1 alleged that  patient was a case of acute viral hepatitis  and developed hepatic encephalopathy renal failure and septicemia which are known complications of acute fulminant hepatic and have a very high mortality rate upto 80%. The routine investigation of the patient were done by the complainant at his own laboratory i.e. Real Diagnositc Centre and as per the report of the laboratory of the complainant S.Creatinine level of the patient on 1.7.2011 and 4.7.2011 were 1.0 and 1.2 respectively which are within normal  range.  The attendants of the patient had been reporting about the urine and stool outputs to the nursing staff.  Even the urine examination for culture sensitivity was sent on 4.7.2011 and it showed no growth on 5.7.2011. The patient showed signs of encephalopathy in the evening of 6.7.2011. The patient became restless and irritable. The attendants of the patient were explained regarding the seriousness ad progress of the disease. The attendants of the patient were also advised that the patient required ICU monitoring and may require ventilator support, dialysis or even liver transplant. Opposite Party No.1 further denied that Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 did not get  the tests namely Urea Creatinine done even a single time during period of admission and urine output was not measured by Opposite Parties  before giving any medicines and despite the advice of Dr.Harpreet Singh.  He also denied that Nephrology consultation was not done at Opposite Party No.2 Hospital which should have been done if the kidneys of the patient were also involved. The condition  of the patient was being explained to the complainant periodically. The urea and creatinine on 1.7.2011 were 31.6 and 1.0 respectively. Dr.Harpreet Singh visited the patient twice i.e. on 3.7.2011 and 5.7.2011 but at no point of time ordered B urea and S.Creatinine tests because the attendants of the patient always reported that the patient was passing adequate urine as such the need for nephrology consultation also did not arise at that point of time. Opposite Party No.1 also denied that he does not possess required degree in the field of Hepatology/ Gastroenterology as per MCI (Medical Counsel of India). He also denied that the complainant has not supplied the  record/ information asked by the complainant and the complainant had served legal notice upon 1 and he invoked remedy under RTI Act. The Opposite Party No.1 treated the complainant as per Standard Lines of Treatment. Ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.1 submitted that there is no deficiency of service or any medical negligence on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 in the treatment of patient during his stay at Opposite Party No.2 Hospital.
13. Whereas case of Opposite Party No.2 is that there is no cogent proof with the complainant o show that there is any negligence and deficiency or delay in service at the hands of Opposite Party No.2 or any of the treating doctors/ para medical staff at Opposite Party No.2 hospital during the course of treatment of the patient. Opposite Party No.2 has been unnecessarily  dragged in the present complaint. As per the record of Opposite Party No.2 Hospital, the proper treatment was given to the patient, investigations were got done during the hospitalisation of the patient  by consulting/ visiting doctors. The treatment given in the  hospital is as per patient treatment record  which is on the file of this Fora running to  99 to 129 pages. As regard examination of the patient by various consultants their visits and treatment prescribed all are mentioned in the aforesaid patient treatment record of the hospital. Opposite Party No.2 denied that ICI of the hospital was not functional on 6.7.2011, rather it was quite working/ functional on 6.7.2011. The patient was referred to Fortis for further management as per condition of the patient. The complainant has proved beyond doubt any act of deficiency or negligence or delay or omission or commission committed by Opposite Party No.2 while giving the treatment to the patient. The patient was given the treatment  on standard scientific lines as per  condition of the said patient who was treated by qualified and competent doctors at Opposite Party No.2 Hospital. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 Hospital submitted that there is no deficiency, negligence or delay or omission or commission in the treatment of the patient on the part of Opposite Party No.2 Hospital qua the complainant.
14. Whereas the case of the Opposite Parties  No.3 and 4 is that the Opposite Parties  No.2 & 1 respectively have obtained Professional Indemnity Medical Establishment Policies from Opposite Parties  No.3 and 4 respectively. Opposite Parties  No.3 and 4 have no privity of contract with the complainant. In case Opposite Parties  No.1 and 2 are held liable for any medical negligence or deficiency of service, then Opposite Parties  No. 3 and 4 shall decide the claim cases of Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 as per the terms and conditions of the policies respectively, but they have been wrongly dragged in the present case because there is no deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties  No.3 and 4 qua the complainant.
15. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that Rupesh Bhandari son of the complainant Ashok Bhandari was admitted in Opposite Party No.2 Hospital on 2.7.2011 at 1.35 PM as per Indoor Patient’s Record  of Opposite Party No.2 Hospital  Ex.OP1/1, with a complaint of high fever and high increase in the level of SGOT and SGPT as a case of acute viral hepatitis. The patient was conscious-oriented and self voiding at the time of admission in Opposite Party No.2 Hospital. BP of the patient was 140° hg, chest was clear. He was checked up and medically treated by Opposite Party No.1. Patient was given medicines as per treatment record of the patient Ex.C3.
16. Opposite Party No.1 admitted the patient in Opposite Party No.2 Hospital as a case of acute viral hepatitis, but no test of hepatitis of the patient was got conducted by Opposite Party No.1 immediately after admission, to know the condition of the patient and the affect of hepatitis, rather the patient was put on conservative treatment directly without tests. No doubt, Opposite Party No.1 treated the patient and gave I.V.Fluids of different types and even certain antibiotics/ injections of Augmentin to the patient. The condition of the patient deteriorated. The Complainant, father of the patient has deposed that on 3.7.2011 at about 11 AM,  condition of  the patient deteriorated and the complainant searched for Opposite Party No.1 in Opposite Party No.2 Hospital, but he was not available in the hospital, so he went to the house/ residence of Opposite Party No.1 and apprised him about the serious condition of the patient and requested him to let the complainant  know about the nature and seriousness of the disease of the patient. Opposite Party No.1advised the complainant to have a second opinion from local expert  Hepatologist. Then the  complainant  made a telephonic call to Dr.Harpreet Singh, Hepatologist/ Gastroenterologist . At about 2.30 PM, Dr.Harpreet Singh came to Opposite Party No.2 Hospital and  examined the patient and advised that no  medicine is required for disease suffered by the patient at this stage. The patient was required to have complete bed rest and advised the tests  namely Hepatitis A & E. On  the advice of Dr.Harpreet Singh dated 3.7.2011, the Opposite Party No.1 and Para Medical Staff of Opposite Party No.2 Hospital  took the samples of the patient and sent the same for tests to  Nalanda Diagnostic Centre  on 4.7.2011 and not on 3.7.2011 as is evident from the record of the Opposite Party No.2 Hospital. As per the report of Nalanda Diagnostic Centre dated 4.7.2011, the Hepatitis-A was found positive and Hepatitis-E was found negative. Even the creatinine of the patient were not got tested. All this proves that the tests regarding hepatitis and S.Creatinine were not got done by Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 for  2 days. As such, the condition of the patient regarding severity of the disease  i.e. hepatitis could not be confirmed by Opposite Party No.1 and other treating doctors including the para medical staff of Opposite Party No.2 Hospital for such a long time, as a result of which, the condition of the patient deteriorated. Opposite Party No.1-Dr.J.S.Sidhu and other doctors of Opposite Party No.2 Hospital were so careless that even Opposite Party No.1 in his written statement in para No.7 on merit has categorically denied that the deceased was having hepatitis ‘A’.  All these proves that Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 treated the patient carelessly, that is why the condition of the patient became bad to worse and all this amounts to medical negligence on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. The condition of the patient was very serious, even then the patient was not shifted to ICU by the opposite party No.2 hospital authorities. The complainant has alleged that the ICU of the opposite party No.2 hospital was not  working. Even then the opposite party No.2 neither  shifted the patient  to any better institution/hospital or to any super speciality hospital. The complainant has submitted that he requested the opposite party No.1 Dr. J.S.Sidhu that if he is not able to handle this case, the complainant should be allowed to  take his son i.e. patient Rupesh Bhandari to another hospital/super speciality hospital. But opposite party No.1 did not allow the complainant to do so nor the opposite parties No.1 & 2 made any effort to make their ICU fully functional nor allowed the complainant to take his son/patient Rupesh Bhandari to some other hospital  having  proper facilities to handle the case of the patient. Opposite party No.2 has simply denied in their written version that the ICU of the opposite party was not functioning . But opposite party No.2 could not produce any evidence to prove that the ICU of opposite party No.2 hospital was functioning properly. So this also amounts to negligence on the part of opposite parties No.1 & 2, as a result of which the condition of patient deteriorated because of non availability of proper facilities at opposite party No.2 hospital.
17. Further as per the record of Fortis Escorts Hospital, Amritsar, where the patient was shifted on 6.7.2011 i.e. case summary Ex.C4, the patient was suffering from hepatitis, acute renal failure, mild ascities, B/L pleural effusion when he was still admitted in Opposite Party No.2 Hospital, but Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 did not consult any Nephrologist. Rather Opposite Party No.1 in his written version has stated that no nephrologist opinion was required nor taken in the present case, whereas the doctors at Fortis Escorts Hospital, Amritsar have categorically stated that the nephrologist opinion  was very necessary and the same was taken by the doctors at Fortis Escorts Hospital, Amritsar immediately on the admission of the patient in Fortis Escorts Hospital, Amritsar on 6.7.2011 and the patient was put  on dialysis. Had the Opposite Party No.1 or other doctors/ para medical staff at Opposite Party No.2 Hospital had taken proper care of the patient and had taken the opinion of nephrologist at proper time and have properly checked the urine of the patient, the patient would not have suffered acute renal failure and would not have gone in a position that he should have been put on dialysis. All this fully proves the carelessness on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 towards the patient.
18. Further as per treatment record of the patient in Opposite Party No.2 Hospital Ex.CC, output of urine was not measured nor the intake and output of urine and stool of the patient were measured/ weighed  and checked by the treating doctor i.e. Opposite Party No.1 nor by para medical staff/ technical staff of Opposite Party No.2 Hospital which was very much required,  rather essential  in case of hepatitis particularly in case of mild ascities, B/L pleural effusion. The record on page No.18, 19 and 20 of the record of Opposite Party No.2 Hospital Ex.CC proves that the treating doctors as well as para medical staff of the Opposite Party No.2 hospital relied upon on the report of attendants of the patient, who only stated that patient has been passing urine as well as stool, but in how much quantity and which type of the urine/ stool he was passing  were not made known nor  any effort was made by the treating doctors as well as para medical staff of Opposite Party No.2 Hospital to check and measure the same. Even the record of Opposite Party No.2 Hospital  i.e. treatment record of the patient on 5.7.2011 page No.12 of Ex.CC fully proves that Dr.Harpreet Singh, Hepatologist/ Gastroenterologist has advised for the test of S.Creatinine of the patent, but no such test was got done by Opposite Parties. The treatment record of the patient in Opposite Party No.2 Hospital Ex.CC at page 29 proves that no S.Creatinine test  of the patient was got done on 5.7.2011 as well as 6.7.2011. In case of acute hepatitis, such test is very much necessary as per medical literature.  Further, the treatment record of patient  at Opposite Party No.2 Hospital at Page No. 16 of Ex.CC shows that on 6.7.2011 when the condition of the patient was very serious, Opposite Party No.1-Dr.J.S.Sidhu was not even available in the Opposite Party No.2 Hospital which proves that  he was not taking proper care of the patient. It has been clearly written that case was discussed with Dr.J.S.Sidhu, Opposite Party No.1 which fully proves that Dr.J.S.Sidhu, Opposite Party No.1 himself was not treating the patient and had left the patient at the care and treatment of other doctors that is why case was discussed by other doctors with Dr.J.S.Sidhu Opposite Party No.1. All this fully proves that the patient was not properly attended to by Opposite Party No.1-Dr.J.S.Sidhu in Opposite Party No.2 Hospital.
19. Ld.counsel for the complainant has also submitted that Dr.J.S.Sidhu Opposite Party No.1 has presented himself as Gastroenterologist whereas as per the instructions of MCI (Medical Council of India), only doctor who has degree of DM can project himself as Gastroenterologist. It is admitted case of the parties that Opposite Party No.1 is only MD and not  DM. As such, he can not claim himself as Gastroenterologist. The complainant in his complaint has submitted that had the Opposite Party No.1 not projected himself as Gastroenterologist, he would have taken the patient i.e. his son Rupesh Bhandari to some Gastroenterologist and not to Opposite Party No.2 Hospital under the treatment of Dr.J.S.Sidhu-Opposite Party No.1. No doubt, any MD can check and treat the liver disease patient, but a doctor who does not possess the super specialty i.e. degree of DM can not project himself as  Gastroenterologist as is being done by Dr.J.S.Sidhu-Opposite Party No.1.  The complainant has produced  on record photograph of sign board of Opposite Party No.1 Ex.C31 in which the Opposite Party No.1-Dr.J.S.Sidhu has projected himself as Gastroenterologist. Opposite Party No.2 Hospital is also careless in projecting Dr.J.S.Sidhu, Opposite Party No.1 as Gastroenterologist.
20. Opposite Party No.1-Dr.J.S.Sidhu in his written statement himself has admitted that when the patient was admitted in Opposite Party No.2 Hospital under his care and treatment on 2.7.2011 as a case of  acute viral hepatitis, if he was not specialist in Gastroenterology, he should have referred the case to Gastroenterologist   or higher institute on the same day or  on the next day, keeping in view the serious condition of the patient and he should not have continue undergoing the treatment for such a long period and he referred the patient to Fortis Escorts Hospital, Amritsar on 6.7.2011 evening when the condition of the patient had became totally uncontrollable. Further, ICU of Opposite Party No.2 Hospital was also not functional. So, in such  cases having critical condition of the patient, to continue admission of the patient in that hospital and not referring the same to higher institute having proper facilities, also amounts to negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 qua the patient.
21. Further, it is admitted case of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 in their written version that at the time of admission of patient Rupesh Bhandari (who was 37 years old), at Opposite Party No.2 Hospital, he was   conscious  oriented and self voiding, but the consent for treatment of the patient was not taken from him, but it was taken from the complainant i.e. father of the patient, as is evident from the consent form and as admitted by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 also. It has been held by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology Vs. Premeela & others 2014(1) CLT page 31 that in case of death of patient due to complications, even though, no medical negligence was found, but it was found that consent was taken from son-in-law of patient, though it should be taken personally from patient, held it amounts to deficiency in service. Compensation was awarded. Similar are the facts of the present case. It also amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 qua the patient.
22. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that had the patient Rupesh Bhandi who was young man of 37 years, been treated properly by Dr.J.S.Sidhu-Opposite Party No.1 in Opposite Party No.2 Hospital, his condition could not have deteriorated to such an extent that ultimately he expired on 12.8.2011 at Fortis Escorts Hospital, Amritsar leaving behind his aged parents (about 70 years old),  two minor daughters and widow. All this happened due to medical negligence and deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 qua the patient. As such, we hold that the complainant who is father of deceased Rupesh Bhandari, is entitled to compensation. As regard amount of compensation, the complainant has submitted that he spent Rs.11,92,036/- on the medical treatment of his son Rupesh Bhandari at Fortis Escorts Hospital, Amritsar as per Ex.C6 as the patient remained admitted in Fortis Escorts Hospital, Amritsar from 6.7.2011 to 13.8.2011 and the complainant has lost his only son in this oldage.
23. Keeping in view all these facts, we allow the complaint with costs and the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lacs (Rs.Ten lacs)  i.e. Rs.5 lacs each in  equal share, to the complainant as compensation. However, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 can claim this amount from Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 their respective insurers,  as per the terms and conditions of the policy.  Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 22-07-2015.                                                   (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                               President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

              Member                         Member