1.       This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the Petitioner, Khandelwal Nursing Home & Research Centre (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner No. 1 / Nursing Home) and two Doctors (hereinafter referred to as, the ‘Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 / Doctors) against the legal heirs of the Complainant and two Insurance Companies – United India insurance Co. Ltd. and National Insurance Co. Ltd. being the indemnifier of the Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 (hereinafter referred to as the Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 / Insurance Company), challenging the Order dated 25.07.2022 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench Kota, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’) in Appeal No. 66/2021, whereby the Appeal filed by the Petitioners was dismissed and the Order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Circuit Bench - Kota, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the “District Forum”), allowing the Complaint against the Petitioners was confirmed.

2.       The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant – Mrs. Mona Jain (since deceased, hereinafter referred to as the ‘patient’), on her pregnancy, had been visiting the Nursing Home and having continuous consultation and treatment under the Petitioner No. 2, the owner of the said Nursing Home at Kota, Rajasthan from 27.10.2014 to 20.05.2015. As per the advice of the Doctor, the patient got admitted in the Nursing Home on 21.05.2015 at 10.10 am to undergo the delivery operation. It was alleged that at around 11.35am, after complete check-up, the patient was given anaesthesia. At 11.45, the patient gave birth to a baby girl through operation, but even after the operation, the patient did not gain consciousness. Thereafter, in the afternoon, the Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 referred the patient to Kota Heart Institute and General Hospital in unconscious state. At 2.30pm, the patient was admitted there in ICU due to post-cardiac arrest and hypoxic brain injury. After checkup, the doctors at Kota Heart Institute and General Hospital informed that the patient’s health was not improving and that she was in coma. On 04.06.2015, seeing no improvement and as per the advice of the doctors at Kota Heart Institute and General Hospital, the husband of the patient got her discharged for home treatment. On 20.06.2015, the husband also got an FIR registered at the Police Station Mahaveer Nagar, Kota against the Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3.  Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, causing the patient to be in comatose state and having suffered mental agony, harassment and financial loss, the husband of the patient filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum, seeking compensation amounting to Rs. 20 lakh at the rate of 18 % per annum.

3.       The Petitioners / Opposite Parties, in their reply, denied negligence during the treatment given by them.  The Opposite Parties stated that the Complainant does not fall in the category of Consumer as no operation fee was charged to her.  It was further stated that eight years ago also, delivery of a baby of the patient was done by the Petitioner No. 2 and due to that acquaintance, the second operation was done through caesarean with the consent of the husband of the patient and for that, no fee was got deposited by the Complainant. The Complainant, while shifting from the operation table to the stretcher, had suffered sudden cardiac arrest, but the Nursing Home being equipped with all the facilities required in such situation, the patient was revived by CPR, thus no negligence was caused to the patient by them. In this situation, Dr. Atul Rathore, Cardiac Specialist was called from Kota Heart Institute, who advised to shift the patient there. Thereafter, the Complainant was being treated at Kota Heart Institute, where also, the Petitioner No. 2 kept visiting her and found no negligence towards her. The matter was also investigated by a Medical Board at the instance of the Police, which found no negligence in the treatement. It was stated that the allegation leveled against the Petitioners regarding the high dose of anaesthesia was entirely baseless.

4.       The District Forum, vide its Order dated 27.09.2019, allowed the Complaint against the Petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 and their indemnifier Insurance Companies jointly and severally with the direction to pay Rs. 20 lakh as compensation to the Complainant, out of which simple interest @ 9% shall be levied on the amount of Rs. 8 lakh till its realisation.

5.       Aggrieved by the Order of the District Forum, the Petitioners and the two Insurance Companies filed three Appeals respectively before the State Commission.

6.       The State Commission, vide its Order dated 25.07.2022, dismissed the Appeals and confirmed the Order passed by the District Forum.

7.       Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed the instant Revision Petition, since the patient expired during the pendency of the case before the State Commission.

8.       Heard the learned counsel for both the sides. 

9.       The basic issue involved in this case is that after the delivery of baby through surgery, the patient suffered cardiac arrest. The Hospital took steps to revive her, however, the patient continued to be in a state of coma. It was only after waiting for a little more than an hour that a Cardiologist was called, who, on examination, suggested the patient to be taken to a Speciality Hospital. By the time, the patient could be sent to the Sepciality Hospital, about 2 ½ hours elapsed. On diagnosis by this Hospital, it was noticed that the patient had suffered hypoxic brain injury, which might have occurred during the cardiac arrest on account of lack of proper oxygen supply in the brain. The question to be decided is whether there is medical negligence on the part of the Petitioners. It is the fact that the patient suffered cardiac arrest and this is known to the Petitioners. Though effort was made by the Hospital Petitioner No. 1 to get the Cardiologist and thereafter shifting the patient to a regular Super Speciality Hospital, in the meantime, valuable 2 ½ hours were wasted. It is a fact that the Petitioner No. 1 is a simple nursing home, which does not have the facility of the Cardiologist much less an ICU, the question is, in such a situation was the Hospital negligent to have not shifted the patient within the shortest possible time to a regular Hospital, knowing fully well that there could be a possibility that such cardiac arrest could be severe leading to complications requiring Specialist treatment, which the Doctor or Nursing Home did not have?

10.     After perusing the record and going through the report of the medical Board of an MBS Government Hospital, Kota on the request of the police and the discharge reports and other medical records available on file, it is clear that the Hospital could not estimate the seriousness of the problem and delayed sending the patient to the regular Hospital for further treatment. To this extent, there is a negligence on the part of the Hospital. Since the Hospital has been found negligent in discharging its duties and thus there is deficiency of service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a compensation towards such medical negligence to the Complainant / Respondent No. 1 is in order. Though the District Forum had awarded a compensation of Rs. 20 lakh, considering that there is no medical negligence on the part of the Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, this amount needs to be reduced.

11.     I am not inclined to hold the Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 / Doctors liable for any medical negligence as there is nothing on record that suggests that they were negligent in doing their work. It was the responsibility of the Nursing Home to have sent the patient immediately at their own cost to the regular Hospital as in matter of Cardiac Arrest, time becomes essence. To this extent, I am in agreement with the findings of the District Forum and the State Commission. However, in so far as laying any blame on the Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 is concerned, I am not in agreement. Further, in so far as the Insurance Companies are concerned, since there is no privity of contract between the Respondent No. 1, now represented through their legal representatives, and the Insurance Companies, the question of fixing any liability on them does not arise.

12.     In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Revision Petition is dismissed. The Orders of the District Forum and the State Commission are partly allowed and the compensation for an amount of Rs. 5 lakh shall be paid by the Petitioner No. 1 / Nursing Home to the legal heirs of the Respondent No. 1 / Complainant alongwith 9% rate of interest from the date of filing the Complaint till realization within the period of eight weeks failing which the rate of interest shall stand enhanced to 12% per annum for the same period.

13.     Pending application stands disposed of.