Haryana

Ambala

CC/210/2015

Dev Raj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manocha Hospital - Opp.Party(s)

A.K.Kaushik

23 Oct 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

Complaint Case No.      : 210 of 2015.

Date of Institution         : 03.08.2015.

Date of Decision            : 23.10.2017

 

Dev Raj son of Shri Prem Chand aged 42 years resident of village Naggal Tehsil & District Ambala.     

……Complainant.

Versus

 

1. Manocha Hospital through its Authorized Signatory Arya Chowk, Ambala City.
2. Manocha Hospital through Dr.Deepti Manocha, Arya Chowk, Ambala City.             

                                                ……Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Sh. A.K.Kaushik, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. Rajesh Gupta, counsel for OPs.  

 

ORDER

 

                   Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant got himself admitted in the hospital of OPs vide registration No.EYE024264 on 14.04.2015 by paying requisite fee because on 13.04.2015 at about 6/7 p.m. while harvesting wheat crops, he received injury on his right eye. The OP No.2 checked the eye of the complainant but without hearing him declared the injury to be a simple injury and prescribed some medicines with assurance that within 3/4 days the complainant would be quite well. The complainant followed the treatment as per prescription of OP No.2 upto 16.04.2015 but during this period the condition of the complainant become critical and when he approached the Op No.2 then complainant was referred to PGI where he remained under treatment from 17.04.2015 to 22.04.2015 and thereafter from 07.05.20105 to 13.05.2015. As per opinion of the doctors of PGI, the complainant was not properly diagnosed by OP No.2,therefore, his right eye got damaged and at the time of conducting two operations the doctors had disclosed that had the complainant was taken to PGI earlier then he would have not suffered such damage. The complainant suffered severe pain in his eye during the treatment at PGI and also spent huge amount for medical tests, medicines, transportation as well as on operations due to negligence of OP No.2. The complainant requested the Ops to make the payment of compensation and also got served legal notice upon them but to no avail. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service as due to negligence of Op no.2 the complainant is unable to perform his agriculture work properly. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CX and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C12.

2.                Upon notice Ops appeared and filed their joint reply wherein it has been submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable being filed by suppressing the material facts.  The complainant had visited the hospital of OPs on 14.04.2015 with pain, redness and swelling in the right eye. The internal examination of the eye was not medically possible and by visual examination the complainant was diagnosed as no further investigation was possible without subsiding the redness and swelling and this fact is written in OPD card. The complainant had visited the hospital on 15.04.2015 and the same treatment without two additional medicines were added and further advised to visit on 16.04.2015. When the OP No.2 found that deep and thorough investigation was required to treat the disease then he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh. The treating doctor has vast experience of more than 40 years and is a renowned doctor in the medical fraternity. The complainant had paid only Rs.100/- on first instance on 14.04.2015 and the notice dated 19.06.2015 wherein a sum of Rs.50 lacs were demanded by the complainant was duly replied on dated  08.07.2015  which shows that the present complaint has been filed just to extract money from the OPs because there is no expert opinion to show that there is any visit loss to the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs as the complainant was diagnosed for the disease with utmost best efforts by the treating doctor by taking entire standards of competence while administering the treatment. The doctors of PGI have never reported that there is any deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2. Other allegations made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence the OPs have tendered Affidavit Annexure RX and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R4.

3.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file very carefully.

 4.               After going through the OPD record Annexure C1 issued by the OPs at the time of treatement it is clear that the complainant had suffered injury in his right eye while he was at work on 13.04.2015 and subsequently visited the OP No.2 at Manocha Eye Hospital for the first time on next day i.e. 14.04.2015 where the complainant was examined in OPD vide registration No. EYE024264 and was diagnosed as per prescription mentioned therein. In this OPD card the history of injury of right eye is mentioned a day before and it is also mentioned that patient had been explained that visual prognosis is guarded and he was advised some medicines with a direction to visit again on 15.04.2015 and thereafter his again visiting the hospital he was prescribed with few other medicines as per prescription. Again on 16.04.2015 the patient was referred to Eye Department, PGI Chandigarh for further treatment. The Ops have also placed on record Annexure R1 i.e. treatment record wherein the details of examination of the treatment has been mentioned. The patient had visited the PGI Chandigarh on 17.04.2015 after one day of his refers by the OP No.2 where he was diagnosed as a case of Post-Traumatic Endophthalamitis in the right eye where necessary treatment and surgical procedure was done finally but eye could not be saved. 

5.                Now, question arises whether the complainant has lost his vision due to medical negligence and late referring to higher hospital such as PGI by the treating doctor?

6.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the patient got injuries to the eye and had told the doctor that he was working on the machine, an x-ray of orbit should have been got done to ascertain if any intraocular foreign body (iron piece) is there or not but the treating doctor did not do so rather prescribed him simple medications without any tests such as x-ray and further referred the patient after two days i.e. on 16.04.2015 which is gross negligency on the part of treating doctor.

7.                We have gone through the record as well as the arguments advanced by both the parties in the present case it is clear that the patient himself had delayed the treatment for a day and he should have visited to any eye hospital on the same day when he was having knowledge about suffering injury due to trauma in the right eye. Undisputedly, the patient was examined and diagnosed by Op No.2 as per treatment record i.e. OPD record (Annexure C1).  In the OPD record it has been clearly mentioned that regarding visual prognosis of injured eye and necessary treatment was given and after two days of the treatment he was referred to PGI Chandigarh.

8.                Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances there is no delay on the part of the treating doctor while referring the patient to PGI for further treatment. As per version of the complainant he was admitted in the hospital but as per record produced on the file clearly shows that the complainant was treated only as OPD patient and it is admitted fact that the OPs had charged Rs.100/- from the complainant.  The Ops have clearly mentioned in Annexure R1 that there was redness and eye was swollen and it was no possible to examine in detail in first examination subsequently till swelling subsidies. As per Annexure R5 certificate issued by PGI Eye Department, Chandigarh there is no such mentioned that there is any delay in referring the patient and giving of any wrong treatment to the complainant by the doctor. In our opinion the patient should have visited to any eye surgeon as early as possible in order to avoid further damage (inflammation) after injury to his eye because due to delay there is every possibility that the injury/redness and swelling might have increased before visiting the doctor. Moreover, self medication might have been the reason in increasing of infection in the right eye.  The complainant has failed to prove his case against the OPs by leading cogent and reliable evidence. Hon’ble Apex Court of India in title “Kusum Sharma & ors. Vs. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre & others reported in 2010(2)RCR (Civil) 161 has directed to keep in view the following principles while holding medical negligence:-

1. Negligence is the breach of a duty exercised by omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.
2. Negligence is an essential ingredient of the offence. The negligence to be established by the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not the negligence merely based upon an error of judgment.
3. The medical professional is expected to bring a reasonable decree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable decree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low decree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law requires.
4. A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field.
5. In the realm of diagnosis and treatment there is scope for genuine difference of opinion and one professional doctor is clearly not negligent merely because his conclusion differs from that of other professional doctor.
6. The medical professional is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which he honestly believes as providing greater chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances of failure. Just because a professional looking to the gravity of illness has taken higher element of risk to redeem the patient out of his/her suffering which did not yield the desired result may not amount to negligence.
7. Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill and competence. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession.
8. It would not be conducive to the efficiency of the medical profession if no doctor could administer medicine without a halter round his neck.
9. It is our bounded duty and obligation of the civil society to ensure that the medical professionals are not unnecessary harassed or humiliated so that they can perform their professional duties without fear and apprehension.
10. The medical practitioner at time also have to be saved from such a class of complainants who use criminal process as a tool for pressurizing the medical professionals/hospitals particularly private hospitals or clinics for extracting uncalled for compensation. Such malicious proceedings deserve to be discarded against the medical practitioners.
11. The medical professional is entitled to get protection so long as they perform their duties with reasonable skill and competence and in the interest of the patients. The interest and welfare of the patients have to be paramount for the medical professionals. 2005 (3) RCR (Crl.) 836 relied.

9.                          Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances as well as the principle laid down in Kusum Sharma & ors. Vs. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre & others (supra), we are of the view that the complainant has failed to prove his case by leading cogent and reliable evidence that OPs are guilty of medical negligence, therefore, we accordingly dismiss the present complaint leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

 

ANNOUNCED ON:      23.10.2017                          (D.N. ARORA)

                            PRESIDENT       

         

 

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                      MEMBER

 

 

            (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                      MEMBER