Delhi

StateCommission

A/10/869

KASHMIRI LAL SACHDEVA ( DECEASED) - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAX HEALTH CARE INSTITUTE LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

17 Apr 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

 

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision:  17.04.2015

First Appeal No. 869/2010

 

Kashmiri Lal Sachdeva (Deceased),

Through L.R. Smt. Susheela Sachdeva,

D-231, Prasant Vihar,

New Delhi-110085.

……Appellant

 

Versus

Max Health Care Institute Ltd.,

Max House, Okhla,

New Delhi-110020.

…Respondent

 

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

NP Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

1.       Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

1.      This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the Act”) wherein challenge has been made to order dated 08.11.10 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, New Delhi (in short, the “District Forum”) in Complaint Case No.279/08/DF-X whereby the complaint of the appellant/complainant has been dismissed.
2.      Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are as under:

Shri Kashmiri Lal Sachdeva was the complainant before the District Forum.  He had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act alleging therein that on 16.3.07 he was admitted in Saroj Hospital with a history of sudden onset of left side weakness of body with a fall on ground.  There was no improvement in his condition in the said hospital, as such he got himself discharged on 02.04.2007.  On 04.04.2007, he was admitted to the respondent hospital where a complete discharge summary issued by the Saroj Hospital was handed over.  The said summary indicated a case of weakness of the body with fall on ground, no history of sugar, vomiting 3-4 times associated with incontinuance of urine.  No history of HTN/DM/CVA.  The complainant remained in the respondent hospital up to 16.04.2007.  There was no improvement in his condition, as such a request for discharge was made.  However, request was not acceded to. However on insistence, respondent issued a LAMA (left against medical advice) summary and charged Rs.1,85,000/- for stay in the hospital.  After discharge from the said hospital, the complainant was admitted in Pentamed Hospital on the same day.  It was alleged that within 3 days, the said hospital managed his ailment and discharged him on 29.04.07.  Thereafter a claim was lodged for reimbursement with Insurance Co. which was repudiated on the ground that it was a case of hypertension i.e. pre-existing disease.  It was alleged that when the complainant was discharged from the Saroj hospital, there was no mention of hypertension in the discharge summary nor any medication was given for treatment of hypertension.  However, in the ‘LAMA SUMMARY’ dated 16.4.07 issued by respondent under the heading past history, it is recorded “Hypertension on irregular treatment”.  It is alleged that the same is a negligence on the part of the respondent.  Even the treatment was not properly given and the appellant was charged Rs.1,85,000/- by the respondent.  A prayer was made for refund of Rs.1,85,000/- with interest of 18% and Rs.2 lac as compensation towards mental agony and harassment.

  

3.     The claim was repudiated by respondent before District Forum by filing written statement wherein it was alleged that at the time of admission in the respondent hospital, the doctors attending complainant were informed by the attending relatives that the complainant was initially admitted in Saroj Hospital with acute onset of hemiparesis and was diagnosed as a case of Rt. Thalamic Bleed (Brain Hemorrhage).  On 2.4.07 at the time of discharge from the aforesaid hospital, he was having fever.  It was alleged that at the time of admission, complainant was having vomiting and altered sensorium prior to admission appellant was suggestive of chest infection.  On admission patient was evaluated by 5-6 doctors.  The initial evaluation was suggestive of hemiparesis with chest infection which was managed with Empirical antibiotics.  The consultation was also done with other specialized doctors.  The complainant was put on conservative management with antibiotics, nutrition supportive treatment.  Further feeding gastrosomy was done on 12.04.07 but his attendants wanted to take the patient on their own responsibility despite having explained the risk of transfer.  It was alleged that at the time of discharge his condition was drowsy but was responding to painful stimulus.  The discharge of complainant was against medical advise and therefore respondent issued LAMA Summary.  Even discharge was signed by the son of the complainant after fully understanding the risk of consequences.  It was alleged that proper treatment was given and there was no negligence on the part of the respondent.  It was alleged that at the time of admission, the doctors were informed by the attendants that the complainant had been suffering from hypertension but was on irregular treatment.  It was alleged that the final diagnosis in LAMA summary did not mention hypertension.

4.      Rejoinder was filed by the complainant denying the allegations made by the respondent/OP.    
5.      Evidence filed by both the parties by way of affidavits.
6.  The complainant had died during the pendency of the complaint case and his widow, namely, Smt. Sushila Sachdeva was brought on record as his L.R.
7. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, the District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 8.11.2010.    
8. Aggrieved with the same, present appeal is filed.
9. Ld. Counsel for the LR of deceased complainant has contended that the finding given by the District Forum that there is no deficiency on the part of the respondent is a perverse finding.  It is contended that the important evidence has been ignored by the Ld. District Forum.  It is contended that the medical negligence on the part of the respondent clearly stand established from the LAMA summary dated 16.4.07 issued by the respondent.  It is contended that the deceased was not a patient of hypertension.  No medical treatment in this regard was given either in Saroj Hospital or in the respondent Hospital.  Despite that it was recorded in the LAMA summary under the heading ‘past history’ a case of hypertension on irregular basis.  It is contended that it is a clear case of medical negligence due to which claim of the deceased complainant was repudiated by the Insurance Co. by taking it as a pre-existing disease.  It is further contended that the deceased was given EPTOIN-100mg for many days which resulted in increase of Phytoin level at 42 against standard of 10-12.  It is contended that in Pentamed hospital, EPTOIN-100mg was not given to the deceased and the deceased was on his legs within two days.  It is contended that this is a clear case of medical negligence on the part of the respondent and as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
10. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has contended that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.  The deceased complainant was of 58 years of age and was treated as per the medical norms.  It is contended that at the time of discharge, the condition of the patient was drowsy and there was risk in the discharge.  However, his relatives insisted for the discharge, therefore he was discharged against medical advice as such LAMA summary dated 16.04.2007 was issued.  It is further contended that same was received by the son of the deceased, namely, Shri Pankaj Sachdeva who was explained the risks and consequences associated with the discharge.  Thereafter having fully understood the same, he had signed the discharge summary.  It is further contended that at the time of admission in the hospital, it was informed that deceased complainant had been suffering from hypertension but was on irregular treatment and accordingly the said ailment was recorded in the past history.  It is further contended that the allegations that the respondent kept on popping EPTION 100 mg tablets are new allegations and were not part of the complaint filed before the District Forum nor the same was argued there.  It is further contended that even before the admission in the respondent hospital, the deceased was given EPTION-100mg in Saroj Hospital.  It is submitted that impugned order is legal and valid and does not call for interference of this Commission.
11. We have heard both the Counsel for the parties and gone through the material on record.
12. It is admitted position that the deceased was earlier treated at Saroj Hospital and after discharge from said hospital he was admitted with the respondent on 4.4.07 and remained there upto 16.4.2007.  In the LAMA summary dated 16.4.2007, under the heading “past history” it is recorded hypertension on irregular treatment.  The contention of the appellant is that the same has been recorded wrongly and there is a medical negligence on the part of the respondent.  It is contended that even in the discharge papers of Saroj Hospital, it is clearly recorded in the past history, no history of HTN (Hypertension).  The stand of the respondent in the written statement as well as in the evidence before the District Forum is that the attendant who got him admitted in the hospital had given the history of hypertension and due to said reason, it was recorded in the LAMA summary.  The respondent has relied upon the evidence of Doctor Rajeev Kapoor, OPW1 wherein he had stated that history of hypertension was recorded as the same was given by the relative of patient who got him admitted on 4.4.07.  Further the stand of the respondent is that the complainant was a case of Rt. Thalamic Bleed (Brain Hemorrhage).  It is stated that hypertension is one of common causes of the intra cranial bleed. It is further the stand of respondent that no medicine for hypertension was given which is not denied on behalf of deceased complainant.  There is no reason to disbelieve the affidavit of Dr. Rajiv Kapoor, OPW-1.  The final diagnosis also did not mention about hypertension.  Finding given in this regard by the District Forum are based on evidence on record as such are not interfered with. 
13. Other contention of Ld. Counsel appearing for the LR of deceased complainant is that the treatment provided in the respondent hospital was wrong and LAMA summary was wrongly issued. No evidence on record is shown by the Ld. Counsel that there was any deficiency in the treatment provided to the respondent.  The respondent in evidence has given details of treatment provided.  No expert evidence is placed on record before the District Forum or in the appeal to show that the treatment provided was wrong.  The only stand taken is that EPTOIN 100mg was given to the complainant which resulted in increase of Phnytoin level of the complainant rising to 42 against the standard of 10-12.  No such allegations were made before the District Forum in the complaint filed nor such a contention was before the District Forum at the time of arguments.  Such a plea has been taken for the first time in the appeal.  It may be mentioned that discharge summary dated 2.4.07 of Saroj hospital clearly shows that the deceased complainant was given EPTION 100mg in the said hospital.  In these circumstances, there is no medical negligence as is alleged.
14.   Ld. Counsel for respondent has also relied upon observation of Supreme Court in Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa vs State of Maharashtra and Ors., 1996 SCC (2) 634.  The relevant portion of the judgement is reproduced as under:

“The skill of medical practitioners differs from doctor to doctor.  The very nature of the profession is such that there may be more than one course of treatment which may be advisable for treating a patient.  Courts would indeed be slow in attributing negligence on the part of a doctor if he has performed his duties to the best of his ability and with due care and caution.  Medical opinion may differ with regard to the course of action to be taken by a doctor treating a patient, but as long as a doctor acts in a manner which is acceptable to the medical profession, and the Court finds that he has attended on the patient with due care skill and diligence and if the patient still does not survive or suffers a permanent ailment, it would be difficult to hold the doctor to be guilty of negligence.”

 

15. Ld. Counsel for appellant has relied upon Vidya Devi (Deceased) through LRs & Ors. vs. Dr. R. Mehindru, II (2008) CPJ 232 (NC) in support of the stand that present is a case of medical negligence.  We have gone through the aforesaid judgement.  The same is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
16. There is nothing on record to prove negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the respondent as is alleged.   The evidence on record does not establish the same.  There is nothing on record to show that doctors of respondent hospital had not treated the deceased complainant to the best of their ability.  In these circumstances, no illegality is seen in the impugned order which calls for interference of this Commission. 

 

 

17. The appeal stands dismissed.
18.     A copy of this order as per the statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.

 

      

            (Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

                                        

(Salma Noor)

Member

 

(NP Kaushik)

Member (Judicial)