Delhi

East Delhi

CC/86/2017

VAIBHAV AGGARWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAX HOSPITAL - Opp.Party(s)

03 Apr 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  86/2017

 

1. Shri Vaibhav Agarwal
2. Shri Rahul Agarwal

S/o Shri Surendra Kumar

Both at:

R/o 25, Green Avenue

Adarsh Colony, Muzaffarnagar

UP – 251 001                                                                           …….Complainants

Vs.

 

M/s. Max Healthcare Institute Limited

(Through its CEO Mr. Rajiv Mehta)

Max Super Specialty Hospital

108-A, IP Extension, Patparganj

Delhi – 110 092                                                                                ….Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 27.02.2017

Judgment Reserved on: 03.04.2019

Judgment Passed on: 23.04.2019

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Vaibhav Agarwal (Complainant no. 1) and Shri Rahul Agarwal (Complainant no. 2) against M/s. Max Healthcare Institute Ltd. (OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.         The facts in brief are that Shri Vaibhav Agarwal (C-1) was admitted in Max Super Specialty Hospital (OP) on 16.09.2016 with complaint of severe headache and drowsiness.  He was diagnosed with Intra Cerebral Hemorrhage with Extension into Ventricle and Mid Line Shift of Brain for which he was operated on the same day and shifted on 18.09.2016 to general ward no. 1605-A of the hospital. 

            It was stated that on 19.09.2016, one nurse named Harita came to clean the bed and after having done her job, she left without fixing one of the side railing of complainant’s bed which was meant to safeguard the accidental fall of the patient.  At around 2 p.m., mother of complainant, who was attending the patient, rushed outside at the nursing station for some help and on reaching back she was shocked and traumatized to see that complainant    no. 1 had fallen from the bed from the side where side railing of the bed was not fixed and raised by the nurse.  Complainant was again put on the bed with the help of hospital staff and attendants of other patients.

            It was also stated that Shri Rahul Agarwal (C-2), brother of complainant no. 1, who was one of the attendant, came in the ward after this incident, who had donated blood earlier in the day and saw his brother in a traumatized state and blood oozing out of his canula.  He came to know that his ailing brother who had undergone head surgery had fallen on the floor by the side of the bed as railing was not raised by the nurse, when she came to clean the bed.  He was completely shocked and under mental stress thinking of the fatal consequences of falling.  As a result, he collapsed in the bathroom of the ward and suffered fracture and dislocation of joint in the right foot for which he was operated the very next day and plates/screws were used to re-locate the joints and fracture bones.    

            It has been stated that it all happened as a result of this incident i.e. due to sheer negligence and carelessness of the hospital staff which caused mental and physical pain to the complainants and their family besides financial burden for not only treatment of Shri Vaibhav Agarwal (Rs. 4.79 lakhs), but also for the treatment of Shri Rahul Agarwal (Rs. 2 lakhs).   Complainant no. 2 also suffered loss of employment and mental harassment.      

            It was further stated that brother-in-law of the complainant brought his concern and lapses on the part of OP to their knowledge through emails dated 20.09.2016, 22.09.2016 and 24.09.2016 for which they did not get any reply.  After follow up, complainants were called for meeting with OP on 12.10.2016 and 04.11.2016, but nothing was done.

On 02.01.2017, complainants sent legal notice, which was neither replied nor complied.  Hence, the complainants have prayed for directions to OP to pay a consolidated amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- due to failure on the part of OP to give services to the complainant and Rs. 55,000/- as legal expenses. 

 3.        In the written statement, filed on behalf of M/s. Max Healthcare Institute Ltd. (OP), it has been stated that the complainants have instituted this complaint to pressurize M/s. Max Healthcare Institute Ltd. (OP) to go down to the unscrupulous demands of the complainants.

It has been stated that complainant no. 1 was diagnosed with Intra Cerebral Hemorrhage with Extension into Ventricle and Mid Line Shift of Brain.  He was operated on the same day and shifted to general ward no. 1605-A on 18.09.2016 for care and monitoring post operative. 

On 19.09.2016, one nurse of OP’s hospital came to clean the bed and check complainant’s (C-1) condition.  The side rail could not be raised so the nurse requested complainant’s mother to look after complainant no. 1. 

At about 2.20 p.m., complainants’ mother came to nursing station as she noticed oozing from central line.  The assigned nurse rushed to complainant no. 1 and found him sitting at the edge of the bed which stretched IV line resulting in oozing from IV site.  The nurse tried to put the complainant back to bed, but could not control him.  So, with the help of complainants’ mother, she managed to avoid the fall and gently put him to bed.  Since complainant no. 1 was sweating and looked sick so RRT was announced.  Later, OP’s senior doctor came from ICU team and examined the complainant.  By the time, the complainant was stable. 

At about 3.30p.m., OP’s another specialized doctor from Neuro team also came and saw complainant no. 1 condition.  Since, he could not find anything abnormal so he tried to reassure complainant no. 1 and talked for some time with him.

They have further stated that at about 4.30p.m., the assigned nurse saw one of the relative of complainant no. 1 was lying on the vacant bed in the same room.  When being asked, complainant no. 2 stated that he has donated blood on that day and may be due to weakness, he could not keep balance and fell in bathroom.  Complainant no. 2 was advised to go to emergency room, but he stated that it was not a serious issue and will only go once someone from home.  Duty doctors saw the attendant, but could not            find any wrong with him.  Thus, it has been stated that entire story put by the complainants was false and fabricated.  They have denied other facts also.

4. Complainants have filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP, wherein they have controverted the pleas taken in the written statement and reasserted their pleas. 

5.         In support of its complaint, Shri Vaibhav Agarwal (complainant no. 1) and Shri Rahul Agarwal have examined themselves on affidavit (CW-1 &   CW-2).  They have narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.  They have also got exhibited documents such as driving licence (Ex.CW1/1) & Aadhar Card (Ex.CW2/1), copy of payment receipts and medical documents (Ex.CW1/2), bill summary and details (Ex.CW1/3), copy of discharge summary (Ex.CW1/4), bill of Jupiter Healthcare dated 20.09.2016 for treatment of complainant no. 2 (Ex.CW1/5), medical bill of Pushpanjali Medical Centre of complainant no. 2 (Ex.CW1/6), copy of discharge summary of complainant no. 2 (Ex.CW1/7), copy of X-ray (Ex.CW1/8 colly.), of emails from 20.09.2016 to 04.11.2016 alongwith certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act (Ex.CW1/9 colly.) and copy of legal notice and its postal receipts (Ex.CW1/10 & 1/11).

            Smt. Savita Gupta, mother of complainants, have examined herself on affidavit (CW-3).  She has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint. 

            In defence, M/s. Max Healthcare Institute Ltd. (OP) have examined   Dr. Sudhakar Manav, Authorized Representative of OP, who have also deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the written statement. 

6.         We have heard Ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.  It has been argued on behalf of M/s. Max Healthcare Institute Ltd. (OP) that complaint was filed under Section 12(c) of the Act which requires permission of the forum to institute the same.  He has placed reliance on a judgement of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in Ambrish Kumar Shukla & 21 Ors. Vs. Ferrous Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., CC No. 97 of 2016 where it has been laid down that “The primary object behind permitting a class action such as a complaint under Section 12(I)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act being to facilitate the decision of a consumer dispute in which a large number of consumers were interested, without recourse to each of them filing an individual complaint, it was necessary that such a complaint was filed on behalf of or for the benefit of all the persons having such a community of interest”.  He has further argued that there was no deficiency on the part of OP. 

            On the other hand, Ld., Counsel for complainant have argued that wrong nomenclature of the complaint under Section 12(c) will not make the complaint for more than one consumer as they have filed the complaint jointly.  He has further argued that from the evidence and the documents on record, a case of deficiency in service was made out. 

            To appreciate the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the parties, a look has to be made to the testimony of Vaibhav Agarwal (CW-1), Rahul Agarwal   (CW-2), Smt. Savita Gupta (CW-3) and Dr. Sudhakar Manav, AR of M/s. Max Healthcare Institute Ltd. (OP).  From the testimony of these witnesses, it has to be seen as to whether there was any deficiency on the part of OP. 

The first and foremost point which have been raised on behalf of OP is taken first.  To ascertain as to whether complaint filed by the complainants viz. Vaibhav Agarwal (C-1) and Rahul Agarwal (C-2) have to be treated as a complaint under Section 12(c) of the Act, a look has to be made to the complaint as such.  The title of the complaint shows that the complaint has been under Section 12(c) of the Act.  In the body of the complaint, complainants have narrated the facts pertaining to complainant Vaibhav Agarwal (C-1) and Rahul Agarwal (C-2).  In the prayer clause, complainants have prayed for consolidated amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- to the complainants due to failure on their part to give services to the complainants causing physical trauma and mental sufferings alongwith legal expenses for an amount of Rs. 55,000/-. 

            In the present complaint, no doubt, the complainants have titled the complaint under Section 12(c) of the Act, but the contents of the complaint revealed that both the complainants have filed the complaint jointly as a single complaint.  Merely, giving wrong nomenclature under the wrong section will not make the complaint under the said provision.  Here, there are not a number of complainants on whose behalf; one of them should have made a complaint.  There are only two complainants who are closely related to each other.  The complaint is a joint complaint, which have to be treated as a single complaint.  Instead of filing the separate complaints, they have made a single complaint jointly.  Therefore, this complaint have to be treated a single complaint and cannot be said to be a complaint under Section 12(I)(c) of the Act.  The judgement of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Ambrish Kumar Shukla (supra) is not attracted to the facts of the case.

Reference is also made to Order 1 Rule 1 of CPC which says who may be joined as plaintiffs.  Two persons may be joined in one suit as plaintiffs where (a) any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist in such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative.  Thus, from this rule of Order 1, it comes out that a suit can be filed joining more than one person where the right to relief has arisen from the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions.  This rule strengthens the case of the complainants where they have filed the complaint jointly as their relief has arisen from the same act which has been alleged in the complaint.  Therefore, the plea taken on behalf of Ld. Counsel for M/s. Max Healthcare Institute Ltd. (OP) have no force.  The same stands rejected.

Coming to the second leg of arguments whether from the evidence on record, deficiency in service has been made out or not, the testimony of both the complainants, their mother and Dr. Sudhakar Manav, AR of M/s. Max Healthcare Institute Ltd. (OP) have to be examined and the documents have to be analyzed. 

Firstly, the testimony of Vaibhav Agarwal (CW-1) is taken up.  He has stated in his testimony that he was admitted in Max Hospital of OP on 16.09.2016 and was diagnosed with Intra Cerebral Hemorrhage with Extension into Ventricle and Mid Line Shift of Brain and operated and shifted to the general ward no. 1605-A on 18.09.2016 for care and monitoring post operation.  On 19.09.2016, one nurse name Harita came to clean the bed and after doing her job, she left without fixing one of the side railing of the bed which was meant to safeguard the accidental fall of the patient. 

At around 2 p.m., the mother of the complainant who was attending the patient saw that the blood was oozing from canula as it was negligently attached due to which it was loose and had got detached.  She pressed the call bell, but no one came to attend.  She immediately rushed at the nursing station for help where the nurse present could not understand Hindi and her colleague came after few minutes on raising the alarm by the mother of the patient.  They rushed to the patient.  On reaching there, the mother was shocked to see that complainant had fallen from the bed from the side where side rail of the bed was not fixed. 

He has further deposed that Mr. Rahul Agarwal (C-2), the brother of complainant no. 1, who was also one of the attendants and donated his blood, came in the ward after this incident and saw his brother in a traumatized state and blood oozing out of his canula.  He came to know that his brother had fallen on the floor by the side of the bed as the railing was not raised by the nurse when she came to clean the bed and patient.  He was completely shocked and due to mental stress, he collapsed in the slippery bathroom of the ward and suffered fracture and dislocation of joints in the right foot.  He was operated on the very next day.  This is stated to have happened as a result of the incident i.e. due to negligence and carelessness of the hospital staff. 

He has further pointed out the deficiency in service such as  (a) the necessary articles towel, pillow were not available despite repeated request, (b) the urine discharge poly bag was not cleared in time and it spilled out on two or three occasions and (c) the AC was not working and was not fixed despite several requests.  He has also placed reliance on the emails exchanged between the parties from 20.09.2016 to 04.11.2016 which have been got exhibited as ex.CW-1/9. 

Rahual Agarwal (CW-2)have also narrated the same facts, hence, they are not repeated.

Savita Gupta (CW-3) have also narrated the incident which have been deposed by CW-1 and CW-2, hence not repeated again.

Dr. Sudhakar Manav, AR of OP have stated in his testimony that on 19.06.2016, one nurse of OP’s hospital came to clean the bed and check complainant’s (C-1) condition.  The side rail could not be raised so the nurse requested complainant’s mother to look after complainant no. 1. 

At about 2.20 p.m., complainants’ mother came to nursing station as she noticed oozing from central line.  The assigned nurse rushed to complainant no. 1 and found him sitting at the edge of the bed which stretched IV line resulting in oozing from IV site.  The nurse tried to put the complainant back to bed, but could not control him.  So, with the help of complainants’ mother, she managed to avoid the fall and gently put him on the floor.  He has further deposed that at about 4.30p.m., the assigned nurse saw one of the relative of complainant no. 1 lying on the vacant bed in the same room.  When being asked, complainant no. 2 stated that he has donated blood on that day and may be due to weakness, he could not keep balance and fell in bathroom.  Complainant no. 2 was advised to go to emergency room, but he told that it was not a serious issue and will only go once someone from home.  Duty doctors saw the attendant, but could not find any wrong with him. 

From the testimony of Vaibhav Agarwal (CW-1), Rahul Agarwal (CW-2) and Savita Gupta (CW-3), it comes out that it is the case of the complainants that on 19.09.2016, staff nurse Harita came to clean the bed of             Vaibhav Agarwal (C-1) and left without fixing one of the side railing of the bed, mother of complainant went to the nursing station for attending complainant no. 1 as the blood was oozing from canula (central line) and when she came back, she noticed that complainant no. 1 had fallen from the bed which was not fixed and raised by the nurse. 

The fact of side railing being not fixed which led to the fall of complainant no. 1 has been admitted by Dr. Sudhakar Manav, AR of OP in his testimony.   To quote from his testimony “The side rail could not be raised so the nurse requested complainant’s mother to look after complainant no. 1”.  Going of the mother of the complainants at the nursing station has also been admitted in his testimony.  To quote from his testimony “At 2.20p.m., complainants’ mother came to nursing station as she noticed oozing from central line.  The assigned nurse rushed to the complainant no. 1 and found him sitting at the edge of the bed which stretched IV line resulting in oozing from IV site”.  The only fact which has been denied by OP was the fall of complainant no. 1 on the floor.  The testimony of               Dr. Sudhakar Manav, AR of OP is to the affect that complainant no. 1 did not fall, but he was gently put on the floor to avoid the fall.  To quote from his testimony “The nurse tried to put complainant back to bed, but could not control him, so with the help of complainant’s mother, she managed to avoid the fall and gently put him on the floor”. 

Though the testimony of Dr. Sudhakar Manav, AR of OP is to the affect that there was no fall of complainant no. 1, but the testimony of mother of complainants Smt. Savita Gupta is to the affect that he had fallen from the bed from the side where side rail of the bed was not fixed and raised by the nurse. 

The two facts which have been admitted by Dr. Sudhakar Manav that “Side rail could not be raised and the staff nurse left the complainant in the care of the mother”.  Secondly, “Oozing of the blood from canula and rushing the mother of the complainant to the nursing station”.  The third fact which is disputed one has been in respect of fall of complainant no. 1.  When the side rail of the bed was not raised, which was meant for safety of the patient and the complainant no. 1 who was patient having suffered from oozing of blood from the central line and rushing of the mother of the complainant no. 1 to the nursing station, certainly, it is possible that complainant have fallen from the bed which is the version of mother of the complainant.  The testimony of mother of the complainant have to be relied upon. 

Coming to the fall of Shri Rahul Aggarwal, complainant no. 2, the testimony of Dr. Sudhakar Manav shows that he donated blood on that day and may be due to weakness, he could not keep balance and fell in bathroom.  The incident of fall of complainant no. 2 is admitted by Dr. Sudhakar Manav, AR of OP, but the only fact which have been disputed has been with regard to the nature of fall.  The version of Dr. Sudhakar Manav is to the affect that it may be due to weakness, he could not keep balance and fell in the bathroom.  This assumption of his cannot be accepted in the presence of the testimony of Smt. Savita Gupta who have categorically stated that the bathroom was a slippery one. 

Discharge summary of Pushpanjali Hospital of Rahul Agarwal (C-2) also show that on 19.09.2016, complainant no. 2 was admitted in the hospital with the history of self fall.  He was discharged on 20.09.2016.  Thus, the fact remains that Rahul Agarwal (C-2) have injury on account of  self fall, the version of his mother Smt. Savita Gupta have to be accepted that fall of complainant no. 2 have been due to shock when he saw his brother Vaibhav Agarwal (C-1) in a traumatized condition.    

Now, it is to be seen as to how far these facts have been corroborated by the emails which have been exchanged between the complainant and OP from 20.09.2016 to 04.11.2016 which have been got exhibited as Ex.CW-1/9.

Though, counsel for complainant have got exhibited mails exchanged between the complainant and the hospital authorities as Ex.CW-1/9, however, the mails showing the factum of incident and the deficiency on the part of OP have to be referred.

In the mail of 30.09.2016, sent by Max Hospital, it has been stated that the side rail could not be raised so the nurse requested patient’s mother to look after the patient.  When the mother of the complainant went to the nursing station for a complaint, the assigned nurse came to the patient and found him sitting at the edge of the bed.  She tried to put the patient back to the bed, but could not control him.  With the help of his mother, she managed to avoid the fall and jointly put him on floor.

`From this, it comes out that the incident has happened and further the facts point out to the deficiency in service.  The deficiency in service can be gathered from the fact that when the mail states that side rail could not be raised, the nurse requested the patient’s mother to look after the patient.  When she came back on the complaint, she could not control him and with the help of his mother, she put the patient/complainant on the floor.

This mail also goes to show that Rahul Agarwal (C-2), brother of Vaibhav Agarwal (C-1) who have donated the blood fell in the bathroom.  His fall in the bathroom in the mail stated to be due to weakness.  The word used in the mail has been “may be due to weakness”.  His fall has been assumed due to weakness.  The Max Hospital should have given categorical reason of his fall in the bathroom.  In the absence of that, it cannot be said that his fall was due to his weakness by donating the blood.  This fact also point out towards the deficiency in service on the part of OP.  Thus, from this mail, the factum of incident, which has occurred in respect of Vaibhav Agarwal (C-1) of his falling on the floor and sustaining injuries as the side rail was not raised by the staff nurse and fall of Rahul Agarwal (C-2) in the bathroom as well as deficiency on the part of Max Hospital stands prove.

Further, the minutes of the meeting which took place on 12.10.2016 also point out towards the negligence of the hospital.  The relevant portion of the minutes of the meeting are quoted hereunder:-

 

S.No.	Issues	Discussions	Solution & Action Plan
1.	Negligences
	Side rail of the bed was not in place	The root cause was Admitted that side grill was not in place & it was in the knowledge of the nurse who lowered down the side rail	Already accepting, going forward Hospital authorities have confirmed to impart necessary training to the nursing staff to avoid such negligence’s.
	Patient fell from the bed	Patient did not fall before the nurse rushed to the patient bed as per hospital investigation, Patient has already fallen before the nurse came as per patient’s family based on the statements & confirmation of eye witnesses (attendants of other patients in the ward)	External/Independent Agency should reinvestigate or Re-investigation has to be done by hospital authorities to confirm on this within next 7 days
	Patient’s brother (attendant) fainted in the hospital	He collapsed in the washroom of the hospital under mental stress thinking of the fatal consequences of falling after hearing that his ailing brother has fallen who has undergone head surgery 2 days back.  The attendant brother got operated the very next day & plates/screws were used to re-locate the joints & bone.  Hospital authorities do not relate this mis-happening to the negligence happened.  As per patient’s family hospital’s negligence has contributed to this mental & physical trauma.	Hospital authorities have to take a call on this to resolve on this contributed mis-happening due to negligence
	Investigation	Investigation was done internally by hospital & based on the employee’s statements, Statements of Eye witnesses were not taken to authenticate the actual happening.	External/Independent Agency should reinvestigate or Re-investigation has to be done by hospital authorities taking into aspect of eye witnesses and confirm within next 7 days.
4.	Findings of the investigation	Hospital authorities have completely different finding from their investigation from what the patient’s family has alleged.	External/Independent Agency should reinvestigate or Re-investigation has to be done by hospital authorities to confirm on this within next 7 days
5.	Proposal	Hospital authorities asked for a proposal from patient’s family to resolve the issues amicably, patient’s family replied to confirm later on.	Patient and his family have to ascertain the loss due to negligence’s and lack of services rendered in comparison to the charges charged from the patient and additional charges incurred on the mis-happening with the patient’s brother, to propose an appropriate proposal for the closure of issues cordially.

 

From these minutes of the meeting, it is evident that findings of the investigation team of the hospital gave different findings than the alleged facts by the family members and it was proposed that external/independent agency should reinvestigate the same.  However, no external/independent agency have been appointed to reinvestigate the matter.  These minutes also show that they have accepted the fact that side rail of the bed was not in place.  Further, they have proposed that patient and his family had to ascertain the loss due to negligence and lack of services rendered by their hospital.  Not only that, complainants asked for CCTV footage which they have failed to provide.

   From the analysis of these facts, it comes out that there was deficiency in services provided by the Max Hospital.  When there was deficiency in services, provided by Max Hospital, the next question that arises for consideration has been as to what compensation have to be granted to the complainants.  In the complaint, complainants have claimed a lump sum compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- with litigation charges amounting to           Rs. 55,000/-.  Though, the compensation claimed by the complainants is on the higher side, the compensation which have to be granted to the complainants must be just and fair.  

To arrive at that decision, a reference has to be made firstly to the medical record of Rahul Agarwal (C-2) who took the treatment from Pushpanjali Hospital.  The discharge summary shows that he was admitted in the said hospital on 19.09.2016 and discharged on 20.09.2016.  The bill of Pushpanjali Hospital shows that he has paid an amount of Rs. 44,219.63/- on account of his treatment.  Another bill which is of Jupiter Health Care Company shows that an amount of Rs. 20,055/- was paid by the complainant for locking plate which he has purchased from this company.  Thus,             Shri Rahul Agarwal (C-2) have spent a total amount of Rs. 64,274.63/- on his treatment.

With regard to Shri Vaibhav Agarwal (C-1), when the incident took place, he was in the hospital itself.  The amount spent by him on the date of incident i.e. 19.09.2016 have been included in the hospital bill of                   Rs. 4,84,143.70/- itself.  Therefore, the said bill cannot be bifurcated. 

The incident which have occurred, as narrated in the facts of the complaint have led to mental pain and suffering to the complainants.  The nature of the incident is such, the mental pain and suffering which have been suffered by the complainants cannot be quantified.  When the mental pain and suffering cannot be quantified, the forum have to assess the same on the basis of circumstantial evidence and the nature of incident to award just and fair compensation. 

Thus, from the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and fair, if compensation for an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- is awarded to the complainants for mental pain and sufferings.  We, therefore, order that        M/s. Max Healthcare Institute Ltd. (OP) shall pay an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- towards compensation on account of mental pain and suffering.  We further award an amount of Rs. 30,000/- as cost of litigation. 

            This order be complied within a period of 60 days from the date of order.  If not complied, the total amount of Rs. 2,80,000/- shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till realization. 

            Before parting with, it would not be out of place to mention that the case of the complainants which has been gathered from the pleadings and the documents placed on record has been in respect of “deficiency in service” and not of “medical negligence”.  In the case of “medical negligence”, the hospital authorities have to be cautious that the treatment given to its patients does not suffer from “medical negligence”.  If they cross this hurdle of “medical negligence”, they have to ensure that their “post operative services” were not deficient in any manner.

            In order to prevent litigation under the Consumer Protection Act, the hospital authorities have to undergo dual test.  First, there has been no “medical negligence” on the part of doctors.  Secondly, their “post operative services” have not been deficient.  The present case demonstrates “deficiency in service” at the “post operative” stage.

            The paramedical staff takes charge of the patient when admitted who remains under their care and supervision till his discharge.  In the present era, the private hospitals are managed like MNCs.  Their work culture has been of a corporate entity.  The patient and his family members expect services of the paramedical staff of high standard as they charge for the services alike.  To ensure that standard, the paramedical staff has to be faithful not only towards their authorities, but towards the patients too. 

The present case shows that though the staff nurse was well trained, even then she has failed to perform her duties diligently.  In the minutes of the meeting, held by the authorities, they have proposed for imparting training to the nursing staff.  The services rendered by the hospital authorities should commensurate with the amount charged from the patients. 

             To avoid “post operative” deficiency in services, the hospital authorities have to ensure that their paramedical staff is well trained.  No doubt, the paramedical staff have the requisite qualification and experience, but the fact remains that due to carelessness of the hospitals staff, the patients have to suffer. 

Medical Superintendent of Max Health Care Super Specialty Hospital, Patparganj, is directed to ensure that services rendered by the paramedical staff do not suffer from any deficiency.  In order to avoid deficiency in services on account of paramedical staff, it is advisable that paramedical staff be given short term refresher courses.  Suitable directions be issued to the paramedical staff for the same.

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)                                        (SUKHDEV SINGH)

               Member                                                                        President