Haryana

StateCommission

CC/75/2017

ROSHAN LAL JAGGA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MEDANTA THE MEDICITY - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP BHARDWAJ

25 Jul 2019

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                Complaint  No.75 of 2017

Date of institution: 08.02.2017

Date of Decision: 25.07.2019

 

Roshan Lal Jagga S/o Sh. Sh.Gopi Ram Correspondence Address:- Mithan Lal Street, Shri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab.

                                                                   .….Complainant

Versus

 

1.      Medanta-The Medicity, Sector-38,Gurgaon, Haryana 122001, through its Director/Manager/Authorised representative.

2.      Medanta Mediclinic, E-18, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110024, through its Director/Manager/Authorized representative.

                                                .….Opposite Parties

CORAM:    Mr.Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

                    Mrs.Manjula, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Roshan Lal Jagga,   Advocate for complainant.

Mr.Madhukar Pandey, Advocate for opposite parties.

 

O R D E R

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

1.      The brief facts given rise for the disposal of the present complaint are that wife of the complainant was brought to the hospital of the opposite parties as wife of the complainant was complaining for breathlessness and was suffering from Kidney disease.  The wife of the complainant was  taken to  Max Hospital, Bathinda and DMC Ludhiana.   The patient was admitted on 28.01.2015 in the ICU and other patients of ICU suffering from HINI virus and the wife of the complainant also contact with the virus from the ICU.   O.Ps. took the sample on 29.01.2015 and got the report on 02.02.2015. District Surveillance Officer, informed that wife of the complainant infected with HINI Virus.  O.Ps. delayed the information to the Government in order to cover up their negligence.  No medicine was provided by the health department. The wife of the complainant was not suffering from HINI virus. The wife of the complainant was expired  on 07.02.2015. The O.Ps. failed in discharging their duties and remain deficient in services.   The complainant not only suffered the loss of a family member but also suffered a great mental agony and physical harassment due to act and conduct of the O.Ps. The act of the opposite parties shows negligence and deficiency in service.

2.      The complaint was resisted by the O.Ps by filing a written statement before the State Commission, in which O.Ps. stated that on 28.01.2015 at 09.30 a.m. the patient Mrs. Raj Kumari was presented at Emergency Department of Medanta with complaint of breathing difficulty, wheezing drowsiness and no movement of both lower limbs since 2-3 days.  The patient was known case of Diabetes Mellitus since 20 years, Hypertension since 10-15 years, Atrial Fibbrillation with Fast Ventricular Rate for which the patient was admitted in DMC Ludhiana on 12.01.2015, she was kept on non-invasive ventilation and discharged on 22.01.2015, shortness of breath, type II Respiratory failure, Bilateral Pneumontis, chronic Obstructive Pulmonary disease, Pulmonary Artery Hypertension (PAH) and RA/RV dilated and acute Renal failure.  Her abdomen was soft but distended. Chest examination revealted bilateral air entry to be present and presence of rhonchi and bilateral crepts. The patient was in critical condition.  Every ICU consist of separate isolated ICU cabins with dedicated nursing staff and regulated air circulation to control infection.  On 28.01.2015 at 10.15 pm the patient was examined by critical care team. The Patient was managed on non invasive ventilator.  Some blood investigations were conducted by the Ops.  On 29.01.2015 the patient was examined by critical care team. the patient presented at the opposite party hospital during the time when HINI epidemic was on rise, two samples of Nasopharyngeal swab were sent under all universal precautions to Quest Diagnostic India Private Limited and office of Integrated disease Surveillance programme for investigation for HINI, which was positive for RT-PCR influenza A and RT PCR for HINi..  On 30.01.2015, the treating doctor  examined alongwith plastic surgery team. There was infection in urine.  The patient condition was continued to deteriorate and on 07.02.2015, the patient was declared dead.  Thus there was no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. 

3.                When the complaint was posted for recording evidence of the parties, the complainant in her evidence has tendered the affidavit Ex.C-A vide which he has reiterated all the averments taken in the complaint and further tendered the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-14 and closed his evidence.

4.                On the other hand in order to rebut the evidence led on behalf of the complainant the O.Ps. had also tendered the affidavit Ex.OP-A that of Dr. Awadhesh Kumhar Debey and also tendered documents Ex.OP-1  to OP-15 and closed his evidence.

5.                The arguments have been advanced by Sh.Roshan Lal Jagga, the learned counsel for the complainant as well as Mr.Madhukar Pandey, the learned counsel for the opposite parties.  With their kind assistance the entire record including documentary evidence as well as whatever the evidence had been led during the proceedings of the complaint had also been properly perused and examined.

6.                It is very pity by this Commission that her family member, who is a complainant wife as well as member of the bar has lost his spouse, but, it is kind of one of the consideration to fasten the criminal liability against any of the treating doctors on account of the fact that ordinarily before diagnosing any particular disease, no medical treatment could be carried. For conducting the tests and to receive the report, it takes a reasonable time and keeping in view the deteriorating condition of the patient, the wife of the complainant was  taken to  Max Hospital, Bathinda and DMC Ludhiana for proper treatment, who is renowned institution, which have taken all due precaution. The patient was admitted in Emergency  at Medanta- The Medicity and the patient was kept in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) where all kinds of facilities are available to safeguard the life of the patients. 

7.                The contention raised by the counsel for the complainant, who happens to be a member of the bar that  patient is already suffering from breathlessness and Kidney disease, as such, no particular treatment was given to her and as a result thereof, the wife of the complainant has expired. 

8.                This contention stands rejected  for all intents and purposes on account of the fact that wife of the complainant had remained admitted in renowned institution namely Max Hospital, Bathinda and DMC Ludhiana and she was put up on ventilator also and after discharge from DMC, Ludhiana, she had also remained at home about one week, as such, it was not expected from the treating doctors from Medanta hospital to start immediate regular treatment except the emergent medicines, who has actually been done in this case.  Even if as per the contention  raised by the complainant that she was kept in ICU  at Medanta Hospital, where all the patients suffering from HINI virus were admitted and  the wife of the complainant also contact with the virus from the ICU, in this regard, it is suffice to say that in Intensive Care Unit, the patient is only admitted if found to be serious or critical and all pre-cautions are taken  by the treating doctors  and no disease is communicated to the other patients and as such, she was already suffering from HINI virus.  As per the death report Annexure, the cause of the death is as under:-

                   “SEPTICAEMIC SHOCK

                   ACUTE RESPIRATORY DISTRESS SYNDROME

                   MULTI ORGAN DYSFUNCTION SYNDROME

                   ACUTE KIDNEY INJURY

LOWER RESPIRATORY TRACT INFECTION CAUSE HINI)

CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE PULMONARY DISEASE”

9.                Since the death certificate clearly shows that the patient was admitted on 28.01.2015 in the ICU and she was expired due to HINI virus i.e. one of the reason.  Since the complainant also admitted that the patient was having kidney disease and because of this kind of problem, the patient was having multifarious problems in the body.

10.              More so, there is no concrete evidence led on behalf of the complainant to prove the medical negligence of the treating doctor.   Similarly, no expert opinion of the medical board has been obtained, which could prove that there was a medical negligence of the treating doctor and as such, under the given facts and circumstances of the case, the medical negligence is not proved.  Hence, the complaint is dismissed.

 

July 25th, 2019  Manjula                         Ram Singh Chaudhary,                                    Member                         Judicial Member                                                 Addl. Bench                    Addl.Bench                 

S.K.