Passed by Shri Atul D. Alsi, Hon’ble President.

The complainants have filed complaint case in respect of medical negligence for the treatment of deceased son of complainants and thereby claiming compensation of Rs.75,00,000/- for mental torture along with cost of litigation.

The story in short is as under,

1. The complainant No. 1 is father retired government servant and complainant No. 2 is mother of deceases Amit Manohar Suryvanshi who was serving at Samsung India Electronic Private Ltd., services as a Regional Sales Manager. On 09.04.2021 complainant son was ill due to Covid-19 and was referred to O.P.No.-1 for treatment. The complainant paid    more than Rs.1,50,000/- for medical expenses and medicine to O.P.No.1 who was under treatment of O.P. No.1 on 9.4.2021.  The deceased could not recover from Covid-19 therefore O.P.No.1 advice to refer the deceased to the hospital of O.P.No.2 and told the estimated expenses of Rs.10 to 12 lacks otherwise if the complainants  is ready the expenses for future treatment from O.P.No.1 will be required up to Rs.3 to 4 lacks. Thereafter the O.P.No.1 admitted to the deceased son at Shalinitai Meghe Hospital, Wanadongri, Nagpur on dated 15.4.2021. After C.T. scan the Doctor of  Meghe hospital told the brain of deceased son was not working and therefore it was not useful to keep the deceased son at hospital and thereafter on 16.4.2021 the compliant son was died.  The O.P.No.1 had given treatment from dated 9.4.2021 to 15.4.2021 and the complainant paid Rs.1,47,000/- for the treatment but there was no progress from 9.4.2021 to15.4.021 and the treatment was not satisfactory. The O.P.No.1had not suggested the oxygen or Remdesivir injection and due to negligence and the true fact of health condition which was supressed from the complainants and hence for the negligence in treatment and suppression of health condition the complainant son was died and therefore the complainant are claiming compensation of Rs.75,00,000/-. The complaint and the O.P.No.2 prescribed medicine on the letter-head of O.P.No.2 hospital therefore the O.P.No.2 is also liable for negligency.   The complainant had lodged criminal complaint for negligence of treatment on the part of O.P.No.1 and 2 before Sakkardara Police, Nagpur and the complainant also issued legal notice on dated 25.6.2021 through Advocate Ravindra Dhole but O.P.No.1 and 2 had failed to comply the notice and therefore present complaint is filed.
2. After admitting the present complaint notices were issued to O.P.No.1 and 2. The Notice were served by way paper publication to O.P.No.1 on dated 15.12.2021 in daily newspaper “ Dainik Bhasker”.   But O.P.No.1 fail to appear before this Commission therefore Commission proceed exparte against O.P.No.1 on dated 23.9.2022.
3. O.P.No.2 has filed reply and denied allegation and submitted that there is no consumer service relationship between compliant and answering hospital and the complaint have unnecessary dragged the opponents to face litigation.  The O.P.No.2 further submitted that the answering hospital having great reputation among pubic and goodwill.  The O.P.No.1  Chinamay Mazee and other alleged directors have no managerial position in the answering hospital. Dr C. Mazee was appointed for the resident medical office vide letter dated 4.8.2017 on certain terms and conditions with condition that he should devote whole working time to the organisation and not to engage in any other employment failing which there shall be immediate termination without notice.  It is further submitted in reply that the O.P.No.1, Doctor should not use the assets of the organisation for personal and unlawful purposes. The answering hospital for the first time got knowledge about the alleged treatment given by O.P.No.1 Doctor to the son of complainant upon receipt of notice dated 26.5.2021, thereafter O.P.No.2 hospital had immediately issued to show cause notice calling up on him to submit explanation prescribing medications using hospitals letter-head without registering the patient with the hospital as he was no authorised to use the letter-head for personal use. By calling explanation from O.P.No.1 and thereafter the services of O.P.No.1-Doctor has been terminated since then. The complainant have afterthought made the answering O.P.No.2 hospital as a party for alternative motive hence the present case is liable to be dismissed with cost of Rs.5,00,000/-.
4. The counsel for complainant argued that O.P.No.1 is an employment of O.P.No.2 treated the son of complainant negligently and therefore the both O.P.’s are to liable to compensate. O.P.No.2 has terminated the services of O.P.No.1 with intension of liability is illegal act and therefore termination does not preclude the O.P. to pay compensation. O.P.No.1 was appointed on the post of Resident Medical Officer as per letter issued by O.P.No.2 dated 4.8.2017 and at the time of treatment he was in the employment of O.P.No.2 and prescribed the medicine on letter-head of O.P.No.2 therefore O.P.No.2 is equally liable to compensate for the medical negligence in the treatment of O.P.No.1 resulted in to death of complainant son.
5. The counsel for O.P.No.2 argued that O.P.No.1 is neighbour of elder son of complainant and treated the son of complainant as per suggestion of elder son.  The O.P.No.1 has misused the letter-head of O.P.No.2, there was no admission and discharged card has been issued by O.P.No.2.  The O.P.No.1 was not permitted to the patient during the employment under O.P.No.2 therefore there is no liability on the part of O.P.No.2 in case of medical negligence.

REASONING

6. The deceased son of complaint was under treatment of O.P.No.1 from 9.4.2021 and the complainant paid Rs.1,47,000/- approximate to O.P.No.1 from dated 9.4.2021 to 15.4.2021. The health condition of complainant son was critical and hence O.P.No.1 referred complainant to Shalinitai Meghe Hospital and Research Centre, Hingna,  Nagpur and as per  case paper of op no 2104150041 the patient was admitted on 15.4.2021 at 3 p.m. and he was died on 16.4.2021 at 8 p.m. for acute respiratory due to Covid-19 which was infected from 6 days.  The O.P.No.1- Doctor has not been approved by the Government to treat Covid-19 patient and therefore without having the facility and equipment to treat the patient is medical negligence on the part of O.P.  The son of complainant was not admitted for Covid-19 treatment with O.P.No.2 hospital as there is no proof of admission and discharged has been filed on record.  The O.P.No.1 was in the employment of O.P.No.2 and misused the letter-head of O.P.No.1 by writing prescription for the treatment of deceased, therefore O.P.No.2 is not vicarious liable for medical negligence.  The O.P.No.1 ought to have referred the patient to authorised Covid-19 centre where all facility for treatment for Covid is available.  Therefore for the death of complainant son who is 24 year old and working Samsung India Electronic Private Ltd., services as a Regional Sales Manager and having good carrier and good span of life, therefore O.P.No.1 is not liable to pay whole earning of deceased son but compensation of token money to bring the parents of deceased on earlier position.  The death of son of complainants cannot be compensated from monetary relief but the O.P.No.1 shall not engage himself for such type of treatment for the deceased like Covid-19, therefore O.P.No.1 is liable to pay  Rs.10,00,000/-, for the medical negligence to complainant and Rs.10,000/- for the cost of complaint.  Hence we passed the following order.

ORDER

1. Complaint is partly allowed.
2. Opposite party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lac) to the complainant for the medical negligence in treatment of Covid-19.
3. Opposite party No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards  cost of litigation.
4. No order is pass against O.P.NO.2.
5. Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.