Haryana

StateCommission

A/74/2016

MANJU - Complainant(s)

Versus

MUKHI HOSPITAL AND NURSING HOME PVT. - Opp.Party(s)

VIPAN KUMAR SHARMA

10 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      74 of 2016

Date of Institution:    25.01.2016

Date of Decision :    10.05.2016

 

Manju w/o Sh. Satbir Singh, Resident of Village Pritampura, District Sonipat.

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.      Mukhi Hospital and Nursing Home Private Limited Ambala Road, Sonipat through its Director Dr. Pardeep Mukhi.

2.      Dr. Usha Mukhi, Mukhi Hospital and Nursing Home Private Limited, Ambala Road, Sonipat.

3.      United India Insurance Company Limited Kilokri Ring Road, Opposite Maharani Bagh, New Delhi, through its local Office/Branch Subhash Chowk, Sonipat.

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

 

Present:               Shri V.K. Sharma, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Sandeep Kapoor, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2.

Shri B.R. Madan, Advocate for respondent No.3.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal of complainant is directed against the order dated December 22^nd, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonipat (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint No.119 of 2014 was dismissed.

2.      Manju-complainant/appellant, filed complaint averring that she conceived in the month of August, 2013. In October, 2013 she suffered from excessive bleeding. She visited Mukhi Hospital & Nursing Home Private Limited, Ambala Road, Sonipat-Opposite Party/respondent No.1, where she received treatment from Dr. Usha Mukhi-opposite party/respondent No.2. It was alleged that the condition of the complainant deteriorated and the foetus was aborted on 04.12.2013. During the above said treatment, ultrasound was conducted, the report of which showed echogenic masses of different sizes in posterior wall of uterus. The opposite party No.2 suggested the complainant to undergo surgery for hysteroscopy. She was admitted in the above said hospital on 20.12.2013 and was operated upon on 21.12.2013. After operation, the complainant did not gain consciousness till 22.12.2013 and on being advised, complainant’s husband got her referred to Maharaja Aggarsain Hospital, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi on 22.12.2013 where she remained as indoor patient up to 01.01.2014. Thereafter, the complainant received follow up treatment from Maharaja Aggarsain Hospital. It was alleged that an amount of Rs.30,000/- was charged from the complainant besides medicinal expenses of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.20,000/- on transportation etcetera. She was alleged to have spent Rs.1,46,855/- in Maharaja Aggarsain Hospital besides expenses on medicines worth Rs.30,000/-. Alleging it a case of medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the respondents No.1 and 2, the complainant sought compensation of Rs.15.00 lacs. Opposite Party No.3 had insured the opposite parties No.1 and 2.

3.      The respondents No.1 and 2 in their joint reply pleaded that the complainant had visited the hospital on 28.10.2013 with six weeks pregnancy Exhibit C-4. After necessary examinations, the complainant was advised ultrasound lower abdomen. The report of ultrasound revealed that the complainant was having single live foetus with six weeks pregnancy with bradicardia with three fibroids uterus. Another ultrasound of lower abdomen was advised on 10.11.2013, which (Exhibit C-2) revealed missed abortion with fibroids uterus. She was advised for medical abortion with medicine and after consuming medicine, the foetus was aborted and to confirm the same, review USG was done, which showed empty uterus, when the complainant again came for follow up on 18.11.2013. The complainant again approached the respondent No.2 on 04.12.2013 complaining Diarrhea. Medicines were prescribed to cure the disease. The complainant requested the respondent No.2 for Hysteroscopy procedure which was advised to her by other doctors also due to repeated abortions and asked for the expected date of the aforesaid procedure. She was admitted in the hospital on 20.12.2013. She was carefully examined. She had the history of bad obstetrics with eight miscarriages.

4.      After necessary tests, the procedure of Hysteroscopic was conducted by a team of doctors namely Dr. Sanjay (Anaesthetist); Dr. Pradeep Garg (Endoscopic Gynae Surgeon) and Dr. Usha Mukhi (Gynaecologist).   The procedure of Hysteroscopy was uneventful. The complainant was shifted to ICU for observation. She was monitored four times by the respondent No.2. As the condition of the patient/complainant was well, she was shifted to Room at 5.00 P.M. on 21.12.2013.

5.      On 22.12.2013 at about 5.45 A.M. the condition of the patient deteriorated. After conducting needful tests, the respondent No.2 advised the attendants of the complainant to shift her to Maharaja Aggarsain Hospital and the patient was shifted to the said hospital alongwith Discharge Summary, Referral Summary (Annexure G-1) and all the Reports of the patient were handed over to the attendants of the complainant. An ambulance was also arranged for shifting the patient. Denying any kind of negligence and deficiency in service, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.

6.      United India Insurance Company Limited-respondent No.3, in its separate reply denied the claim of the complainant in view of the pleadings of the respondents No.1 and 2 and prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

7.      On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. Hence the instant appeal.

8.      It is admitted case of the complainant that on 28.10.2012 she visited the respondents No.1 and 2 with six weeks pregnancy. It was a case of 7-8 times miscarriage earlier; however, this fact was concealed by the complainant before taking treatment or admission in the above said hospital.

9.      The complainant has not led any evidence to show as to how the doctor/respondent No.2 was negligent and deficient in service. It has come on the record that upon USG of lower abdomen on 10.11.2013, showed missed abortion with fibroid uterus, whereupon medical abortion was got conducted by the complainant because there was some flesh/extra growth inside the uterus. After medical abortion, on review USG, it was empty uterus.

10.    On the other hand, the respondents have tendered affidavits of Dr. Pradeep Mukhi (Exhibit RW1/A); Dr. Usha Mukhi (Exhibit RW2/A); Dr.Pankaj Khurana, Senior Consultant General Surgeon & Director of Krishnawati Hospital, Sonipat (Exhibit RW3/A); Dr. Pardeep Garg, Gynaecologist & Endoscopist, Ex-Associate Professor, AIIMS, Consultant, Kailash Hospital, Greater Noida (Exhibit RW4/A); Dr. Anand Mittal, Consultant Physician (Exhibit RW5/A); Dr. Sanjay Malik (Exhibit RW6/A).  The evidence available on the record nowhere suggest any kind of medical negligence on the part of the treating doctors. Even the complainant in her complaint has not specifically disclosed the nature of negligence. When the complainant had already suffered 7-8 miscarriages and did not disclose this fact to opposite parties, the incomplete miscarriage could not be attributed to the opposite parties. If after taking treatment from the opposite parties, she did not get any relief, it cannot be presumed that the doctors were negligent in performing their duties.

11.    The medical negligence has been exhaustively discussed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments viz. Dr. Laxman B. Joshi v. Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godbole & Anr, AIR 1969 SC 128; Kusum Sharma and others v. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre and others, I(2010) CPJ 29 (SC); Martin F.D.’Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq, 1(2009) CPJ 32 (SC).

12.    In Dr. Laxman B. Joshi’s case (Supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

“The duties which a doctor owes to his patient are clear. A person who holds himself out ready to give medical advice and treatment impliedly undertakes that he is possessed of skill and knowledge for the purpose. Such a person when consulted by a patient owes him certain duties, viz., a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case, a duty of care in deciding what treatment to give or a duty of care in the administration of that treatment. A breach of any of those, duties gives a right of action for negligence to, the patient. The practitioner must bring to his task a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law require: (cf.Halsbury’s Laws of England 3^rd ed. Vol.26 p.17).” 

13.    In this case, the Dr. Usha Mukhi-respondent No.2, is a qualified gynaecologist and operation was conducted by team of doctors efficiently. On the other hand, there is no evidence on behalf of the complainant to show that there was any deviation from her ‘duty of care’.

14.    The plea of the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant was that the medical record with respect to the treatment of the complainant was not produced by the respondents and therefore the respondents were negligent. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in Venkati versus Prakash M Bhandari (Dr.), 2015(4)CLT 371.

15.    The judgment in Venkati’s case (Supra) is not applicable to the present case. A perusal of the record pertaining to the treatment of the complainant/patient, produced on the record shows that the treatment was as per expected norms. There is a complete lack of evidence on the part of the complainant in support of her complaint.  Thus, it cannot be said that there was any negligence on the part of the treating doctor. No case for interference is made out.

16.    Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

 

Announced: 10.05.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL