Punjab

Patiala

CC/17/7

Ramandeep Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Narain Hospital - Opp.Party(s)

Sh sunil Kumar

21 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/ 7/2017
Date of Institution	:	11.1.2017
Date of Decision	:	21.2.2023

 

Ramandeep Kaur aged about 27 years wife of Sh.Gurlal Singh, resident of village Brahmpur, Tehsil Dudan Sadhan, District Patiala.

 

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Narain Hospital, S.S.S.T., Nagar, Rajpura Road, Patiala through its Director/Authorized representative Avtar Singh.
2. Dr.Aiana Sood, wife of Dr.Vivek Sood, C/o Narain Hospital, S.S.S.T Nagar, Rajpura Road, Patiala and R/o H.No.4218, Phase II, Urban Estate, Patiala.

 

Patiala Hospital, near Bhupindra Diary and Sweets, Sirhind Road, Patiala, District Patiala through its Director/Authorized representative Dr.Neeraj Goyal.

Note: Complaint against this OP stands dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 2.2.2017.

3. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 4E/14, Azad Bhawan, Jhandelwalan Ext. New Delhi 110055.
4. New India Assurance Company Ltd., 7 Chhoti Baradari, The Mall, Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

 

QUORUM

                                      Hon’ble Mr.S.K.Aggarwal, President

                                      Hon’ble Mr.G.S.Nagi, Member        

 

 

PRESENT:                   Sh.Sunil Kumar, counsel for complainant.

                             Sh.Satinder Singh, counsel for OP No.1.

                             Sh.Harvinder Shukla, counsel for OP No.2.

                             Sh.B.L.Bhardwaj, counsel for OP No.3.

                             Sh.D.P.S.Anand, counsel for OP No.4.

                                               

 ORDER                                          

1. The instant complaint is filed by Ramandeep Kaur wife of Sh.Gurlal Singh       (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Narain Hospital and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act).
2. The averments put forth by the complainant are as follows:

That she admitted at Narain Hospital, OP No.1 for the delivery of her child on 29.7.2016.She was diagnosed and treated by Dr.Aiana Sood, OP No.2 from very beginning i.e. from the date of pregnancy and she did every needful whatever Dr.Aiana Sood advised to her.

On 30.7.2016, complainant gave birth to a male child. Dr.Aiana Sood was present there at the time of surgery of the complainant. Name of surgeon who conducted the surgery was not disclosed by OP No.2 at the time of surgery and even after that.

At the time of birth of child, OP No.2 scared the complainant and her family members that the child has some breathing problem and his heart is not working properly, so he has to be admitted at some child hospital. OP No.2 of her own called Dr.Pawan Tulli from Sant Hospital, Patiala.

On 1.8.2016, complainant felt some severe abdominal pain. Same was reported to OP No.2 who told that the said pain was due to surgery and on her advise present nurse gave pain killer injection to the complainant but even then complainant felt same abdominal pain. Again OP No.2 injected pain killer injection to the complainant.

Complainant discharged from said hospital on 3.8.2016. OP No.2 did not issue discharge slip and even refused to hand over the treatment record of the complainant. Child of the complainant was still with Sant Hospital, Patiala.

On 4.8.2016, at about 11:00 PM complainant again felt same abdominal pain. Husband of complainant called OP No.2.She prescribed some pain killer for the complainant but even getting pain killer there was no relief from the said pain. Husband and mother in law of the complainant took her to the residence of OP No.2, from where OP No.2 took her firstly at Aksh Ultra sound centre and later on at Alfa Radiological Centre at Patiala to conduct some x-ray and ultrasound respectively. At that time condition of the complainant deteriorated. Family members of complainant enquired about the condition and reason. OP No.2 replied that the said pain is due to burst of appendix for which complainant insisted that she never felt any pain .Even OP No.2 conducted many ultrasound and x-ray etc. before surgery which never indicated that complainant had any appendix problem.

At the advise of OP No.2, complainant was admitted at Patiala Hospital, for operation. During operation, concerned doctor took signature of husband of complainant on some documents. Operation was conducted successfully. Bad health condition of the complainant was due to negligence of OPs as there was some leakage in the food pipe of the complainant due to mistake during the stitching of first operation. During discharge from the Narain Hospital, complainant requested for giving her treatment record but they refused to do so. The complainant has been harassed emotionally and health wise due to negligence of OPs. Consequently, prayer has been made for acceptance of the complaint.

3. Upon notice, OPs No.1&2 appeared and filed their written statements. On their applications filed separately, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. were also impleaded in the array of the OPs. Upon notice, insurance companies also appeared through their counsel.
4. In the written statement filed by OP No.1 it is submitted that he is the MD of building called Narain Hospital, SST Nagar, Patiala. The said building had been given on contract to OP No.2 Dr.Aaina Sood and she was allowed to bring patients for their treatment in the said hospital. Hence no cause of action has arisen against OP No.1 being the owner of hospital building and has got no right of interference in the working of the hospital and treatment of patients. However, OP No.1 insured the hospital with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. to cover the risk and liabilities. Since the complainant has not claimed any damages from OP No.1, therefore, complaint against OP No.1 may be dismissed.
5. In the written statement filed by OP No.2, it took various preliminary objections. On merit, it is submitted that complainant patient was admitted at Narain Hospital with complaint of pain in abdomen with history of previous caesarean section on 29.7.2016.The  patient was coming for Antenatal check  though irregularly. Whenever patient visited she was treated and was fully satisfied with the treatment. On 30.7.2016 patient was taken up for caesarean section after administering steroids for lung maturation of the fetus, the indication for surgery being of scar tenderness with history of previous caesarean section. OP No.2 was the operating surgeon. Before surgery, patient was given steroid injections to speed up lung maturation, as the period of gestation (pregnancy) was 34-36 weeks. It was duly explained that the baby might need NICU care following delivery to which the relatives fully agreed. The baby was shifted with Dr.Hemant Tuli, who was the attending pediatrician during caesarean. After surgery patient was stable and was managed well. Patient had complaints of pain abdomen which is usual after surgery and was given the prescribed painkiller injection. Patient was given sips of water after 6 hours. She was also given liquid diet from 31.7.2016, first day after surgery. Any complaint made by the patient was dealt with immediately and taken care off. The patient was taking food orally and on examination her abdomen was soft and the patient passed stool normally which signified normal gut or intestinal physiology i.e. the intestines were working normally. The patient was discharged from the hospital on 3.8.2016.At the time of discharge baby was with pediatrician at Sant Hospital, Patiala. Patient was prescribed post operative treatment on her discharge card, which is in her possession. On 5.8.2016, complainant alongwith her relatives came to the house of OP No.2 from where she was shifted to Prime Hospital, Patiala and immediately conservative management for acute abdomen was started. Ultrasound and X-ray abdomen in standing posture was done at Aksh Ultrasound Patiala. After ultrasound and x-ray the relatives instead of taking her back to the hospital they brought her back to the house of OP No.2.After seeing the reports OP No.2 explained that gas in the abdomen on standing posture X-ray, which confirms that patient had intestinal perforation, needing lapartomy. Patient was advised CT scan abdomen, which was done in Alpha Ultrasound Patiala. Accordingly to the report her large intestine had a perforation which needed to be repaired. Patient was then referred to Patiala Hospital, Sirhind Road, Patiala for further management. Consent was signed by relatives, 2 units of blood were arranged and exploratory laparatomy was done there. No where food pipe has been mentioned and as such holds no relevance. First surgery has no relation with second surgery. There is no role of OP No.2 in second surgery. Patient took treatment for first surgery for delivery of baby and second surgery was for spontaneous perforation unconnected with LSCS. Everything was done diligently, prudently, with utmost due care and caution and there is no negligence, deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.2 and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
6. In the written statement filed by OP No.3 it took various preliminary objections. On merits, it is submitted that the reply submitted by Op No.2 may be read as part of the written statement of OP No.3. It is admitted that OP No.2 was issued professional indemnity-Doctors Policy Schedule Policy No.272200/48/2106/25923 for a sum of Rs.10 lacs. However, liability of the insurance company is denied, since the complaint pertains to medical treatment provided by OP No.2 and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
7. In the written statement filed by OP No.4 it also took various preliminary objections. It is admitted that it issued Professional Indemnity Policy (Medical Establishment) in favour of OP No.1 for the period 20.9.2015 to 19.9.2016 for a sum of Rs.5lacs.On merits, it is submitted that the patient was admitted in Narain Hospital with complaint of pain in abdomen with history of previous caesarean section. The patient was discharged on 3.8.2016 as the patient was stable. The treatment was provided by the qualified doctors and as per medical jurisprudence. The complainant got herself admitted in Patiala Hospital for exploratory lapartomy. The treatment record was given to the relatives of the patient at the time of her release from hospital. After denying all other averments, OP No.4 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
8. In support of the complaint, ld. counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C12.Vide statement dated 16.8.2018, Sh.Lakhwinder Singh, Clerk, Patiala Hospital, Patiala tendered Ex.C13 photocopies of treatment record of patient Ramandeep Kaur. Thereafter, on 3.10.2018, ld. counsel for complainant closed evidence of the complainant.
9. Ld. counsel for OP No.1 has tendered in evidence Ex.OP3 copy of insurance policy dated 16.9.2016,Ex.OP4 copy of policy dated 17.9.2015,Ex.OP5 copy of certificate,Ex.OP6 copy of authorization of treatment, Ex.OP7 copy of consent form, Ex.OP8 copy of operation/procedure card and closed evidence of OP No.1.
10. Ld.counsel for OP No.2 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPC affidavit of Dr.Aaeeyna Sood alongwith documents, Ex.OP9 certificate of registration, Ex.OP10 renewal certificate, Ex.OP11 post graduate medical diploma, Ex.OP12 certificate, Ex.OP13 copy of insurance policy and closed the evidence.
11. Ld.counsel for Op No.3 has tendered in evidence, Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Mukesh Malhotra, Sr.Divisonal Manager, OIC alongwith documents Ex.OP1 copy of insurance policy issued in respect of OP No.2 and closed evidence of OP No.3.
12. Ld. counsel for OP No.4 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPB affidavit of Sh.Rajinder Singh Mahatam, Sr.Divisional Manager alongwith document, Ex.OP2 copy of insurance policy and closed evidence of OP No.4.
13. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
14. Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant was the patient of OP No.2 (Dr.Aiana Sood) and was under her treatment/care right from beginning of  her pregnancy. Complainant was admitted in Narain Hospital of OP No.1 on 29.7.2016 and caesarean operation for the delivery of her child was conducted on 30.7.2016 by OP No.2.These facts have been admitted by OP No.2 in her written statement. Complainant felt some abdomen pain after surgery and even after discharge from the hospital on 3.8.2016 and on 4.8.2016, same was reported to OP No.2.Some pain killers were prescribed to the complainant, but after consuming the same there was no relief from pain. Complainant then visited residence of OP No.2 when various tests like x-ray and ultrasound were got conducted by OP No.2.Condition of complainant deteriorated and she was advised another surgery by OP No.2 and was referred to Patiala Hospital i.e. OP No.3.Family members of the complainant were then asked to sign an undertaking Ex.C13/5. However, no information regarding condition of complainant was conveyed to her family members. Complainant has alleged that operation was conducted for 2^nd time which was successful and her condition was stable. It was also intimated that bad health condition of the complainant and need of 2^nd surgery was due to negligence of OPs as there was some leakage in her food pipe and same was due to the mistake during stitching at the time of first surgery. There is thus negligence on the part of operating doctor (OP No.2) at the time of first surgery which lead to another surgery.Complaint against OP No.3 i.e. Patiala Hospital was dismissed as withdrawn on 2.2.2017.
15. The OPs in their written statement have admitted to the fact that complainant was operated by OP No.2. However, they have stated that complainant was given steroid injections to speed up lung maturation, as the period of gestation (pregnancy) was 34-36 weeks i.e. premature. Surgery was successful and complainant delivered the baby who was shifted to the clinic of Dr.Hemant Tuli, a pediatrician, as the baby was premature and needed special care of NICU. Complaints regarding abdomen pain are usual after surgery and  same were duly attended by OP No.2.Condition of the complainant was stable and was on normal diet and was also taking oral medication, when she was discharged from the hospital on 3.8.2016. It is also admitted by the OPs that complainant visited residence of OP No.2 on 5.8.2016 from where she was referred to Prime Hospital, Patiala when various tests like ultrasound and X-ray were got conducted again. Complainant then left the hospital and again came to the residence of OP No.2.C.T.Scan was then conducted on the abdomen of the complainant, which indicated that complainant had large intestinal perforation and needed lapratomy. Same was also intimated to the family members of the complainant. She was then referred to Prime Hospital, where she was operated upon by Dr.Pancham Pal Bindra. Surgery was successful and complainant was subsequently discharged from the hospital. There was no negligence on the part of OP no.2 either at the time of conducting first surgery or at the time of 2^nd surgery done by Dr.Pancham Pal Bindra at Prime Hospital, Patiala.
16. Ld. counsel has further argued that OP No.2 is a well qualified doctor/surgeon. He has placed on record copy of certificate of Registration with Punjab Medical Council as MBBS/DGO under registration no.36208 which was valid upto 18.2.2019(Ex.OP10) and MBBS/DNB degrees (Exs.OP11/OP12) with specialization in Gynecology. Ld. counsel has also argued that OP No.2 was indemnified through professional indemnity policy No.272200/48/2016/25923 issued by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. valid from 27.3.2016 to 26.3.2017(Ex.OP1) and claim if any had to be lodged/settled against insurance company. However, the same have not been impleaded as necessary parties.
17. The insurance company was allowed to be impleaded as necessary party vide order dated 1.6.2017 of this Commission. From the perusal of the record and arguments put forth by ld. counsel for the parties, it transpires that the complainant was admitted for delivery of child in the hospital of OP no.1 and was operated by OP No.2. Due care was taken by OP No.2 at the time of surgery and even the baby was premature and was promptly referred to child care hospital. Due attention was paid by OP No.2 on the complaints of the complainant regarding pain in abdomen even at her residence. The abdominal pain of the complainant was duly diagnosed and proper arrangements were made by OP No.2 for attending the same through Dr.Panchampal, the operating surgeon. During arguments it could not be proved that surgery performed by Dr.Panchampal, relating to perforation of large intestine was at all connected with the surgery performed for caesarean for delivery of child.
18. The complainant has failed to prove with any cogent, convincing or through an expert evidence that OPs were in any way negligent in treating the complainant and 2^nd surgery had to be performed due to the negligence of OP No.2 who performed first surgery for delivery of child.
19. In this regard, reliance can be placed on the judgment dated 5.12.2023, passed by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad in the case titled as Yusupova Saodat, Hyderguda Vs. Dr. Sowjanya Kancha, decided on 5 December,2013, wherein reference of orders of the Hon’ble Commission passed in FA 1258/2008 dated 23.3.2009 has been made having held that, simply because a patient has not favorably responded to a treatment given by a doctor or a  surgery has failed the doctor cannot be held straight way liable for medical negligence by applying the doctrine of res ipso loquitor and that no sensible professional would intentionally commit an act or omission which would result harm or injury to the patient since the professional reputation of the professional would be at stake and that a single failure may cost him dear in his lapse.’
20. Also in C.P.Sreekumar (Dr.), MS(Ortho) Vs.S.Ramanujam, reported in (2009)7 SCC 130, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that ‘onus of proving medical negligence lies on complainant. Mere averment in complaint is not evidence and it is to be proved by cogent evidence. The Hon’ble National Commission, in Mrs.Shantaben Muljibhai Patel and others Vs. Beach Candy Hospital and Research Centre and others, reported in 1(2005) CPJ 10(NC), came to the conclusion that when the hospital equipped with necessary equipment and doctors performed duties to best of their ability and with due care and caution, something if goes wrong, no negligence/deficiency in service is to be proved. In Subhashis Dhir and Another Vs. Smt.Sanjukta Sengupta and others, reported in 1999(3)CPR 13(NC), the Hon’ble National Commission opined that doctor should not be held guilty of giving wrong treatment without some medical evidence to that effect. In a decision reported in 2009(2)SCCLA 629 in Martin F D Souza Vs. Mohd Ishfaq, it was held that medical practitioner would be liable  only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field and that standard of care has to be judged in the light of knowledge available at the time of the incident and not at the date of the trial. It was also held that in the said decision that Test in fixing negligence is the standard of the ordinary skilled  doctor exercising and professing to have that special skill, but a doctor need not possess the highest expert skill.’
21. In this case also there is no dependable evidence from the side of the complainant that the OP/Dr. conduct fell below that of the standard of a reasonable competent practitioner in this field. The doctor being expert and having requisite qualification on the subject in this case, cannot be held guilty for gross medical negligence or deficiency of service lightly. In fact due attention was paid to the complainant  at each and every step by OP No.2 whenever  complainant reported for any health issues.Consequently, the instant complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
22.           The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.
85109252238716.  

DATED:21.2.2023

                                             G.S.Nagi                    S.K.AGGARWAL

                                            Member                              President