DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 310/09
Sh. Aniruddha Sen
S/o Late R.N. Sen
R/o E-780, Ist Floor,
C.R. Park, New Delhi – 110019. -Complainant
Vs
1. National Heart Institute
Having institute at:
49/50, Community Centre
East of Kailash,
New Delhi - 110065
2. Dr. D.B. Dhar ]
Residence & office: ] Expired
I-1630, C.R. Park, ]
New Delhi – 110019 ]
3. Dr. S. Sengupta
Having his office at:
I-1801, C.R. Park,
New Delhi – 110019 -Opposite Parties
Date of Institution: 02.04.2009 Date of Order: 04.06.2016
Coram:
N.K. Goel, President
Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
The facts which we gather from the complaint and connected documents reveal that the complainant’s mother, namely, Ms. Bithika Sen (date of birth 1934) was getting the pension of the complainant’s late father and was having the burden of caring the complainant and his brother, namely, Abhijit Sen having weak mental health. The complainant while residing at Delhi in the year 2002 had to consult doctors when his mother was having illness pertaining to diabetics and the doctor diagnosed her illness as Type-2, Diabetics Mellitus and Stable Angina (Annex. A). After posting of complainant to Kolkata from June 2002 to June 2005 his mother was treated at Sh. Arbindo Seva Kendra, Kolkata for her ailment. Copies of medical documents are Annex. B. The complainant after getting transferred to Delhi from middle of July 2005 got all the tests related for her diabetic problem done at Kolkata before leaving for Delhi and states that the test report was within the satisfactory range. He further states that the report of ECG also did not show anything alarming pertaining to the heart trouble of his mother. Thereafter complainant started living at E-780, Ist Floor, C.R. Park, New Delhi – 110019 along with his mother and brother from July 2005. Due to some trouble in digestion system, the mother of the complainant was taken to OP-2 (since deceased) on 26.10.2006 who got certain tests conducted. Thereafter, the complainant took his mother to Pushpawati Singhania Hospital for trouble of her digestion system as the treatment given by OP-2 was not appropriate. The complainant further states that he also consulted Homeopathic Doctor at CR Park, New Delhi for the gastric and digestion trouble of his mother. He further states that on 16.7.2007, the complainant’s mother was having some trouble and he immediately contacted OP-2 who prescribed certain medicines. On 10.9.2007, the complainant’s mother “who was travelling and her condition was so critical that she could not stop her stool even for minutes” and her health deteriorated and voice choked. OP-2 was immediately called on urgent basis and he prescribed certain medicines and got certain tests conducted of Urine Routine Analysis. On 13.9.2007, OP-2 was consulted with the reports who advised for Urine Culture Examination. On 15.9.07 at about 3 a.m. complainant’s mother became unconscious and lots of spittoons come out from her mouth while she was asleep. The complainant immediately took the help of Govt. ambulance and admitted her in AIIMS and after being treated there she was discharged on the same day. The medical documents are annexed as Ann. K. On 17.9.2007, OP-2 was again called at the residence of the complainant who injected one antibiotic injection of Mekacin-500 Mg. which was again repeated on 18.9.2007. On 19.9.2007, OP-2 again visited the patient and advised her to get treatment from one Dr. S. Sen Gupta, OP-3. The complainant states that OP-2 told to the complainant that “the OP-3 is a doctor of repute and is a Cardiologist”. On 20.9.2007, OP-2 insisted upon the complainant that OP-3 be immediately called. Accordingly, OP-3 visited his residence and did the ECG test of his mother and also advised test for Urine (Routine and Culture Examination) and blood test for Sodium, Protein, Haemoglobin and TLC only at Path Lab, East of Kailash. He further states that OP-3 when came to know that OP-2 was prescribing Mekacin-500 injection to the complainant’s mother, he told that this medicine should be immediately stopped failing which it would have greater trouble. He blames OP-2 for not diagnosing his mother properly before prescribing aforesaid injection. He further states that on the night of 24.9.2007, the mother of the complainant at about 4.00 a.m. woke up and went to toilet. After returning from toilet, she complained about chest pain. The complainant consulted OP-3 who is said to have advised to take Lomotil tablet and also advised not to disturb his peace for half an hour. Having not observed any relief, the complainant after several phone calls was told by OP-3 that his mother was required to be admitted urgently in OP-1 Institute. The complainant got his mother’s blood sugar tested which was 88 mg/dl i.e. within the control limit. Thereafter an ambulance with attendant of OP-1 reached at the residence of the complainant and took his mother to OP-1 hospital immediately. Within 5 to 7 minutes of reaching the hospital of OP-1, the mother of the complainant was taken to ICU and it was told by one of the doctor of OP-1 that they had put her on ventilator as her condition was extremely critical. The complainant further states that all the medical papers of the patient were given to OP-1 through OP-3. The complainant further states that he tried to contact the doctors of his mother but neither he was allowed to visit ICCU nor any satisfactory information was given to him. On 25.9.2007 at about 2 a.m. the complainant was left with no option but to contact reception and it was told that the patient was returning to normalcy and nothing is to worry. They also stated that though she was in ventilator but she will be shifted after sometime to ICU after consultation with the doctors. He further states that at about 7 a.m., it was again told at the reception of OP-1 that patient had improved a lot and the ventilator will be removed and she will be shifted to ICU from ICCU. At about 11 a.m. on the very same date on 25.9.2007, the OP-3 met with the complainant and informed that the vital organs of his mother were totally damaged, her heart was blocked, lungs filled with water and the vital organs not functioning. The complainant states that he was shocked to know the above facts disclosed by OP-3 and asked him why he did not state even a single bit of above said facts. After waiting sometime he requested OP-3 as well as administrative officials of OP-1 to show him his mother and also inquired where she was kept. Finally, complainant received a telephone call from the reception of OP-1 that his mother had died and he was directed to clear the dues pertaining to the treatment they had provided and also told that the dead body would be handed over only after making the payment of the due amount. After making payment, the dead body was handed over to him. Copy of death certificate is annexed as Annex. Q. Complainant asked for the previous treatment documents which he had provided to OP-1 through OP-3 and also demanded complete papers pertaining to his late mother’s treatment but OP-1 did not provide any such documents for which the complainant was entitled to have all the documents within 72 hours of the demand of the document as per guidelines of the Medical Council of India. The complainant was quite surprised that “a person who claims to be a cardiologist of repute could not diagnose any symptom of heart trouble”. He further states that he approached the Medical Council of India and made a complaint which is annexed as Annex. P. Ultimately OP-1 provided the final bills only amounting to Rs. 34,777/-. The complainant further states that his own health deteriorated and he became sick on account of the untimely death of his mother. The complainant further states that on 14.1.2008, he received the prescription dated 20.9.2007 along with cash memo from OP-2. He finally lodged a complaint before the Medical Council of India who conducted the detailed hearing along with OP-1. As per direction of the Delhi Medical Council, OP-1 sent photocopies of some of the records pertaining to treatment of complainant’s mother vide their letter dated 22.11.2008 as per Annex. Y. The complainant alleges that the Delhi Medical Council decided the matter without considering the facts and complaint of the complainant in true sense and neither the OP-1 nor OP-3 was punished though it was found by the Delhi Medical Council that both the OPs failed to comply with the rules and regulations of the Medical Council of India. Copy of the order is annexed as Annex. (AA). The complainant further states that he was surprised to know that his late mother was having septicaemia and many other diseases and the same were diagnosed at the hospital of OP-1 within 24-36 hours whereas when she was treated by OP-3 on 20.9.2007 no such ailment was diagnosed by him and also OP-2 did not point out any such ailments in his prescriptions. He alleges that both the OPs took money illegally in the name of visit for treatment of his late mother in which they showed their incompetence in providing the service which is nothing but complete deficiency of service. He also alleges deficiency in service by OP-2 by referring and recommending to OP-3 for the treatment of his late mother by stating that the OP-3 is a cardiologist whereas OP-3 does not possess any degree or diploma pertaining to cardiology. He further blames OP-1 for not supplying the treatment documents and alleges them to suppress and conceal the true state of health of his late mother in collusion with OP-2 & 3. The complainant also brings out his own ailment vide which he was operated in Apollo Gleneagles Hospital for his treatment because of untimely death of his late mother. Complainant has also brought out the plight of his mentally handicapped brother who is deprived of the love, affection and care of his mother due to the wrong treatment given by the OPs. Blaming deficiency in service by the OPs, he lodged the present complaint before this forum with following prayers to direct the OPs:
- to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- to the complainant for the negligence and deficiency of service of OPs which caused the untimely death of the mother of the complainant,
- to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- to the complainant for the mental pain and agony, the complainant and his brother are suffering on account of the wrong treatment given to the mother of the complainant,
- to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- to the complainant which the mother of the complainant would have received as pension if she would have been given proper treatment and her life would have been saved,
- to pay Rs. 4,00,000/- to the complainant as he became the patient of disease due to the untimely death of his mother,
- to pay Rs. 38,000/- to the complainant for the wrong treatment,
- to pay Rs. 21,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.
OP-1 has filed written statement denying all the allegations and controverted the allegations that the complainant was not handed over previous medical documents and OP-1 has relied upon the findings of the Delhi Medical Council which is the expert body to deal with the medical negligence. OP-1 has disputed the basis of non-supply of documents by raising a question that “as to how non-supply of above said documents after death of the concerned patient has prejudiced the complainant”. OP-1 has further stated that the late mother of the complainant was admitted in the hospital, namely, National Heart Institute on 24.9.2007 with no pulse, non recordable BP in gasping state. Chest examination revealed decreased bilateral air entry and widespread crepts, CVC-muffled heart sound. She was started on anti platelets, I/V Dopamine, I/V antibiotics and was connected to ventilator on CMV mode. On 25.9.2007 at 1.45 p.m. she had asystole, resuscitative measures were attempted and she improved briefly and she again had asystole and succumbed at 3 p.m. on the same date inspite of all resuscitative measures. It is further stated that as per the order of the Delhi Medical Council all relevant records were furnished to the General Manager (Admn.), Airports Authority of India with a letters dated 12.1.2008 and 1.2.2008. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
OP-2 has also filed reply denying all the allegations and reiterated that OP-3 is a renowned doctor in CR Park. Further tests done by OP-3 on 21.9.07 showed that there was no growth in the urine culture and sensitivity test and the urine routine examination had become normal (Pus Cells : 2 – 4) which clearly proved that injection Amikacin (Mikacin) was successful for the time being in controlling the Urinary Tract Infection. OP-2 has further reiterated that mother of the complainant was about 75 years of age suffering from diabetes and was regularly visiting various doctors and hospitals. OP-2 has further brought out in Para 11 of the reply that complainant had also taken his mother to AIIMS Casualty on 15.9.2007 with complaints of loss of consciousness where she was found to have low blood sugar and was given injection Dextrose I.V. along with other symptomatic treatment.
OP-3 filed reply denying all the allegations and has admitted that at request of OP-2 he attended the patient at her residence on 20.9.07 for complaints of weakness, instability of gait, breathlessness, puffiness, being essentially confined to bed. She was found to be long standing case of Type II Diabetes, Hypertension with Coronary Artery disease with Angina with recurrent Urinary Tract infections, presently with fluid retention (Congestive Heart Failure), presently with recurrent Hypoglycaemic episodes. After clinical assessment by him she was advised immediate admission to a Tertiary care hospital for complete evaluation and management to which her sons were unwilling, hesitating and reluctant. Having no communication with OP-3 for 4 to 5 days and not even letting him know of her condition or their decision to shift her to a Tertiary care centre/hospital, OP-3 received a call from the attendants of the patient with complaint of heartburn, feeling of suffocation along with chest pain and restlessness on 24.9.2007. Comprehending the grave and emergency possibility of an evolving Heart attack/acute coronary syndrome, the OP-3 reiterated and urged for immediate admission to a tertiary care centre as then a seeming evolving emergency situation. OP-3 further states in para (h) of 1 to 18 that attendants of patient on the morning of 24.9.2007 told him that they suspected acidity and gastritis as a possible cause of her present morbidity. Even on this instance, sons and attendants had been self treating her with antacids and painkillers.
As regards the allegation on OP-3 of not being a Cardiologist, OP-3 states that “a Post-graduate MD (Medicine) is allowed and authorized to practice any Branch of Medicine including as that of clinical Cardiology and fully authorized to treat cardiology patients and the suffixes to the degree are fellowship, membership, assigned by the reputed Medical Society. OP-3 further states that the allegation of Septicaemia not being diagnosed within 24 to 36 hours in the hospital and not being diagnosed by him on 20.9.2007 are preposterous for the simple reason that condition of the patient deteriorated in 4 days from 21st to 24th September 2007 and is ascertainably after blood sample report. There were no reports of base line available on 20.9.2007 which could have even suggested or given even the remotest hint or indication to OP-3 regarding the patient having septicaemia. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the replies of the OPs reiterating his averments. We have noted para 1-18 of rejoinder of complainant to reply of OP-3 wherein we are surprised to note that complainant has not denied specifically the symptoms of acidity and gastritis.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Wing Cdr. Bansidhar Jena, Administrator of OP-1 and of OP-2 & OP-3 have been filed in evidence on behalf of OPs.
OP-2 has died on 30.11.12.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the arguments of counsel for complainant, OP-1 and OP-3 and also examined all the documents very carefully and after careful consideration of the material place before us, we are of the considered opinion that the complete case of the deceased mother of the complainant was examined by the Delhi Medical Council at the instance of the complainant. This is an Apex body for examining the medical negligency. The Delhi Medical Council after detailed hearing and after examining all the records inter-alia opined that “It is further held that no medical negligence can be attributed on the part of Dr. S. Sengupta, OP-2 or National Heart Institute, OP-1 in the treatment administered to late Bithika Sen. The line of treatment adopted in the management of the patient was in accordance with the accepted professional practice in such cases”.
Though complainant has also blamed the Delhi Medical Council for deciding the matter without considering the facts and complaint but has not lead any expert medical opinion to the contrary.
As regards allegations of the complainant against OP-3 that he does not possess any degree or diploma pertaining to Cardiology, we find that OP-3 is a Consultant in Internal Medicine with specialisation in Diabetes & Heart disease. He has the qualification of MBBS, MD (Internal Medicine), FCCP, FIACM, FIMSA. For a physician with post graduation qualification and membership of reputed institutions, we do not feel that such physician need to have degree and diploma in conducting for general treatment. Fact also remains that late mother of the complainant including cardiac problem was suffering from multiple ailments under multiple numbers of physicians and hospitals. As revealed from the copies of prescriptions of various doctors and hospitals i.e. more than 8 in numbers enclosed by the complainant himself, the deceased patient was suffering from multiple ailments viz Diabetes Mellitus, hypertension, gastric and Urinary Tract infection etc. Complainant has annexed medical documents in respect of his late mother as Annex. A to Annex. 10 and Annx. Y which are containing most of the prescriptions/test reports of the deceased patient. Annex. Y contains copy of some of the medical records pertaining to treatment of complainant’s late mother. We find that in Annex. A to O, there is sufficient documentary evidence suggesting multiple ailments suffered by the late mother of the complainant and Annex. Y contains day to day observations of the doctors of OP-1 from 6.40 a.m. dated 24.9.07 to 3.00 p.m. dated 25.9.2007. These records reveal the line of treatment given to the deceased patient by the doctors of OP-1 which is also corroborated by the report of Delhi Medical Council. At 3 p.m. attending doctor recorded as under:
“Patient had asystole cardiac arrest. Cardiac massage given injection Atropine, Injection Adrenalin and Injection Sodabin carbonate., Inspite of ruscitistive measure she could not be revived. The patent declared dead at 3.00 p.m.”
Therefore, death of late mother of complainant was caused by asystole cardiac arrest.
One of the complaint of the complainant is that he was not given copies of relevant documents by OP-1 after the death of his deceased mother on 25.9.2007. We find that at the instance of Delhi Medical Council, OP-1 supplied 61 number of documents running from serial I to X vide their letter dated 22.11.08. These documents have been attached by the complainant himself in his complaint as Annex. Y collectively. Complainant has not controverted authenticity of these documents but has only emphasised on non-supply of documents within 72 hours as per rules of MCI in his rejoinder. This argument does not come to his aid in pinpointing negligency on OPs. Perusal of these documents reveals that the attending doctors of OP-1 had recorded time to time observations of the deceased patient from 6.40 a.m on 24.9.07 to 3 p.m. on 25.9.07. Therefore, Annex. Y which has been relied upon by the complainant washes away the allegations of deficiency upon OP-1 for non-supplying of documents. Though, these document should have been given within 72 hours of the death as stipulated in the rules of MCI, for the purpose of drawing legal inference by us, delay in supplying these documents has no relevance as long as authenticity is not contested. As revealed from evidence of OP-3 and other connected documents, deceased mother of the complainant had suffered multiple ailments in various hospitalisation and was treated by various doctors including Homeopathic in the past. In one of the document at Annex. K of the complainant, she was referred to AIIMS for loss of consciousness and was resuscitated by giving certain injections like dextrose. Therefore, her health was quite precarious thereby warranting high level of care in her health. Suspicion of acidity and gastritis by complainant also indicates their casual attitude thereby leaving the patient to come to serious condition at eleventh hour. It has also come to our notice in the evidence of OP-3 (not rebutted by the complainant) that the attendants of the patient suspected acidity and gastric as a possible cause of the ailment of the deceased patient whereas OP-3 realising grave emergency insisted upon the complainant to admit the deceased patient in Tertiary Care centre. Since the hospital of OP-1 was in the panel of the organisation of the complainant, she was admitted to the hospital of OP-1 which is one Tertiary Care Centre.
In view of above discussions and the opinion of the Delhi Medical Council, we hold that complainant has failed to prove medical negligence on the part of OPs.
In view of the above discussions, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
Announced on 04.6.2016
Case No. 310/09
04.06.2016
Present – None
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
