Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/106/2017

Sh. Sarabjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nehru Hospital, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research - Opp.Party(s)

I.P.S. Kohli

19 Sep 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

                                                                 

Appeal No.	:	106 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	26.04.2017
Date of Decision	:	19.09.2017

 

Sh. Sarabjit Singh S/o Sh. Gurcharan Singh R/o 103, Sodal Nagar, Jalandhar-144004 Natural Guardian, being father of Ms. Gurnaz Kaur.

                                                                .…Appellant/Complainant.

Versus

Nehru Hospital, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh 160012, through its Chairman/ Administrator/Manager.

…..Respondent/Opposite Party.

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Argued by:

Sh. I.P.S. Kohli, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Paras Money Goyal, Advocate for the respondent.

 

Appeal No.	:	113 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	28.04.2017
Date of Decision	:	19.09.2017

 

Nehru Hospital, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh 160012, through its Chairman/ Administrator/Manager.

.…Appellant/Opposite Party.

Versus

Sh. Sarbjit Singh s/o Sh. Gurcharan Singh r/o 103, Sodal Nagar, Jalandhar-144004 Natural Guardian, being father of Ms. Gurnaz Kaur.

…..Respondent/Complainant.

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Argued by:

Sh. Paras Money Goyal, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. I.P.S. Kohli, Advocate for the respondent.

 

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                SMT. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              Vide this common order, we propose to dispose the aforesaid two appeals bearing Nos.106 of 2017 filed by the complainant (Sarabjit Singh) and 113 of 2017 filed by the opposite party (Nehru Hospital) against the order dated 16.3.2017, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’), vide which, consumer complaint bearing No.682 of 2015 was allowed and the Opposite Parties were jointly and severally directed as under:-

“(i)    To pay to the complainant Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for deficient services regarding the  treatment of his minor daughter Ms. Gurnaz Kaur.

(ii)    To pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. 

12.              This order be complied with by the OP within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.”

 

2.           The facts in brief are that the complainant’s daughter Ms. Gurnaz Kaur is suffering from Thalassemia and a member of Thalassemic Children Welfare Society (Regd.), Jalandhar. It was stated that on the advice of the doctors at Jalandhar, the complainant on 16.04.2013 brought his daughter to the Opposite Party for treatment in the OPD, on which date, samples were taken. It was further stated that on 24.09.2013, the concerned team of doctors of the Opposite Party diagnosed Thalassemia. It was further stated that on the advice of the doctors, the complainant got blood transfusion on various dates from Jalandhar.  It was further stated that on 29.10.2014, the concerned team of doctors of the Opposite Party again checked up Ms. Gurnaz Kaur.  It was further stated that as advised by the doctors of the Opposite Party, the complainant got the test of HCV Quantitative (Viral Load) PCR done at Jalandhar. It was further stated that the complainant again visited the Opposite Party on 19.11.2014 and team of doctors checked Ms. Gurnaz Kaur and admitted her for treatment of Liver Biopsy and conducted several tests. It was further stated that
   Ms. Gurnaz Kaur, the complainant’s daughter was discharged on 21.11.2014 and thereafter, the complainant visited the Opposite Party on various dates, as advised. The doctors of the Opposite Party again admitted the complainant’s daughter on 21.02.2015, for treatment.  It was further stated that on 27.02.2015, the complainant was asked to immediately purchase Peginterferon alfa – 2a injection Exxura @ 135 mcg/0.5 ml. and ribavirin and large/big syringe. It was further stated that after treatment of Ms. Gurnaz Kaur, she was discharged on 27.02.2015 with directions to get aforesaid injection injected only from the Opposite Party.  It was further stated that after 5^th injection on 27.03.2015, the concerned doctors advised the complainant, to get the injection injected from Jalandhar to avoid harassment. It was further stated that after 12 weeks, as per the advice of the doctors of the Opposite Parties, on 10.06.2015 the complainant visited the Opposite Party with his daughter and the concerned doctors were shocked to find that
   Ms. Gurnaz Kaur was not responding to the treatment and he was told to come on 12.06.2015, for administration of 16^th injection. It was further stated that the complainant was stunned to see that the injection was administered without diluting by mixing distilled water.
3.           It was further stated that when the complainant pointed out the said fact, Dr. Jagdish of the Opposite Party got the discharge and follow up card of the child, from the complainant, for making enquiry and issued a fresh one.  It was further stated that instead of administering five injections, 15 injections of diluted dose were administered to Ms. Gurnaz Kaur, resulting in more damage to her body and the disease of Ms. Gurnaz Kaur instead of improving, started deteriorating. It was further stated that the iron in the body of Ms. Gurnaz Kaur increased and further required more treatment. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party amounted to negligence, deficiency in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed
4.           The Opposite Party in its written reply admitted the factual matrix of the case. It was stated that the daughter of the complainant was suffering from Thalassemia Major, since birth, which require lifelong blood transfusion, and liver damage, due to an iron overload, is an established consequence of this disease. It was further stated that for this disease, numerous hospital visits for blood transfusion and checkups are mandatory. It was further stated that Hepatitis C, which the child contracted due to blood transfusion received outside PGIMER, would have hastened the deterioration of the liver status.  It was further stated that Thalassemia is not curable without bone marrow transplantation and is invariably associated with many complications.  It was further stated that treatment given, is as per the procedure and recommendation of the protocol, and the disease of the patient did not deteriorate, as a result of the treatment. It was further stated that various side effects and success rate of treatment, as well as need to maintain hemoglobin of the child around 9gm% by periodic blood transfusion and the possible need for iron chelation therapy was accordingly and clearly explained to the parents. It was further stated that neither there was any medical negligence, deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor they indulged into any unfair trade practice and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.          The complainant filed replication, wherein he reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and repudiated those as contained in the written statement of the Opposite Parties.
6.         The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
7.          After hearing the Counsel for the parties and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, allowed the complaint, vide the impugned order, as stated above.
8.          Feeling aggrieved, the Opposite Parties and the complainant have filed the present appeals.
9.          We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case carefully.
10.           The Counsel for the Opposite Party (appellant in Appeal No.113 of 2017) submitted that the daughter of the complainant namely Gurnaz Kaur, is suffering from Thalassemia and had visited the appellant on 16.04.2013. The complainant was asked to purchase the injection namely Peginterferon Alpha-2-A Injection Exura at 135 MCG 0.5 ML and Ribavirin. The complainant alleged that after 12 weeks on 10.06.2015 the doctors of the appellant found that the daughter of the complainant was not responding to the treatment and on 12.06.2015 the child was administered with 16^th injection without diluting the drug by mixing distilled water. At that point of time, the complainant realized that after diluting the dose, the disease of the daughter of the complainant did not improve and the iron in the body of the daughter increased which required further more treatment. The appellant in his appeal stated that the appellant/Opposite Party’s institute is premier institute in the country where lakhs of patients are treated every year and is known for giving best treatment in the entire country. The Counsel for the appellant hospital further argued that the complainant has failed to prove that the documents upon which he relied are the documents taken by the complainant from the hospital and there is no proof as to who inscribed upon those documents regarding the alleged treatment. Further, the complainant has admitted that he had taken injection from a doctor in a Jalandhar Hospital after diluting the same and therefore, the appellant hospital alone cannot be held liable for any medical negligence.
11.            On the other hand, Counsel for the complainant (appellant in Appeal No.106 of 2017) submitted that the Forum while holding the Opposite Parties deficient in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice, rightly allowed the complaint but it did not award any compensation for the loss of amenities of the life of the complainant’s daughter. He prayed that the appeal be allowed and the reliefs claimed, be granted in full.
12.           The case of the complainant (appellant in Appeal No.106 of 2017) was that the complainant’s daughter Gurnaz Kaur is suffering from Thalassemia and she was brought for treatment from the Opposite Party’s hospital and she has been taken treatment from 16.04.2013 in the OPD of the Opposite Party’s hospital and she was diagnosed with Thalassemia. The complainant got the test of HCV QUANTATIVE (VIRAL LOAD) PCR done at Jalandhar on the advice of the Opposite Party hospital in 29.10.2014 and again continued the treatment with the Opposite Party hospital. On 19.11.2014, the complainant again visited the Opposite Party hospital and the doctors of the Opposite Party admitted her for treatment and conducted several tests and the said treatment was going on upto 27.02.2015 with the Opposite Party Hospital. On 27.02.2015, the Opposite Party directed the complainant to purchase a large/big syringe and the required medicines i.e. Peginterferon alfa – 2a injection Exxura@ 135 mcg/0.5ml and ribavirin and large/big syringe. After treatment, she was thus given 5 injections one per week, and advised that the complainant could go to Jalandhar to avoid harassment. After 12 consecutive weeks in Jalandhar, the complainant visited the Opposite Party hospital on 10.06.2015, wherein it was found that the child was not responding to the treatment and the Opposite Party hospital asked the complainant to get the said injection injected and the same was injected on the child on 12.06.2015 without diluting the drug with distilled water. The complainant came to know that the required drug, which was to be injected to the child for controlling the disease i.e. Thalassemia, was not administered properly all along during the previous weeks and diluted dose was given to the child instead of giving the undiluted dose. The complainant was of the opinion that injection of such diluted doses further damaged the health status of his child. Accordingly, he alleged deficiency in service of the Opposite Party for treatment of the child and claimed for compensation.  
13. On going through the records of the case, the lower Forum had held that the Opposite Party was deficient to some extent in not acting promptly and was negligent in treating the patient i.e. Gurnaz Kaur and accordingly, ordered the Opposite Party to pay Rs.2.00 lacs as compensation to the complainant alongwith Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion i.e. Appeal filed by the Opposite Party against the above order, being bereft of merit, deserved to be disposed of.
14.               However, as prayed by the Counsel for the Opposite Party (Nehru Hospital) during the argument, that the treating doctors in their personnel capacity are not liable for the deficiency in services, is accepted by this Commission for the following reasons:-
    1.     Thalassemia intermedia cannot by itself get enhanced to Thalassemia Major on account of drugs. The said disease has its origin in the genetics of the patient.
    2.     The respondent, in this case has got only 5 injections administered in the Appellant Hospital and a major dosage of injections were administered in a Jalandhar Hospital, before coming back to the Appellant Hospital again.
    3. Further, the counsel for the Opposite Parties (appellant in Appeal No.113 of 2017) mentioned during arguments that the learned District Forum vide its impugned order dated 16.03.2017 had mentioned in paragraph 8, as under:-

“It is further pertinent to note that the fact of negligence on the part of the treating doctors with regard to wrong dosage of injection was administered by Dr. Jagdish and Dr. Sadhna.”

X                 X                 X                 X 

“As a matter of fact, the doctors of the OP did not properly administer the appropriate potency medicine to the patient and as a consequence, her treatment get prolonged and at present the body of the patient has become accustomed to blood transfusion at shorter intervals. As such, the negligence and deficiency in providing service is writ large.”

During the arguments, when the complainant was asked, as to who administered the injections to the child, the complainant was unable to pinpoint the exact names of the doctors and had no document to support the same and no documents were placed on record to support the same, whereby the responsibility of having administered the said injection could not be pinpointed on
Dr. Jagdish and Dr. Sadhna and in fact the complainant said the same. It was in fact Dr. Jagdish who pointed out on their 16th visit to the Opposite Party hospital that the injection should have been undiluted and further administered the 16th dose without diluting. This shows that the said doctors i.e. Dr. Jagdish and Dr. Sadhna were not deficient in their services and this itself proves, why they should not be absolved from the allegations made by the learned District Forum and accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the doctors of the Appellant Hospital (Appeal No.113 of 2017) i.e. Dr. Jagdish and Dr. Sadhna cannot be held individually liable, and are exonerated from the allegations made on them.

15.                 The complainant (appellant in Appeal No.106 of 2017) has prayed for enhancement of compensation in the relief, awarded by the Forum. Looking to the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant, in our considered opinion, the Forum, while rightly allowing the complaint, adequately compensated the complainant, by directing the Opposite Party, to pay to the complainant, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for deficient services regarding the treatment of his minor daughter Ms. Gurnaz Kaur and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation. Therefore, no case for enhancement of relief granted by the Forum is made out. As such, the appeal filed by the complainant bearing No.106 of 2017 for enhancement of compensation also deserves to be dismissed being devoid of any merit. However, the appellant hospital is directed to provide all assistance, guidance and help to the complainant, if he chooses to go for bone marrow transplant for his child.
16.         No other point was urged by the Counsel for the parties.
17.          For the reasons recorded above, Appeal bearing No.106 of 2017 filed by the Complainant and cross Appeal No.113 of 2017 filed by the Opposite Party, stands disposed off.
18.          Certified copy of this order be placed in Appeal No.106 of 2017.
19.          Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
20.          The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

 

Pronounced.

19.09.2017

 

                                                                                      Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/- 

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER

 

 

GP

                                                           STATE COMMISSION

(Appeal No.106 of 2017)

(Sarabjit Singh Vs. Nehru Hospital, PGIMER)

Argued by:

Sh. I.P.S. Kohli, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Paras Money Goyal, Advocate for the respondent.

 

Dated the 19^th day of September, 2017

ORDER

            Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, this appeal filed by the complainant/appellant and the cross appeal filed by the Opposite Party bearing No.113 of 2017, have been disposed off.

 

 

     Sd/-                   Sd/-                        Sd/-

(DEV RAJ) MEMBER

(JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)) PRESIDENT

(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER

 

GP

 

 

 

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	113 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	28.04.2017
Date of Decision	:	19.09.2017

 

Nehru Hospital, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh 160012, through its Chairman/ Administrator/Manager.

.…Appellant/Opposite Party.

Versus

Sh. Sarbjit Singh s/o Sh. Gurcharan Singh r/o 103, Sodal Nagar, Jalandhar-144004 Natural Guardian, being father of Ms. Gurnaz Kaur.

…..Respondent/Complainant.

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Argued by:

Sh. Paras Money Goyal, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. I.P.S. Kohli, Advocate for the respondent.

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                SMT. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

            Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately in Appeal No.106 of 2017 titled as ‘Sarabjit Singh Vs. Nehru Hospital, PGIMER, Chandigarh’, this appeal filed by the Opposite Party has been disposed of.

2.           Certified copy of the main order, passed in Appeal No.106 of 2017 titled as ‘Sarabjit Singh Vs. Nehru Hospital, PGIMER, Chandigarh’, be placed on this file also.

3.           Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

 

 

Pronounced.

19.09.2017

 

                                                                                 Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                           Sd/- 

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER 

 

                                                                               Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER

 GP