Smt. Meera Devi  Gupta           Vs.     Orthonova Hospital  & Anr.

Case No. 304/11

30.10.17

Present:       Sh. Shoaib Khan Enrol. No. D-1461/13 Adv. Proxy Counsel for the Complainant

Sh.  Rajat Krishna Enrol. No. D-1044/16 Adv. Proxy Cl. for of the OP

As per the office report, the medical report bearing No.13-53/2016 - RMLH (H.A.-I) 232/8449 dated 16.08.17 has been received from RML Hospital in this Forum vide diary No.125 dated 23.08.17.

Heard.  The present complaint relates to the alleged medical negligence on the part of the OPs in providing medical treatment to late Sh. S. K. Gupta as detailed in the complaint.

On the other hand, the stand of the OPs is that there was no negligence on the part of OPs and it was the lack of care and negligence at home due to which the deceased had developed severe urine infection and bedsores etc.

Parties have filed their respective affidavits in evidence. 

Vide our order dated 19.07.16 we referred the matter to MS of RML Hospital to examine the medical papers and to submit the report to this Forum.

The above stated medical report has been received from the RML Hospital. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced as hereunder:-

“…On the basis of record’s provided through President, Consumer Dispute & Redress forum, GNCT, Udyog Sadan and after going through relevant MRI films (which were with the diseased wife, Smt. Meeera Devi Gupta on 28.11.2016). This was a case of severe spinal canal stenosis  at D 8-10 level with paraparisis (gel I/II power) with bladder involvement (?H/o retention present). After surgery there was neurologic deterioration which is a possible likely complication in these type of spine surgeries. Subsequently it was further complicated by urinary tract infection/septicaemia. Based upon above findings the board is of the opinion that the present case is not due to medical negligence but a likely complication of neurologic deterioration leading to urinary tract infection/septicaemia…”

In view of the abovesaid medical report, it becomes absolutely clear that there was no medical negligence on the part of OPs in giving medical treatment to the patient. Therefore, no medical negligence has been proved on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Let a copy of this order be given dasti to the parties.  File be consigned to record room.

Announced on 30.10.2017.