Order dictated by:

Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.

1        Sh.Jarnail Singh has brought the instant complaint  u/s 12  & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties  on the allegations that complainant are real guardian  of their daughter namely Tajinder Kaur. Due to the death of Tajinder Kaur, the present complaint is being filed by her natural guardian i.e. her parents namely Jarnail Singh, father and Harsharan Kaur, mother. The complainant was having one daughter namely Tajinder Kaur aged about 27 years, who was a brilliant student, studied upto M.Tech (Computer & Information Technology) and was serving as a lecturer in Global Institute Amritsar. On 24.10.2009, the daughter of the complainant , Tajinder Kaur felt sick and she was taken to Dr.G.S.Arora, Ranjit Avenue for medical treatment, who performed some medical tests of Tajinder Kaur. But on 27.10.2009 health of Tajinder Kaur become more disturbed and the complainant got her admitted in Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar, where after diagnosis symptoms of disease were declared “Dengue” and they started treating the daughter of the complainant. On 28.10.2009 at about 10.00 a.m father of the complainant got her admitted in Parvati Devi Hospital,  Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar i.e. opposite party No.3 for better medical treatment. The complainant showed previous medical reports of Tajinder Kaur to opposite party No.1 and other concerned doctors. Then doctors of opposite party No.1  assured the complainant and other family members  that the daughter of the complainant was not having any problem of ‘dengue’ in fact she has minor infection  and will be cured very soon. But later on in the evening the condition of the daughter of the complainant become more disturbed and she started vomiting . The complainant told regarding the worst condition of his daughter to Dr. R.K.Kumar (who has since died) and opposite party No.2 Dr. Kamalpreet Kaur , who did not show any interest to check the daughter of the complainant  and kept on assuring the complainant that after the infection being cured the vomiting will be stopped , but they did not take care about her proper treatment. The opposite parties NO.1 & 2 assured the complainant that they have injected his daughter and till morning she will be get well but the health of Tajinder Kaur turn bad to worse and this fact came to the notice of opposite parties No.1 & 2  but they did not bother to cure the daughter of the complainant. On the next day i.e. 29.10.2009 at about 7.00 a.m bleeding started from the genital parts of the daughter of the complainant. The complainant and his wife immediately informed the doctors of the hospital  but inspite of that opposite parties No.1 & 2 did not turn up to check the daughter of the complainant  and sent some other doctor who was not having any knowledge about the condition and treatment of the daughter of the complainant. The said doctor then declared some gynecological problem to the daughter of the complainant and suggested ultrasound of her lower abdominal part.  At about 2.30 p.m when the complainant shouted on the authorities of the opposite party No.3, on that opposite parties NO.1 & 2 took  ultrasound scan of the daughter of the complainant  after the delay of 6 hours , as such opposite parties NO.1 & 2 have left no stone unturned to push the daughter of the complainant in the mouth of death and the condition of the daughter of the complainant become more deteriorated. On the same day on 29.10.2009 at about 3.15 p.m., opposite party No.1 told the complainant  that the case of  medical treatment of the daughter of the complainant is out of their control and advised the complainant to took her to Escort Hospital, Amritsar. The complainant immediately  at about 3.30 p.m took her daughter to Escort Hospital , Amritsar and got her admitted. At that time Dr.H.P.Singh and Dr.S.S. Mahi told the complainant that he has delayed in admitting her daughter in their hospital, as the disease of ‘dengue’ is in last stage and blood platelets have become lower than 18000. The concerned doctors advised the complainant to immediately provide the blood platelets to the body of Tajinder Kaur. Thereafter 2-3 times platelets were provided to the body of daughter of the complainant , but there was no change in the health of daughter of the complainant. On 30.10.2009 at about 9/9.30 a.m. , the daughter of the complainant Tajinder Kaur died. After the death of the Tajinder Kaur, complainant approached the opposite parties and told them that due to their negligence his daughter has died. On that opposite parties No.1 & 2 requested the complainant not to take any legal action against them and assured the complainant for compensation on account of death of daughter of the complainant and told him to come after 15-20 days. After 20 days complainant approached the opposite parties, but they flatly refused to compensate the complainant. It is pertinent to mention over here that the daughter of the complainant was well educated studied upto M.Tech (Computer and Information Technology) and was serving as Lecturer  in Global Institute and was obtaining salary of more than Rs. 15000./- per month  alongwith other service benefits which comes to Rs. 5000/. If the opposite parties properly cared and treated the daughter of the complainant, she might live ling. The act of the opposite parties No.1 to 3 amounts to deficiency in service and against the medical ethics as they did not take care about the health of the daughter of the complainant and due to their utter negligence the daughter of the complainants died. The complainants have sought for the following reliefs vide instant complaint :-

(a)     Opposite parties N0.1 to 3 be directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 16,00,000/- account of death of daughter of the complainants.

(b)     Compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- may also be awarded to the complainant for harassment,mental pain and agony.

(c )     Litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 11000/- may also be awarded to the complainant.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed separate written statements.

3.       In their collective written statement, opposite parties No.1 & 2 took certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that  the purported complainants are not covered under the definition of ‘consumer’  under the act ‘ibid’ qua replying opposite parties ; that purported complainants are barred from filing the present complaint, which is liable to be dismissed ; that  the complaint is not maintainable either on facts or under the law against the replying opposite parties. Since no evidence based allegation has been leveled in the complaint against the replying opposite parties, purported complainants are not entitled for any relief against the replying opposite parties; that present complaint is a gross abuse of the process of this Forum as the complainants have not approached this Forum with clean hands; that there is no evidence worth its name to show that there is any negligence  or deficiency or delay in service  at the hands of replying opposite parties during the course of treatment of the patient in question during relevant time nor any act of deficiency or negligence or delay or omission or commission was committed as per treatment record of the said patient, who was treated in Hargun Hospital, during relevant times and treatment in question was performed in the said hospital on standard scientific lines as per condition of the patient by fully competent, qualified and well trained/experienced doctors and para medical staff of the hospital ; that the process of ‘consumer Fora” cannot become a tool at the hands of unscrupulous persons who file complaint merely with a view to extract money under the garb of compensation ;  that since complainants do not have any proof regarding the negligence of the opposite parties nor any specific allegation have been leveled against the replying opposite parties nor replying opposite parties have committed any wrong or negligence or deficiency in service towards the patient in question during relevant times; that present complaint is a fit case where this Forum shall take action against purported complainant as per section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ; that the present complaint in fact filed after an unexplained  delay of number of months, at the behest of certain vested interest , ulterior motive, out of the greed and lust for money ; that since as per allegations of the purported complainant in the complaint, the matter in dispute require lengthy and detailed evidence./detailed trial to prove either way, the present matter cannot be disposed of in summary trial under the Act ; that since no post-mortem examination of patient in question has been made available with regard to cause of death, no liability can be fastened upon anyone with regard to any alleged negligence being cause of death as alleged ; that in the absence of any expert opinion  that the treatment was not proper or that treating doctor was negligent  while treating the patient, the allegation of negligence qua treating doctor while treating the patient is not tenable; that since main consultant and incharge of patient in the hospital Dr. R.K. Kumra under whose orders choice of treatment was decided and given,  which is under challenge in the present complaint, has died and he is the person solely responsible for the treatment so given under these circumstances, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on that ground only. On merits, it is submitted that as per record of opposite party No.2 hospital, the patient Tajinder Kaur , 27 years female daughter of Jarnail Singh was admitted in opposite party No.2 hosptial on 28.10.2009 at 10.15 am by her brother in law S.Narpinder Singh. At the time Dr.Kamal Preet Kaur was the medical officer on duty. The history of the ailment of the patient given at that time was that she was having fever for 5 days, vomiting 2 days and itching all over body. She had sore throat and had treatment from some doctor and she was admitted in Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, however, no record of previous treatment was produced.  She was an old case of Disseminated Lupus Erythematous (DLE) and was taking steroid in form of pulse therapy from a skin specialist. She was having history of burning epigastrium and loss of apetite. She was already on regular steroids treatment. On admission her diagnosis was DLE with PUO with Acute Gastritis with dehydration.   As per choice of consultant given by Narpinder Singh, attendant of the patient, the patient was taken under consultation of Dr.R.K.Kumra, Retired Profession (Medicine), who was one of the medical specialist on the panel of medical specialist with the hospi8tal (now deceased) and immediate requisite treatment of the patient was started as per advice and directions of Dr.R.K.Kumra and vitals of the patient were maintained. The only record produced at the time of admission in the hospital was investigation reports as per which her Hb was 9.7 gm, TLC 4000/cmn, DLC 72,20,3,0,1 ; Malarial Parasite Negative, Platelet count 1.72 Lac/cmn, Blood Urea 28, S.Creatine 1.0 mg,  S.Sodium 138.3 m eq/L,S.Pottasium 3.85 Eq/L,S.Billirubin 0.80 mg, SGOT 395 units, SGPT 237 unit, Urine Alb.+, Vidal Negative, Dengue Antigen+ve, Antibody lgM-Non Reactive, IgG-Reactive. The original reports of the same were returned to the patient/attendants after making note of the same in patient treatment record. It is again pertinent to mention here that at the time of admission of the patient  in the hospital, history of vomiting in the immediate past was given and investigation reports too showed compromised liver functions. Opposite party No.1 Dr. Kamal Preet Kaur was working only an medical officer in the hospital, who was giving treatment to the patient during her duty hours only as per orders of Dr.R.K.Kumra. Dr.R.K.Kumra also examined the patient regularly as is endorsed in the record. Off duty hours of opposite party No.1, other medical officer on duty at that time was looking after the patients in the hospital  during his duty hours. It is denied that opposite party No.1 or Dr.R.K.Kumar did not show any interest in the patient or bother to check the patient or gave any false assurance as alleged. Since the patient was admitted in the hospital in the first instances for management of multiple medical problems with various compromised conditions, in the morning of 29.10.2009. Despite proper treatment as per condition of the patient under direct consultation and supervision of Dr.R.K.Kumra, condition of the patient deteriorated. Thus early morning visit of Dr.R.K.Kumra was done, who advised ultrasound examination of whole abdomen of the patient. Visit of Dr. Gurpreet Kaur, Gynaecologist was also got arranged  early morning for complaint of per vaginum bleeding. After properly monitoring the patient, the patient was sent for ultrasound examination at 1.15 p.m, the report of which came out to be of Hollow Viscus Perforation. After reviewing the same,  Dr.R.K.Kumar, asked for consultation of Dr.B.S.Sidhu, Senior Surgical Specialist of the hospital, which was immediately done, who advised for x-ray abdomen. At that time, the attendants of the patient showed their desire to shift the patient to Escort Hospital, accordingly, after explaining them the condition of the patient and consequences of trauma to the patient during shifting, the patient was referred to the said hospital with proper referral slip.  Since nothing wrong was committed by opposite parties NO.1 & 2, thus there was no occasion for the opposite parties or Dr.R.K. Kumar to apologize from purported complainant on any account. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

4.       Opposite party No.3 in its written version has taken certain preliminary objections that  complainant is not covered under the definition of consumer ; that complaint is not maintainable either on facts or under the law against the replying opposite party. Since no allegation has been leveled in the complaint against the replying opposite party and complainants  have not sought any relief nor they were entitled for any relief against replying opposite party No.3. Remaining preliminary objections taken by opposite party No.3 are almost the same, which were taken in the written version of opposite parties No.1 & 2, so there is no need to reproduce the same for the sake of brevity. In parawise reply of opposite party No.3, it was admitted that patient was brought to Escorts Hospital in emergency when the blood platelets have become lower than 18000 which was itself very  fatal and despite best efforts and platelets provided to her, the patient could not recover. She was admitted in emergency on 29.10.2009 at 4.04 p.m. having high grade fever with abdominal distension as well as breathlessness. On admission she was having decreased platelet counts (18000) and degenged LFT,s  She was diagnosed as a case of Thromboctopenia and Acute Hepatic Failure. She was transfused  02 units of SDPC and 04 units of RDPCs.. Her poor prognosis was explained to the relatives. Early in the morning on 30.10.2009 she had sudden fall in saturation associated with hypotension and bradycardia, she was intubated and put on ventilator immediately. She developed VT for which she was cardioverted and CPR started  and she as given injection Atropine NaHCO3 and calium Gluconate. But despite of all medical and cardiac emergency care, the patient could not be revived and declared dead on 30.10.2009. Remaining facts narrated in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of complaint was made.

5.       Opposite party No.4 in its written version  has taken certain preliminary objections that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the replying opposite party i.e. New India Assurance Company Ltd . Hence, the present complaint filed by the complainant is not legally maintainable; that opposite party  New India Assurance Company has been impleaded in the present complaint at the instance of opposite party No.1 on the ground that they have obtained some professional indemnity doctor’s policy from replying opposite party. However, no such original policy alongwith terms and conditions have been placed on the court file nor supplied to the replying opposite party, even otherwise this Forum cannot fix any direct liability qua the replying opposite party  because the jurisdiction of this Forum is only to determine liability against opposite parties No.1 to 3 and if any such liability is fixed, the award is to be satisfied by opposite parties No.1 to 3 and the same is to be considered by the replying opposite party i.e. New India Assurance company Ltd as per terms and conditions of the alleged policy; that as per written version submitted by opposite parties NO.1 to 3  it has been clearly confirmed that there was no medical negligence on their part; that the complainant has claimed compensation as well as cost in addition to the main claim. However, the said additional reliefs claimed by the complainant are not payable as there is neither any negligence nor any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No.1 to 3 as per written version submitted by them. On merits, facts narrated in the complaint have been specifically denied and a prayer for dismissal of complaint with cost was made.

6.       Opposite party No.5 in their written version has submitted  certain preliminary objections as taken by opposite party No.4 , as such there is no need to reproduce the same for brevity. On merits it is denied that the complainants are the clear guardian of their daughter namely Tajinder Kaur. It was submitted that as per version of the complainant, they themselves shifted from Guru Nanak Dev Hospital to Parvati Devi Hospital for better medical treatment. However, the replying opposite party has not been shown insurer of the said hospital because in the copy of one page policy, the name of the insured has been mentioned as Rai Bahadur Kishore Chand Maheshwari Charitable Trust and no linking document has been produced on the court file that Parvati
Devi Hospital has any  concern with the said trust. Hence, the complaint filed by the complainants against opposite party NO.5 is not legally maintainable. Remaining facts narrated in the complaint have been specifically denied and a prayer for dismissal of complaint with cost was made.

7.       In their bid  to prove the case, complainants tendered into evidence the affidavit of complainant No.2 Harsharan Kaur Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to C9 and  closed their evidence.

8.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainants, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence copies of documents Ex.OP1,2/1 to Ex.OP1/2/6, affidavit of Sh.Sunil Handa Ex.OP1,2/7, affidavit of Dr.Kamalpreet Kaur Ex.OP1,2/8. Opposite Party No.3  tendered into evidence the affidavit of Dr.Pinak Moudgin Ex.OP3/1, medical file Ex.OP3/2. Opposite Party No.4 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.S.S.Gill, Divisional Manager Ex.Op4/1, copy of terms and conditions Ex.OP4/2. Opposite Party No.5 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Mr.Sanpreet Pahuja Ex.OP5/1, alongwith document Ex.OP5/2 and thereafter, all the Opposite Parties  closed their respective evidence.    

9.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

10.     Ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 has vehemently contended that no case of medical negligence is made out against Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 regarding the treatment of Tajinder Kaur (now deceased). Patient Tajinder Kaur (now deceased) daughter of the complainants was admitted in Opposite Party No.2-Hospital on 28.10.2009 at 10.15 am. At the time of admission, the medical officer on duty, Dr.Kamalpreet Kaur, Opposite Party No.1 was on duty. The history of the ailment of the patient given at that time was that she was having fever for 5 days, vomiting 2 days and itching all over body. She had sore throat and had treatment from some doctor, and she remained admitted in Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar, however, no record of previous treatment was produced.  Tajinder Kaur (now deceased) was an old case of Disseminated Lupus Erythematous (D.L.E) and was taking steroid in form of pulse therapy from a skin specialist. She was having history of burning epigastrium and loss of appetite. Recently, fever was with chills upto 101-102 degree F. 2 days back she started having vomiting 5-6 in number. She was admitted in Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar. She developed itching of the body for the last 2 days. She was already on regular steroids  treatment.  On admission, her diagnosis was DLE with PUO with Acute Gastritis with dehydration.   As per choice of consultant given by Narpinder Singh, attendant of the patient, the patient was taken under consultation of Dr.R.K.Kumra, Retired Profession (Medicine), Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar  who was one of the medical specialists on the panel of medical specialists with the hospital in those days (now deceased) and immediate requisite treatment of the patient was started as per advice and directions of Dr.R.K.Kumra and vitals of the patient were maintained. The patient was given every part of treatment under consultation and direction of late Dr.R.K.Kumra. The only record produced at the time of admission in the hospital was investigation reports as per which her Hb was 9.7 gm, TLC 4000/cmn, DLC 72,20,3,0,1 ; Malarial Parasite Negative, Platelet count 1.72 Lac/cmn, Blood Urea 28, S.Creatine 1.0 mg,  S.Sodium 138.3 m eq/L,S.Pottasium 3.85 Eq/L,S.Billirubin 0.80 mg, SGOT 395 units, SGPT 237 unit, Urine Alb.+, Vidal Negative, Dengue Antigen+ve, Antibody lgM-Non Reactive, IgG-Reactive. The original reports of the same were returned to the patient/attendant(s) after making note of the same in patient treatment record. It is again pertinent to mention here that at the time of admission of the patient  in the hospital, history of vomiting in the immediate past was given and investigation reports too showed compromised liver functions. During the course of hospitalization, vitals of the patient were being monitored by medical officers on duty alongwith nursing staff of the hospital at regular intervals, who gave treatment as per the orders and directions of late Dr.R.K.Kumra as well as other consultants who were required to be consulted as per the condition of the patient. Opposite party No.1 Dr. Kamal Preet Kaur was working only as medical officer in the hospital, who was giving treatment to the patient during her duty hours as per orders of Dr.R.K.Kumra only. Dr.R.K.Kumra also examined the patient regularly as is endorsed in the record. Off duty hours of opposite party No.1, other medical officer on duty at that time was looking after the patients in the hospital  during his duty hours. It is denied that opposite party No.1 or Dr.R.K.Kumar did not show any interest in the patient or bother to check the patient or gave any false assurance as alleged. Since the patient was admitted in the hospital in the first instances for management of multiple medical problems with various compromised conditions, in the morning of 29.10.2009, despite proper treatment as per condition of the patient under direct consultation and supervision of Dr.R.K.Kumra, condition of the patient deteriorated. Thus early morning visit of Dr.R.K.Kumra was arranged, who advised ultrasound examination of whole abdomen of the patient. Visit of Dr. Gurpreet Kaur, Gynecologist was also got arranged  early morning for complaint of per vaginum bleeding. After properly monitoring the patient, she was sent for ultrasound examination at 1.15 p.m, the report of which came out to be of Hollow Viscus Perforation. After reviewing the same. Dr.R.K.Kumra, asked for consultation of Dr.B.S.Sidhu, Senior Surgical Specialist of the hospital, which was immediately done, who advised for x-ray abdomen. At that time, the attendants of the patient expressed their desire to shift the patient to Escort Hospital, accordingly, after explaining them the condition of the patient and consequences of trauma to the patient during shifting, the patient was referred to the said hospital with proper referral slip.   Since nothing wrong was committed by Opposite Party No.2-Hospital thus there was no occasion for the opposite parties or Dr.R.K. Kumar to apologize from purported complainant(s) on any account. The treatment given in this case in Opposite Party No.2-Hospital was as per condition of the patient as per the instructions and directions of late Dr.R.K.Kumra, a very senior medical specialist, without any shortfall, delay or deficiency and there was no act of omission, commission or negligence by the medical officers or other staff of the hospital while complying with instructions given by the said expert doctor. It is further pertinent to mention over here that the patient was referred to Fortis Escorts Hospital not because the treating doctor showed his inability to treat the said patient, but because the attendants wanted to shift the patient on their own, thus took the patient away at their own risk and responsibility after duly signing for the same. Since nothing wrong was done by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 or any of the treating doctors in the hospital,  there was no question of compensating  the purported complainants as alleged. The record of treatment from Dr.G.S.Arora as well as of Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar of the patient in question, has been concealed by purported complainants with malafide intention. As per the report of expert committee, the patient was suffering from DLE (Disseminated Lupus Erythematosis) which was diagnosed   in the year 2005, the disease which involve multiple organs of the body, which can present into the picture with which the patient landed in the hospital with compromised condition. The patient was treated on these lines. Even as per the record of Fortis Escorts Hospital, the patient was suspected to be of (? Dengue). The platelet count of the patient were checked on 26/10 when these were 1,72,000; then on 28/10 when these were 1,13,000. On 29.10.2009, she had episode of bleeding per vaginum, for which gynecological consultation was sought who advised ultrasound examination, which revealed Hollow Viscus Perforation, for which consultation of surgeon was sought who advised x-ray abdomen, but on the insistence of the attendants, the patient was shifted to Fortis Escorts Hospital.

11.     Ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 further contended that even since Dr.R.K.Kumra has died, neither Dr.R.K.Kumra nor Dr.Kamalpreet Kaur  can be held guilty of any negligence because Dr.Kamalpreet Kaur  treated the patient  on the advice of Dr.R.K.Kumra and no negligence for the treatment can be attributed to Dr.Kamalpreet Kaur. Reliance in this connection has been placed on Balbir Singh Makol Vs. Chairman, M/s.Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and Ors. 2001(1) CLT 495 (NC), wherein it has been held that Coming to the rule of the other doctors, we find the at the Opposite Party No.3 was only a Junior Doctor who was called to assist Dr.Makhani and he was in no way responsible for any decision to prescribe the line of treatment and he cannot have any liability independent of Dr.Makhani. Since the case has failed against Dr.Makhani, it cannot proceed any further against Opposite Party No.3  or even respondent No.1 which is the hospital where operation was carried out because there is no allegation of lack of service or negligence in nursing care etc. by the hospital staff as such. It has been vehemently contended that no case is made out for medical negligence against Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 and the case against Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 may be dismissed accordingly.

12.            On the other hand, ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.3  has vehemently contended that no medical negligence has been attributed to Opposite Party No.3  either in the pleading made in the complaint nor in evidence. There is no evidence worth its name to show that there is any negligence or deficiency or delay in service at the hands of Opposite Party No.3. Even no relief has been sought by the complainant from the answering Opposite Party and nor there is any allegation or whisper of allegation against the answering Opposite Party. The patient was shifted to Fortis Escorts Hospital on 29.10.2009 at 4.04 pm  who died on 30.10.2009 at 9.30  am in the hospital.  As such it is contended that the case  against Opposite Party No.3  may be dismissed accordingly.

13.     Ld.counsel for Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 have vehemently contended that question of reimbursement to the insurer would arise only if the court reaches the conclusion that Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 were guilty and negligent in providing medical treatment to the patient namely Tajinder Kaur (now deceased). Moreover, first liability was that of the insured persons  i.e. opposite parties No.1 to 3 and Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 would come into picture for the reimbursement of the awarded amount only at later stage. It is further contended that Opposite Parties No.4 and 5 have been wrongly arrayed as parties to the present complaint, rather the complaint should have been filed against Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 only and in case they were found to be negligent in providing treatment to the patient by the Forum & some compensation amount was awarded against them, opposite parties No.1 to 3 after payment of the awarded amount, could seek reimbursement of the insured amount from opposite parties No. 4 & 5 and it is contended that the complaint against opposite parties No.4 & 5 may be dismissed being pre-mature.

14.      But however, from the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the complainants have been able to prove the charges of medical negligence against Opposite Party No.2-Hospital. It is an admitted case that Opposite Party No.2-Hospital  had its empanelled doctors namely Dr.R.K.Kumra (now deceased) who diagnosed patient Tajinder Kaur (now deceased) . The patient was admitted in Opposite Party No.2-Hospital on 28.10.2009 and she remained admitted there under the treatment of Dr.R.K.Kumra and his associates uptil 29.10.2009. Tajinder Kaur (now deceased) was suffering from dengue and was earlier admitted with Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar and was shifted with Opposite Party No.2-Hospital on 28.10.2009. When she was shifted with Opposite Party No.2-Hospital, the doctors gave a callous treatment only and no specialized treatment or any further investigation(s) was/were done nor any specialist was called for the purpose of treating the patient. Due to their callous attitude, the condition of the patient  deteriorated to such an extent that she had to be shifted to Fortis Escorts Hospital on 29.10.2009 at 4.00 pm where she ultimately expired. Opposite Parties in their written statement have not given any specific reply and the entire burden has been shifted on Dr.R.K.Kumra (now deceased) .  In view of  law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in case of Savita Garg Vs. National Heart Institute  in Civil Appeal No. 4024 of 2003 decided on 12.10.2004 the burden is on the treating doctors to prove that they had not acted negligently but in the present case they have miserably failed to discharge their said burden . Even otherwise the present case falls within the ambit of res ipsa liquotor. In this connection, reference can be made to para No.4  on merits of written reply where the SGOT and SGPT levels were mentioned and they were alarming and further  there is mentioned about dengue antigen+ve, meaning thereby  the hepatic disorder was there and dengue was also positive, and even at the last of this para, it is mentioned that the liver functions were compromised but no hepatologist was  called by Opposite Party No.2-Hospital when even one of the causes of death was also due to Acute Hepatic Failure. This deficiency of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 is writ large on the face of it. Further, the Opposite Parties failed to give any proper treatment of dengue to the deceased inspite of the fact she was case of dengue; the platelets count of the deceased when shifted to Fortis Escorts Hospital was just 18000 after 4 pm on 29.10.2009 which was never checked by Opposite Parties on 29.10.2009 to assess the gravity of the dengue in the deceased by Opposite Parties.  It is pertinent to mention over here that the medical board constituted at the death of deceased Tajinder Kaur concluded their report t o the following effect:-

“….. Since the patient was complaining the bleeding per vagina & her condition was deteriorating since morning on 29.10.2009 & required fresh platelet count investigation, Elisa test/ PCR test for Dengue Fever should have been carried out at the earliest & if the time had permitted the patient should have been started blood transfusion/ platelet infusion in time….”

15.     Not only that,  the deceased patient was with Opposite Parties uptil 29.10.2009 and was having bleeding since morning and was shifted to Fortis Escorts Hospital at 4 pm but neither any test was conducted nor blood transfusion was done. It is well documented that the Opposite Parties failed to check the platelet counts on29.10.2009 and it was only checked at Escort Hospital to find it was only 18000 and question of blood transfusion/ platelet transfusion was the distant thing for the Opposite Parties.  Not only this, in their written version, Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 have stated that Dr.Kamalpreet Kaur  was only medical officer and was working under the instructions of Dr.R.K.Kumra. This fact also finds support from the evidence on record. Simple fact that Dr.Kamalpreet Kaur  has attended the patient and provided her the medical treatment  she cannot be blamed for medical negligence in treating the patient because, she acted under the guidance & supervision of Dr,. R.K.Kumra, who was incharge of the patient for the treatment. Had Dr.Kamalpreet Kaur  attended the patient in her individual capacity,  there might have been a cause to hold her responsible for negligence. But she had no independent role but to follow the prescribed medical treatment of Dr. R.K.Kumra . As such, no fault can be found  with opposite party No.1 nor she can be held  guilty  of medical negligence in treating the patient Tajinder Kaur.

16.     From the appreciation of evidence, the things become amply clear that no herpetologist or hematological treatment was given to the patient inspite of the fact it was recorded that the patient was having hepatic disorder which became one of the cause(s) of her death . No specialized treatment was not done for the dengue, no test much less ELISA/ PCR test was conducted and even the platelets count was not monitored and when the bleeding per vagina was there even then, no caution to monitor  the same was taken . So much so, no transfusion of blood was  done which resulted in untimely death of a young girl . Since Dr.R.K.Kumra, now deceased engaged is in the treatment of Tajinder Kaur patient found guilty of gross negligence, as such opposite party No.2 hospital is also held guilty of medical negligence variously . It is in evidence that Tajinder Kaur (now deceased)  was Post Graduate in Information Technology and was a teacher in a private institution and she was just 27 years of age and she died due to negligence of Opposite Party No.2-Hospital and its employee Dr.R.K.Kumra (now deceased), which resultantly cut short her brilliant career. Although no amount of compensation can satisfy the loss occasioned to the family of Tajinder Kaur (now deceased) on account of her death, yet in our considered opinion, Opposite Party No.2-Hospital is liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lacs (Rupees Ten Lacs) to the complainants. The cost of litigation is assessed at Rs.5,000/-. Opposite Party No.2-Hospital is directed to make the payment of awarded amount within a period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order, failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of  passing the order until full and  final recovery.  Firstly, the awarded amount shall be recovered from Opposite Party No.2-Hospital and only then, the Opposite Party No.2-Hospital shall be entitled to get the same recovered from its insurer. The complaint stands allowed accordingly, However, complaint against remaining opposite parties fails and is ordered to be dismissed accordingly.  Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 06.09.2016.