Haryana

Kurukshetra

258/2017

Sunny - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pawan Bansal - Opp.Party(s)

Pawan Bansal

16 Aug 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION  KURUKSHETRA.

 

        Complaint No.258/2017

        Date of instt.:18.12.2017

        Date of Decision:16.08.2021.

 

1. Sunny son of Shri Brij Raj Singh, r/o H.No.394/4, Guru Nanak Pura Mohalla, District Kurukshetra through his father Shri Brij Raj Singh, being minor at the time of filing the complaint.
2. Shri Brij Raj Singh s/o Shri Raj Kumar Singh, r/o H.No.394/4, Guru Nanakpura Mohalla, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                         ...Complainants

                                          Versus

 

Dr. Pawan Bansal, B.S. Heart Care and Multi Speciality Hospital, Mohan Nagar, near Jindal House, District Kurukshetra.

                        .……Opposite party.

 

          Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.

                   Smt. Neelam, Member.

 

Present:     Shri Shekhar Thakur, Advocate for complainant.

                Shri Ashish Jindal Advocate for OP.

           

ORDER     

 

                   This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainants Sunny & Ors. against Dr. Pawan Bansal, the opposite party.

 

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the complainant No.1 (aged about 16 years) suffered some fever near 1^st December 2015, when he was of age of 14 years and for his initial treatment, the complainant No.2 took him to LNJP Hospital, Kurukshetra, where posted Dr. Gaurav prescribed autibiotics i.e. Cipro 500 BDS and allied medicine to complainant No.1 and advised blood test and ultrasound. That as per the ultrasound reports dated 04.12.2015, the study of complainant No.1 was normal and blood test also do not show any major illness, but unfortunately the fever was not coming down and for the purpose of evaluation and management, the complainant No.2 approached the OP, who advised for admission in his hospital and assured complainants No.1 & 2 for very well treatment in the hospital. That initially, the complainant No.1 was admitted by OP in the ICU Ward on 06.12.2015 and complainant No.1 NCCT Heat Test was done from Alpha City Scan Centre, Kurukshetra, which gave the following findings in the report: THE NCCT FINDINGS OF HEAD ARE WITH A NORMAL LIMITS. PLEASE CORRELATE CLINICALLY. That afterwards, the OP insisted for continuance of treatment of complainant No.1 in his hospital, but conditions of complainant No.1 started to deteriorate very heavily during the treatment phase at the hospital of OP. The complainant No.2 requested many times to the OP for better management and care, who insisted for continuance of treatment of complainant No.1 in his hospital. The complainant No.2 noted that the condition of complainant No.1 was not improving at all and due to many request and intervention, the OP advised MRI test from Archana MRI Centre, Kurukshetra on 14.12.2015 and the same test gave impression in the following words:-

        “Communicating type of hydrocephalus with periventicular ooze. This raises possibility of Meningitis. A contrast study 7 CSF Study is suggested for further evaluation.

                That despite the test reports suggesting of Meningitis and non availability of specialized doctor in the hospital to treat Meningitis, OP insisted for further treatment in his hospital and charged very heavily for indoor admission. Meantime, the condition of complainant No.1 was getting worse. On 18.12.2015, the condition of complainant No.1 reached to very deteriorative stage and in very emergent condition, MRI test at MM Institute of Medical Science and Research at Mullana was conducted, which gave following findings as per report:

                “F/S/O Meningitis with acute infarcts with hydrocephalus with periventicular ooze? Tubercular Meningitis.

                That despite confirmation of Meningitis with acute infarcts with hydrocephalus with periventicular ooze i.e. Tubercular Meningitis, the OP did not take cognizance of seriousness of illness and insisted for continuance of his treatment with complainant No.1. That the whole treatment of OP which continued from 24.12.2015 put the life of complainant No.1 at greater risk and finally on 24.12.2015, OP discharged the complainant No.1 in same condition without issuing final bill or discharge summary and later on invoice No.1310 dated 16.2.2016 was issued about Rs.68,900/-. The complainant No.1 and his family members followed the prescribed medicine very strictly with caution, but despite that, the complainant was unable to move from the bed, eat, perform his daily routine. The condition of complainant No.1 was very serious and again on 08.1.2016, the complainant No.2 took him to OP but this time, the OP referred complainant No.1 to PGI, Chandigarh/GMCH, Sector-32, Chandigarh Neurosurgery department and accordingly, the complainant No.2 took him to GMCH, Sector-32, Chandigarh, where concerned doctor failed to coordinate and in these circumstances, the complainant No.2 took his son to MM Institute of Medical Science & Research, Mullana, where doctors advised surgeries of shunt & abdominal end session, during the period of 8.1.2016 to 30.5.2016 and despite these surgeries, the condition of complainant No.1 was not recovered at all and he was advised for another surgery of Dr. G.B. Pant Institute of PGMER, New Delhi, where he underwent neurosurgery of ETC on 05.6.2016 and remained admitted till 19.6.2016. The complainant No.1 is still under the treatment of G.B. Pant Hospital, New Delhi and occasioned many visits to the treating doctors of that hospital, but till date, the brain functionality does not come to normal and he is living under vegetative stage at present. The OP made life of complainant No.1 in a very miserable condition due to his grave deficiency in service in his treatment.
The OP was needed to assess the condition of complainant No.1 properly and was required to immediately refer to better hospital for management, but he did not do so. Moreover, the OP neither issued any discharge summary regarding the treatment given nor gave any detail of medical procedure undertaken, which is also an act of deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.

 

3.             Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties as Dr. S. Gilotra and Dr. Divyal Kumar have not been impleaded in the present complaint as necessary parties. It is stated that the complainant has not come before this Hon’ble commission   with clean hands and has concealed the true and material facts. The true facts are that on 06.12.2015, the complainant No.2 took his son Sunny in the hospital of OP with the complained of fever as well as abnormal behavior, upon seeing the serious condition, the OP told the entire facts to complainant No.2 and advised him to take in PGI Chandigarh or any other higher hospital AIIMS for treatment. The complainant No.1 has already been referred to PGI, Chandigarh by the doctors of LNJP Hospital, Kurukshetra. After that, the complainant No.1 was got admitted in the hospital of OP on the repeated requests of complainant No.2 that they have not sufficient money and distance is very long as well as on the request of Dr. S. Gilotra. The OP got conducted routine check up of the complainant No.1 for his benefit and also got conducted other tests. From the report, it came to the knowledge that due to fever, its effect came on the mind, then the complainant was referred to Neurosurgeon Dr. S. Gilotra and in the absence of Neurosurgeon, the complainant No.1 was looked after by Dr. Divyal Kumar. After that, the OP never treated the complainant No.1 but the treatment of the complainant No.1 was going on in the hospital of OP and the complainant No.2 was advised time and again by the OP, Dr. S. Gilotra and Dr. Divyal Kumar to take the complainant No.1 in PGI, GMCH, Sector-32, Chandigarh and in other higher hospital, but the complainant No.2 refused to do the same. The complainant remained admitted in the hospital of OP from 06.12.2015 to 24.12.2015 and on 24.12.2015, the complainant No.2 at his own risk got discharged the complainant No.1 from the hospital. At that time, all the treatment, record, reports and medical bills etc were handed over to the complainant No.2. After that on 06.1.2016, at about 01:00 in the night hours, the complainant No.2 again took the complainant No.1 at the hospital of OP and the complainant No.2 has also called Dr. S. Gilotra telephonically in hospital. The OP and Dr. S. Gilotra advised the complainant No.2 to took the complainant No.1 in PGI, but the complainant No.2 showed his inability on the pretext of insufficient money as well as vehicle and due to heavy fog in winter season and requested the OP to admit the complainant No.1 only for night, so that the complainant No.2 can arrange the money and vehicle. Upon this, the complainant No.1 was admitted in emergency and after 06.1.2016, the OP never met with the complainants or their family members. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has also moved an application to CMO Kurukshetra against the OP, upon which, a Committee was constituted and statements of both the parties were recorded. After inquiry and statements, the complaint filed by the complainant was found false and filed/closed. With these averments, dismissal of complaint prayed for. It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of the complaint, the complainant moved an application for constituting Board of doctors of PGIMER, Chandigarh to examine the complainant Sunny and to give report about his disability, treatment carried out by the OP and the said application was allowed vide order dated 18.4.2019 of this commission and Incharge, PGI, Chandigarh is directed to constitute a board of doctors, who submitted their report.

 

4.             The complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.CW2 to Ex.CW4. The OP No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A along with documents Ex.R1 & Ex.R2 and closed the evidence. However, the OP No.2 failed to lead any evidence despite availing various opportunities and accordingly, evidence of the OP No.2 has been closed on 02.09.2019 by the order of this commission.

 

5.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

 

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant while reiterating the averments made in the complaint has argued that the complainant No.1 (aged about 16 years) suffered some fever near 1^st December 2015, when he was of age of 14 years and for his initial treatment, the complainant No.2 took him to LNJP Hospital, Kurukshetra, where posted Dr. Gaurav prescribed antibiotics i.e. Cipro 500 BDS and allied medicine to complainant No.1 and advised blood test and ultrasound. It is further argued that as per the ultrasound reports dated 04.12.2015, the study of complainant No.1 was normal and blood test also do not show any major illness, but unfortunately the fever was not coming down and for the purpose of evaluation and management, the complainant No.2 approached the OP, who advised for admission in his hospital and assured complainants No.1 & 2 for very well treatment in the hospital. Initially, the complainant No.1 was admitted by OP in the ICU Ward on 06.12.2015 and NCCT Heat Test of complainant no.1 was done from Alpha City Scan Centre, Kurukshetra, which gave the following findings in the report: THE NCCT FINDINGS OF HEAD ARE WITH A NORMAL LIMITS. PLEASE CORRELATE CLINICALLY. That afterwards, the OP insisted for continuance of treatment of complainant No.1 in his hospital, but conditions of complainant No.1 started to deteriorate very heavily during the treatment phase at the hospital of OP. The complainant No.2 requested many times to the OP for better management and care, who insisted for continuance of treatment of complainant No.1 in his hospital. The complainant No.2 noted that the condition of complainant No.1 was not improving at all and due to many request and intervention, the OP advised MRI test from Archana MRI Centre, Kurukshetra on 14.12.2015 and the said test gave impression in the following words:-

        “Communicating type of hydrocephalus with periventicular ooze. This raises possibility of Meningitis. A contrast study 7 CSF Study is suggested for further evaluation.

 

                That despite the test reports suggesting of Meningitis and non availability of specialized doctor in the hospital to treat Meningitis, OP insisted for further treatment in his hospital and charged very heavily for indoor admission. Meantime, the condition of complainant No.1 was getting worse. On 18.12.2015, the condition of complainant No.1 reached to very deteriorative stage and in very emergent condition, MRI test at MM Institute of Medical Science and Research at Mullana was conducted, which gave following findings as per report:

                “F/S/O Meningitis with acute infarcts with hydrocephalus with periventicular ooze? Tubercular Meningitis”.

 

                That despite confirmation of Meningitis with acute infarcts with hydrocephalus with periventicular ooze i.e. Tubercular Meningitis, the OP did not take cognizance of seriousness of illness and insisted for continuance of his treatment with complainant No.1. That the whole treatment of OP which continued from 24.12.2015 put the life of complainant No.1 at greater risk and finally on 24.12.2015, OP discharged the complainant No.1 in same condition without issuing final bill or discharge summary and later on invoice No.1310 dated 16.2.2016 was issued about Rs.68,900/-. The condition of complainant No.1 was very serious and again on 08.1.2016, the complainant No.2 took him to OP but this time, the OP referred complainant No.1 to PGI, Chandigarh/GMCH, Sector-32, Chandigarh Neurosurgery department and accordingly, the complainant No.2 took him to GMCH, Sector-32, Chandigarh, where concerned doctor failed to coordinate and in these circumstances, the complainant No.2 took his son to MM Institute of Medical Science & Research, Mullana, where doctors advised surgeries of shunt & abdominal end session, during the period of 8.1.2016 to 30.5.2016 and despite these surgeries, the condition of complainant No.1 was not recovered at all and he was advised for another surgery of Dr. G.B. Pant Institute of PGMER, New Delhi, where he underwent neurosurgery of ETC on 05.6.2016 and remained admitted till 19.6.2016. The complainant No.1 is still under the treatment of G.B. Pant Hospital, New Delhi and occasioned many visits to the treating doctors of that hospital, but till date, the brain functionality does not come to normal and he is living under vegetative stage at present. The OP made life of complainant No.1 in a very miserable condition due to his grave deficiency in service in his treatment.
The OP was needed to assess the condition of complainant No.1 properly and was required to immediately refer to better hospital for management, but he did not do so. Moreover, the OP neither issued any discharge summary regarding the treatment given nor gave any detail of medical procedure undertaken, which is also an act of deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.

 

                It is argued that that the treatment of the said disease was  to be done by  neurosurgeon and procedure for the treatment of the said disease was by way of stunting and  ETC and as the OP was not having neurosurgeon in his hospital competent to treat the disease of complainant no.1,  therefore, there is gross medical negligence on the part of the OP.

 

                It is also argued that as per report of medical board  dated 10.7.2019 life of the complainant no.1 has been spoiled and in the report following findings have been given by the medical board:

 

                “ As per  the directions of Hon’ble Court, the complaint/patient was requested to  appear before the board of doctors for examination on 27.6.2019at 9.am in the in the treatment of  General Surgery for his neurosurgery examination and the child was  conscious oriented obeys commands, able to walk normally. Patient has speech deficit  memory deficit and loss of control over urine and stools.

               

                   Reliance has been placed on the authority  Samira Kohli Vs. Dr.Prabha Manchanda and another Appeal (Civil) 1949 of 2884.

 

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP while reiterating the contentions made in the written statement has argued that on 06.12.2015, the complainant No.2 took his son Sunny in the hospital of OP with the complained of fever as well as abnormal behavior and upon seeing the serious condition, the OP told the entire facts to complainant No.2 and advised him to take in PGI Chandigarh or any other higher hospital AIIMS for treatment. The complainant No.1 has already been referred to PGI, Chandigarh by the doctors of LNJP Hospital, Kurukshetra. After that, the complainant No.1 was got admitted in the hospital of OP on the repeated requests of complainant No.2 that they have not sufficient money and distance is very long as well as on the request of Dr. S. Gilotra. The OP got conducted routine check up of the complainant No.1 for his benefit and also got conducted other tests. From the report, it came to the knowledge that due to fever, its effect came on the mind, then the complainant was referred to Neurosurgeon Dr. S. Gilotra and in the absence of Neurosurgeon, the complainant No.1 was looked after by Dr. Divyal Kumar. After that, the OP never treated the complainant No.1 but the treatment of the complainant No.1 was going on in the hospital of OP and the complainant No.2 was advised time and again by the OP, Dr. S. Gilotra and Dr. Divyal Kumar to take the complainant No.1 in PGI, GMCH, Sector-32, Chandigarh and in other higher hospital, but the complainant No.2 refused to do the same. The complainant remained admitted in the hospital of OP from 06.12.2015 to 24.12.2015 and on 24.12.2015, the complainant No.2 at his own risk got discharged the complainant No.1 from the hospital. At that time, all the treatment, record, reports and medical bills etc were handed over to the complainant No.2. After that on 06.1.2016, at about 01:00 in the night hours, the complainant No.2 again took the complainant No.1 at the hospital of OP and the complainant No.2 has also called Dr. S. Gilotra telephonically in hospital. The OP and Dr. S. Gilotra advised the complainant No.2 to took the complainant No.1 in PGI, but the complainant No.2 showed his inability on the pretext of insufficient money as well as vehicle and due to heavy fog in winter season and requested the OP to admit the complainant No.1 only for night, so that the complainant No.2 can arrange the money and vehicle. Upon this, the complainant No.1 was admitted in emergency and after 06.1.2016, the OP never met with the complainants or their family members. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has also moved an application to CMO Kurukshetra against the OP, upon which, a Committee was constituted and statements of both the parties were recorded. After inquiry and statements, the complaint filed by the complainant was found false and filed/closed. With these averments, dismissal of complaint prayed for. It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of the complaint, the complainant moved an application for constituting Board of doctors of PGIMER, Chandigarh to examine the complainant Sunny and to give report about his disability, treatment carried out by the OP and the said application was allowed vide order dated 18.4.2019 of this commission and Incharge, PGI, Chandigarh is directed to constitute a board of doctors, who submitted their report.

              

                     The learned counsel for the OP has placed reliance on the case law titled  Kusum Sharma and others Vs. Batra Hopsital and Medical Research Centre and others Civil Appeal No.1385 of 2001 decided on 10.2.2010 and Smt. Vinitha Ashok Vs. Lakshmi Hospital and others Appeal (CIVIL) NO.2977 OF 1992 DECIDED ON 25.9. 2001.

 

8.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record.

 

i)              In this case, complainant no.1 was admitted in the hospital of OP  on 6.12.2015 and he remained admitted in the hospital of the OP till 24.12.2015 and during this period,  again CT Scan report  Ex.C-7 was conducted by Archana MRI Centre Kuruksherta on 14.12.2015 and  it was revealed from the report that “Communicating type of hydrocephalus with periventicular ooze. This raises possibility of Meningitis. A contrast study 7 CSF Study is suggested for further evaluation.

 

ii)              But despite observing the contents of the said report dated 14.12.2021,  the OP kept continued  the treatment as earlier to it and thus committed medical negligence for keeping the complainant  in his hospital and for not giving proper treatment of the disease as mentioned in the report dated 14.12.2015.

                 

 

iii).                    Earlier to the present complaint, the  complainant No.2 filed  complaint before the Medical Council of India Ex.C-1 and under proper channel, the same was  referred to  CMO, LNJP hospital, Kurukshetra for enquiry for its findings. The finding report and related statements under enquiry were placed by the OP as Ex.R-1 before this Commission. The said document is enquiry report against OP Dr.Pawan Bansal. Learned counsel for the OP has contended that as per enquiry report Ex.R-1, no medical negligence was found on the part of OP-Dr.Pawan Bansal but the findings  of the said report shows that  as  per statement of OP Dr.Pawan Bansal, (at page no.6)  that OP  has not treated the complainant No.1. He stated that the patient was treated by Dr.S.Gilhotra and in the absence of Dr. S.Gilhotra, paitent was treated by Dr.Divyal. But as per statement of Dr.S.Gilhotra at page 8 of the said report, he has stated that due to fracture of leg of his brother, he went on leave and  even he also not treated patient during the said period of 15.12.2015 to 24.12.2015 as  he was on leave and further  as per version of Dr.S.Gilhotra that the treatment was given by Dr.Divyal, no affidavit or statement of Dr.Divyal has come forwarded neither in the said enquiry report or on the case file. Further, the OP-Pawan Bansal as well as Dr.S.Gilhotra failed to place their own affidavits regarding treatments carried out in respect of patient-complainant no.1 before this Commission. Meaning thereby as per the available record, the complainant/patient was treated by Dr.Pawan Bansal.

 

iv)         It is also mentioned that as per treatment record Ex.R-2, i.e.  admission file, the treatment chart was thoroughly seen by OP No.1. Meaning thereby by the treatment was given under his supervision and control. In our view no reliance can be placed on the extract of this report because one of the expert of this medical board namely Dr. Shalender Sharma has not put his signatures on the said report, therefore, the said report cannot be said to be issued by a valid medical board.Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the OP that the medical board has found no medical negligence on the part of the OP, does not stand on its own footings and we are not inclined to accept the same.

 

v).            In this case the proper treatment of  disease “F/S/O Meningitis with acute infarcts with hydrocephalus with periventicular ooze? Tubercular Meningitis”  was either shunting or  ETV  and the OP Dr.Pawan Bansal has not  provided any of the said treatment to the complainant even after 14.12.2015 when the said disease was  proved from the report. Therefore, there is gross negligence on the part of OP Dr.Pawan Bansal and the OP Dr.Pawan Bansal only referred the patient on 8.01.2016 vide Ex.C-10.                           

 

vi).              Even on the directions of this commission vide order dated 18.4.2019,the matter was referred to the Medical Board of PGI,GMCH, Sector 32, Chandigarh and  as per report of medical board dated 10.7.2019 available on the file, the life of the complainant no.1 has been spoiled  completely and in the report following findings have been given by the medical board:

 

                “As per the directions of Hon’ble Court, the complaint/patient was requested to  appear before the board of doctors for examination on 27.6.2019 at 9.am in the in the treatment of  General Surgery for his neurosurgery examination and the child was  conscious oriented obeys commands, able to walk normally. Patient has speech deficit  memory deficit and loss of control over urine and stools”, which clearly suggests that the life and future prospectus of the patient-complainant no.1 has become completely miserable and all this happened due to the faulty treatment and medical negligence caused by the OP–Dr.Pawan Bansal. However, the finding of the medical board that there is no medical negligence on the part of the OP is not justified and this report is partly accepted because it is settled law that court is not bound to accept the report of the medical board when there exists evidence on the file to show medical negligence on the part of a doctor as happened in this case.  Therefore, the present complaint is liable to be accepted on account of medical negligence on the part of the OP-Dr.Pawan Bansal.

 

               

 9.        The patient paid Rs.1,61,828/- (As bills Ex.C-27) at the hospital of the OP-Dr.Pawan Bansal and Rs.1,24,815/- (As per bill Ex.C-29) at Mullana Hospital, Ambala, therefore, he is entitled for refund of the same from OP-Dr.Pawan Bansal besides the compensation to be awarded to the complainant because of gross medical negligence on the part of the OP-Dr.Pawan Bansal and the complainant no.1 is entitled to compensation.The authorities cited on behalf of the OP are not applicable to the facts of this case whereas the authorities cited on behalf of the complainant are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.

 

10.            In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP to pay to the complainant no.1 being minor through his father complainant no.2

 

1. Amount of Rs.1,61,826/- spent by the complainant at the hospital of the OP-Dr.Pawan Bansal.
2. Amount of Rs.1,24,815/- spent by the complainant at Mullana Hospital, Ambala.
3. Rs.10,00000/- as compensation for the medical negligence committed by the OP.
4. Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

The above mentioned amount shall be deposited in the shape of FDR in some Nationalized bank in the name of complainant no.1 through hisfatheri.e. complainant no.2 till attaining age of majority by the complainant no.1.

              

               The OP is  further directed to make the compliance of this order within a  period of  30 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 22/27 of the Act against the OP.   Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

 

 

Announced in the open commission.

Dated: 16.08.2021,                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                                         President.

 

 

                    (Issam Singh Sagwal)              (Neelam)

                             Member.                         Member.

Tek Ram

(Stenographer)