STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Appeal No. | : | 117 of 2017 |
Date of Institution | : | 01.05.2017 |
Date of Decision | : | 03.05.2017 |
Prithpal Singh, aged 57 years,S/o Sh.Sangat Singh, resident of House NO.129-HE, Phase-IX, Mohali (Punjab).
……Appellant
V e r s u s
1] Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Sector 12, Chandigarh, through its Director.
2] Dr.Gaurav Jain, Senior Doctor Emergency, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Sector 12, Chandigarh.
…….Respondents
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 02.03.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No. 91/2016.
BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER
Argued by: Mr.Ranjit S.Dhiman, Advocate for the appellant.
PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT
Appellant/Complainant has filed this appeal against order dated 2.3.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the Forum only), vide which his complaint was dismissed.
2. It was case of the complainant that his deceased wife was suffering from kidney problem and she was undergoing the process of dialysis. She was under the treatment of respondent No.1/OP No.1. It was stated that on 5.2.2014 her health condition deteriorated and she was taken to emergency ward of OP No.1. She was suffering from high fever and infection. Admission card has been placed on record as Annexure C-1 & C-2. Taking note of her serious health condition, the complainant approached OP No.2 with a request to attend the patient. On his request, OP No.2 came to the emergency ward and as advised, her wife was administered tablet Paracetamol. Despite request, proper treatment was not given. Her health condition became critical. On making many requests, the doctor gave CPR (Cardiopulmonary resuscitation) to the patient. OP No.2 failed to take proper care of the patient. Due to negligence on the part of the doctor in not attending the patient properly, wife of the complainant died in the hospital at 11.30 p.m. In the treatment record, time of death was wrongly shown as 11.52 p.m. By alleging deficiency in providing service and negligence on the part of the OPs, consumer complaint bearing No.91 of 2016 was filed before the Forum claiming an amount of Rs.19,00,000/- as compensation towards physical and mental harassment besides litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, reply was filed. It was specifically stated that the patient was suffering from SLE LUPUS NEPHRITIS with chronic kidney disease stage-5. She came to emergency on the given date with high grade fever, possibly due to infection. Record revealed that the patient was in a critical condition at the time of admission. Her critical nature of illness was explained to the attendants in their language and thereafter treatment was started as per norms. However, the patient suffered cardiac arrest and could not be revived. It was specifically stated that proper medication and proper care was given to the patient. When the patient suffered cardiac arrest at 11.10 p.m., all efforts were made to revive her but the efforts failed. Denying deficiency in providing service and negligence in treating the patient, a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Both the parties led evidence. The Forum, on analysis of pleadings of the parties, evidence on record, and the arguments addressed, dismissed the complaint, by observing as under ;
“Smt.Ajit Kaur, admittedly was a chronic patient suffering from Kidney problem and undergoing dialysis. On 5.2.2014 at 11.00 PM, she was admitted in PGI Emergency with high fever, but during the treatment she suffered cardiac arrest and died. The complainant has blamed the OP NO.2 accusing him to be remissness in attending proper care and treatment to his wife. However, the complainant has not brought forth any cogent/reliable evidence to substantiate his averments/accusation against the doctor or any other medical staff of OPs.
The cases involving misdemeanors or any professional medical negligence of a doctor required to be dealt with sensitivity and care. Such an inference regarding medical negligence cannot obviously be drawn merely from a hypothesis. There is no incriminating evidence on record to suggest any culpable deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.”
5. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that finding given by the Forum is not as per record. On perusal of the paper book of the Forum, which is available with us, and the arguments made in the present appeal, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Forum needs no interference. It is an admitted fact that on 5.2.2014, the patient was admitted in emergency ward of OP No.1. She was already suffering from SLE LUPUS NEPHRITIS with chronic kidney disease stage-5 and was undergoing the process of dialysis. There is nothing on record to show that she was given wrong treatment. No expert evidence has been placed on record to support the above said averment. Perusal of the documents reveals that when the patient was under treatment, she suffered a major cardiac arrest. Efforts were made to revive her, however, those failed. Negligence cannot be presumed on the part of a doctor merely on the basis of oral assertions made without any document on record. During pendency of the complaint, the complainant did not file any application to get an expert opinion qua the treatment given to her wife. In view of the above, no case is made to interfere in the order, under challenge.
6. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
7. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
8. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
03.05.2017
