BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.149 of 2017

Date of Instt. 16.05.2017

Date of Decision: 07.01.2019

Gurdial Singh, aged 62 years, son of Sh. Lachmann Singh, resident of 309/14, Sawan Singh Colony, Near Markfed, Kapurthala.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab Institute of Medical Sciences, Garha Road, Jalandhar through its Managing Director.

2. Dr. Amandeep Singh, Associate Professor, Unit IV, Department of Medicines, Punjab Institute of Medical Sciences, Garha Road, Jalandhar.

3. Smt. Sarabjit Kaur, Senior Staff Nurse, Punjab Institute of Medical Sciences, Garha Road, Jalandhar.

4. PIMS Medical and Education Charitable Society, Garha Road, Jalandhar through its Chairman/President.

5. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. G. T. Road, Opp. Narinder Cinema, Jalandhar through its Branch Manager.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Sh. Anand Pandit, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

None for the OPs No.1 to 4.

Sh. Brijesh Bakshi, Adv Counsel for the OP No.5.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the wife of the complainant namely Smt. Surinder Kaur was suffering from some ailment and the complainant got his wife admitted in the OP No.1 on 08.02.2017 and she was under the treatment of OP No.2 working in the OP No.1 as a professional doctor. OP No.1 is a renowned Hospital and Medical Institute with super specialty in the field of Medical Sciences in Punjab at Jalandhar and is specialized in the treatment/diagnose of all the problems in the human body and the OP No.2 is working as a Doctor in the Hospital of the OP No.1. The OP No.3 is performing her official duties as Senior Staff Nurse at ICU in the OP No.1 and is a professional nurse. The OPs are working for gain and running the hospital for profits, as such, the complainant is covered under the definition of 'consumer' as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2. That seeing the seriousness of the ailment, the wife of the complainant was shifted to ICU of OP No.1 on 08.02.2017 for want of Centre Line Fixation immediately at about 02:00 PM. At the same time when the wife of the complainant was admitted in the emergency ward of the OP No.1, it was brought to the notice of the complainant that as the veins of the wife of the complainant could not be traced out, as such, the OPs were to install Centre Like in the body of the Smt. Surinder Kaur, wife of the complainant in ICU for the purpose of her treatment so that the doses of medicines could administered her body. The OPs shifted the wife of the complainant to ICU immediately and assured the complainant that the centre lining is a safe and one and only route of administration in dire emergency, when patient may go into COMA and a result of such circumstances his wife would get the doses of medicine through that centre lining and only after the installation of centre lining the treatment could have been possible and not otherwise. The complainant immediately gave his consent for the installation of centre lining in the body of his wife so that she could get the requisite treatment and medicines immediately so as to control her emergency. The complainant purchased all the material required for the purpose of Centre Line process and the same was handed over to the OP No.2 and 3 and OP No.2 and OP No.3 assured the complainant that they will initiate the centre line process on the wife of the complainant and the treatment would be started immediately within no time of its installation. It is pertinent to mention here that the wife of the complainant was admitted in the OP No.1 on 08.02.2017 at about 02:00 PM and the OPs demanded centre lining on 09.02.2017 at 10:00 AM, which amounts to gave negligence on the part of the OPs. After providing all the requisite material required for the said purpose on 09.02.2017 at about 10:45 AM, the complainant was under the bonafide belief that the centre line process has been done and the treatment has been started and the complainant was kept under the belief that the condition of his wife is stable.

3. That as the wife of the complainant was admitted in the ICU, as such, the complainant was not allowed to see and meet her even after repeated requests and the complainant was under the bonafide belief that the treatment has been initiated by the OPs on his wife and the OP No.2 when contacted, every time assured that the treatment process has been started and the condition of his wife is stable and she is responding to the treatment. On 09.02.2017, then the complainant got to see his wife at about 01:00 PM, the complainant became shocked to see that there was no centre line process on the body of his wife. The complainant confirmed the same from the OP No.2, but the OP No.2 started avoiding the complainant and kept on putting off the matter and assured the complainant that the treatment has been initiated upon his wife. The complainant requested the OP No.2 ans 3 to install the centre lining on the body of the wife of the complainant for the administration of the medicines in the body of the wife of the complainant, but the OPs did not bother and paid any heed to the genuine request of the complainant for the reasons best known to the OPs, which proves the negligence of the OPs towards the wife of the complainant.

4. That after getting the requisite documents in his hand, the complainant came to know that the OPs gave the treatment of Type II Diabetic Mellitus, whereas the wife of the complainant was actually suffering from Hypothyroidism and Hypertension, which is very much evident from Complicated Chronic Disease Certificate issued by Guru Nanak Dev Hospital Complex, Amritsar bearing certificate No.12176 dated 21.09.2015. It is worthwhile to mention here that wife of the complainant got her urine analysis done from ALFA Speciality Lab, Shop No.1, College Road, State Gurudwara Market, Kapurthala on 05.01.2017, 18.01.2017 and her sugar/diabetes was shown as NIL, as such, it becomes crystal clear that wife of the complainant was never a patient of Diabetes and the OPs adopted and gave different line of treatment which was not required in the case of the complainant, which resulted in the death of the wife of the complainant for which the OPs are wholly and solely responsible. The complainant got the urine sample tested for the purpose of Diatebes from Kirpa Clinical Lab, Jalandhar on 06.02.2017 and on 03.02.2017 from Sacred Hospital, Maqsudan, Jalandhar and from Paramjit Clinical Laboratory and Microbilogy Culture Lab, Manbro Chowk, Jalandhar, where also it was held that the wife of the complainant was not a diabetic and due wrong line of treatment, no glucose was administered in the body of the wife of the complainant, due to which the condition seemed to be deteriorating. It is further pertinent to mention here that the wife of the complainant was admitted in the ICU immediately after admission in the hospital and Injection Doparium was given to the wife of the complainant to raise her B. P. inspite of the fact that she was a declared case of Hypertension, which shows the negligence and wrong line of treatment being given to the wife of the complainant. Due to non-processing of the Centre Line process and due to non-providing of necessary and requisite treatment and medicine and due to adopting wrong line of treatment on the wife of the complainant, the wife of the complainant succumbed to her ailment and she was declared dead on 10.02.2017 at 06:20 AM and the same happened due to the negligent and illegal acts of the OPs who did not even install the centre line process on the body of the wife of the complainant, which was very much necessary for starting the treatment upon her, as such, the OPs are responsible for the sudden demise of the wife of the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant purchased medicines for the treatment of his wife from the chemist shop in the OP No.1 and there is every possibility that the medicines which were asked to be purchased were never utilized by the OPs and the same were stored, otherwise the wife of the complainant would never succumbed to her ailment had the proper treatment been given to her. The OP No.2 and 3 never intimated the complainant about the seriousness of the condition of the wife of the complainant and the act and conduct of the OP is negligent and deficient in service and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay Rs.18,00,000/- to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment and for the loss of life and company due to the death of the wife of the complainant for which the OPs are responsible on the basis of facts and circumstances explained in the complaint and further OPs be directed to pay Rs.33,000/- to the complainant towards legal expenses to the complainant.

5. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OPs No.1 to 4 appeared through its counsel and filed joint reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint filed is wholly misconceived, untenable and not maintainable both in law and on facts against the OPs and therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed and further averred that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties because the Punjab Institute of Medical Sciences has been wrongly impleaded as OP No.1, whereas Punjab Institute Medical Science is a Charitable Society is in control of the management and affairs of the said Institute and further alleged that the complainant has not come to the forum with clean hands and has concealed and misrepresented the true facts and even the complainant is estopped by here own act and conduct from filing the present complaint and further submitted that the complaint is not maintainable without any report of Medical Board which is to be constituted by Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Jalandhar. In the absence of any such report, the present complaint is not maintainable and further averred that there is no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the answering OPs. The OPs are rendering the best of medical services in the filed at their Super Specialty Hospital. Smt Surinder Kaur, the wife of the complainant was brought to the hospital in a very serious and critical condition. The patient was having right sided pneumonia, portal vein thrombosis, sepsis acute liver and kidney injury. The patient was admitted in the ICU because of the seriousness of the condition of the patient and not for the want of a central line insertion. The veins of the patient could be traced out and intravenous cannula was inserted. At the time of admission and even afterwards, the need for the central line insertion was not felt as the veins were patent and the medicines were being given to the patient intravenously. On the repeated request of the patient's husband, the central line set was prescribed to the patient to be kept ready. It was assured to the husband of the patient that if need be, central line would be inserted. However, such need never arose as the veins of the patient were patent. Central line insertion was not needed. Even if there would have been possible to insert the central line as the PT (INR) of the patient was 4.7%. This was a contra indication for the insertion of central line. The prognosis of the patient had been intimated to the complainant right from the time of admission which is clear from the consent signed by the complainant/the husband of the patient. The line of treatment given to the patient was ethical according to the disease pattern and there was no negligence on the part of the OP No.2 and 3. Blood Pressure of the patient had fallen during her stay in the hospital due to septicemia that the patient had which is a known complication in such disease and so ionotropes and vasopressors were started. The patient remained admitted in ICU throughout till her death. The patient succumbed to her multiple fatal diseases in a little time over 35 hours after admission. The patient died on account of multiple, fatal, serious diseases which she was suffering from at the time of admission and not on account of any negligence on the part of the OP No.2, who is an expert doctor having sufficient experience. The death of the patient was due to grave illness that the patient was suffering from as is evident from the patient file and certified by more than two doctors independently who have examined the patient. The complaint is false and motivated and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the admission of the wife of the complainant is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

6. OP No.5 filed its separate reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the OP No.5. Teh OP No.5/Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. is not necessary party in the present complaint and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this short score alone. It is further alleged that without admitting any liability, it is submitted that no copy of any Insurance Policy has been provided to the OP No.5 for having insured any other OP under the Professional Indemnity Policy. However, in case there is any such policy then the same is between the insured and the insurer and subject to the terms and conditions therein and no claim arisen within one year from the end of the respective policy period and thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this short score alone. It is further submitted that no liability qua the answering respondent can be fixed in the present complaint proceedings. The matter inter-se the insured and the insurer is to be decided by the insurance company by determining whether any claim is covered under the respective policy obtained by the concerned doctor or hospital and thereafter, the liability of the insurance company, if any, is to be determined by the competent authority of the company, as per the terms and conditions/exclusion clauses of the policy. As such, no relief can be granted in favour of the complainant in the present complaint proceedings against the answering respondent. On merits, all the averments are controverted and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

7. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-24 and closed the evidence.

8. Similarly, counsel for the OPs No.1 to 4 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OPA along with some documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-26 and closed the evidence.

9. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.5 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP5/A and closed the evidence.

10. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

11. After considering the submission of both the counsel for the parties, we find that the complainant has not directly or indirectly claim any relief from OP No.5/Oriental Insurance Company rather the OP No.5 is arrayed as a party at the instance of OP No.2 Dr. Amandeep Singh, who alleged that he got insurance policy for himself and when OP No.5 appeared and filed written reply, wherein categorically took a plea that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and OP No.5 and also alleged that OP No.5 is not a necessary party in the present complaint because in case there is any such liability affixed by the Forum of OP No.2, then OP No.2 can claim the said liability directly from the OP No.5 on the basis of terms and conditions, whatsoever elaborated in the insurance policy, so, we find that the matter inter-se between the insured and insurer, which is firstly to be considered and decide by Insurance Company and thereafter, the OP No.2 if considered himself aggrieved of the order of the Insurance Company, then he can file his separate complaint. So, with these observations, we find the complaint of the complainant qua OP No.5 is not maintainable, therefore, the same is dismissed.

12. So, for the dispute in between the complainant and OPs No.1 to 5 is concerned, the same is to the effect that the wife of the complainant was admitted in the hospital of OP No.1, where OP No.2 was a doctor and he gave treatment to the wife of the complainant along with OP No.3, who is a staff nurse, but the OPs gave wrong line of treatment to the wife of the complainant. The first issue raised by the complainant is that the OP asked the complainant to bring a kit for using to install central line in the body of Smt. Surinder Kaur, wife of the complainant , who is lying in ICU, for the purpose of her treatment because the veins of the wife of the complainant could not be traced out and as such, the OPs were to install Centre Line in the body of the deceased Surinder Kaur, wife of the complainant in order to administrate the doses of medicine through the said central line, but the OP miserably failed to install central line in the body of the deceased Surinder Kaur and due to that negligence, the proper dose of medicine was not administrative to the deceased Surinder Kaur.

13. The above allegation has been meeted out by the OP by taking a plea that there is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the answering OP because the wife of the complainant was admitted in the hospital in a very serious and critical condition and because of these seriousness condition of the patient, the wife of the complainant was admitted in the ICU not for the want of central line insertion. Even at the time of admission and afterwards, there was no need for the central line insertion, the medicines were being given to the patient intravenously, but on the request of the patient's husband, the central line set was prescribed to the patient to be kept ready and further alleged that the line of the treatment given to the patient was ethical according to the disease.

14. We have considered the above submission of both the counsel for the parties and find that the doctor is not treating any patient on the advise of the family member of that patient rather he is required to treat the patient according to requirement of the deceased and whatsoever medicine is required the same should be administrative to the patient not to give any medicine on the asking of the family member of the said patient. So, by applying the aforesaid observation, the version took by OP that the set of the central line was prescribed on the asking of the husband of the complainant, is not acceptable version of the OP rather it gave impression that the OPs had negligently not inserted the central line for administrative of the medicine to the deceased Surinder Kaur and this is a clear cut negligence on the part of the OPs.

15. The next point raised by the complainant is that the OPs gave the treatment of Type II Diabetic Mellitus, whereas the wife of the complainant was actually suffering from Hypothyroidism and Hypertension, which is very much evident from Complicated Chronic Disease Certificate issued by Guru Nanak Dev Hospital Complex, Amritsar as well as from Urine Analyze Report issued by ALFA Specialty Lab, Kapurthala dated 05.01.2017 and 18.01.2017, whereby the sugar/diabetes was shown as 'NIL', as such, it becomes crystal clear that wife of the complainant was never a patient of Diabetes and the OPs adopted and gave different line of treatment, which was not required in the case of wife of the complainant and resultantly, the wife of the complainant was died due to wrong line of treatment.

16. No doubt, in order to refuted the allegation of the complainant, the OP has brought on the file affidavit of Dr. Amandeep Singh Ex.OP-A and Admission Record of the patient Ex.OP-1 as well as other document showing the treatment given to the deceased, which are Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-26 and further submitted that a right treatment was given to the patient according to the requirement and the instant complaint filed by the complainant is without merits.

17. We have sympathetically considered the above version of both the parties and find that the allegation took by the complainant in Para No.8 of the complaint has not been appropriately rebutted by the OP in the written statement or by way of any documentary evidence. From the Report Ex.C-8 dated 08.02.2017 shows that the sugar of the wife of the complainant is 'NIL', similarly Reports Ex.C-23 and Ex.OP-14 also shows that the sugar of the wife of the complainant is 'NIL', but to the contrary, the treatment given by the OP as per documents of the OP i.e. Ex.OP-7 and Ex.OP-10 and Ex.OP-11 itself established that the treatment of the diabetes was given to the wife of the complainant and if the said treatment had been given, then obviously no glucose was administrative in the body of the wife of the complainant, as alleged by the complainant in the complaint and due to deficiency of glucose, some problems might be occurred to the deceased Smt. Surinder Kaur. So, these things shows that the OPs adopted and gave different type of treatment, which was not required. So, with these observations, we are of the opinion that there is a deficiency on the part of the OPs No.1, 2 and 4, whereas the OP No.3 is a staff nurse, who has no direct role in regard to giving the treatment to any patient, the staff nurse is only for helping the doctor.

18. We have also considered the plea taken by the OP that the OP No.1 PIMS Medical and Education Charitable Society is a Charitable Welfare Society and the complainant is not a consumer, but this version of the OP is not acceptable because the OPs are not providing services on the basis of charity, if so, then the OP has to bring on the file the exact rate of the hospital, but in the present case, the bills of the hospital as well as medicine bills Ex.C-1, Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-14, Ex.C-16 and Ex.C-17 itself established that the OPs are charging fee of services provided to them, if so, then the plea of the OP is not acceptable.

19. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and accordingly, OP No.1, 2 and 4, who are jointly and severally liable for causing negligence with the wife of the complainant as well as harassment to the complainant, mentally and physically, therefore, the aforesaid OPs are directed to pay damages to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- and further the aforesaid OPs are directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

20. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Karnail Singh

07.01.2019 Member President