BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 254 of 2018
Date of Institution : 15.10.2018.
Date of Decision : 21.11.2023.
- Harjinder Kaur aged 40 years (wife of deceased )
- Prince Pal Singh aged 23 years ( son of deceased)
- Veerpal Kaur aged 25 years (daughter of deceased Shri Kulwant Singh (now deceased) son of Sh. Pritam Singh, residents of village Sultanpuria, Tehsil Rania, Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainants.
Versus.
1.R.K. Life Line Hospital (now merged in SPS Hospital) Sangwan Chowk Sirsa through its authorized person.
2. Dr. Nitin Verma (MCH Neurosurgeon) New Hope Care Hospital situated near Dr. Khurana Hospital Dabwali Road, Sirsa.
3. The Oriental India Insurance Company Ltd., 4E/14, Azad Bhawan, Jhandewalan Ext. New Delhi 110055, vide profession indemnity bearing Insurance Policy No. 272200/ 48/ 2018/ 3088 w.e.f. 9.5.2017 to 8.5.2018.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR …………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………………MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA………….MEMBER
Present: Sh. S.P. Toksia, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Saurabh Nagpal, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. J.D. Garg, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
Sh. K.L. Gagneja, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
The present complaint has been filed by complainants under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (after amendment u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs).
2. In brief, the case of the complainants is that they are only legal heirs of deceased Kulwant Singh son of Shri Pritam Singh who died on 18.01.2018 due to the wrong treatment given to him by ops no.1 and 2. It is averred that Kulwant Singh was suffering from serious ailment of spinal cord and was having acute pain in spinal cord and was unable to move or sit squat. He always required attendant. That Kulwant Singh approached the op no.1 and got himself treated from op no.2 Dr. Nitin Verma who got conducted several tests and also got conducted MRI Lumo Sacral Spine (Plaint and contrast) from Sarsa Imaging Centre and after getting the report, the op no.2 advised for conducting the operation of Lumbo Sacral Spine. The said doctor assured the complainants that after the operation/ surgery he will be okay and may live his life as a young man. It is further averred that as per the assurances made by op no.2, Kulwant Singh and complainants agreed for the operation. On 02.08.2017 he was admitted in the hospital of op no.1 and op no.2 conducted a surgery of Kulwant Singh and for the whole treatment an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was charged by ops and from 02.08.2017 to 08.08.2017 he remained admitted under treatment and Rs.75,000/- were spent for medicines and special diets. That at the time of discharge of Kulwant Singh, the op no.2 advised him to visit again after a week, hence as per the instruction of op no.2 Kulwant Singh against visited the op no.2 on 21.08.2017 upon which the doctor again got conducted MRI and again advised for one more operation for which he has charged Rs.70,000/- from Kulwant Singh but inspite of conducting of second operation, there was no recovery in the condition of Kulwant Singh rather his condition became more critical.
3. It is further averred that thereafter Kulwant Singh having no alternate approached the SPS Hospital, Ludhiana for the treatment and doctor of SPS Hospital got conducted MRI and after getting the report, Kulwant Singh was shocked to hear that there was no need to conduct the operation. The doctor of SPS Hospital stated that due to wrong treatment given by the ops no.1 and 2, he has become more sick. That due to wrong treatment provided by op no.2, Kulwant Singh had severe pain in his back and he was even unable to sit squat or walk himself and always required attendants for care. The condition of Kulwant Singh became miserable day by day and even for the call of nature he required attendant. That ultimately due to pain and suffering because of wrong treatment provided by op no.2, Kulwant Singh died on 18.01.2018. It clearly shows that op doctor has negligently treated Kulwant Singh (deceased) and further did not declare the actual position of his spine to him. It is further averred that due to the wrong treatment and negligence Kulwant Singh had to undergo a lot of pain and suffering and agony and if the op would not have conducted operation of Kulwant Singh he would have been alive and would have approached some higher center for expertise treatment but on account of wrong treatment provided by op no.2 he had suffered a lot. That Kulwant Singh remained on bed for a long period and spent more than rupees three lacs on treatment and suffered lot of prolonged pain and sufferings and complainants have lost their all future prospectus. The complainants approached the ops no.1 and 2 and asked them about the negligence in the treatment and acting against the medical norms by keeping the complainants under dark and declaring that everything was fine. The ops no.1 and 2 openly stated that they can do what they want. It is further averred that complainants are entitled to an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation from ops besides amount of Rs.3,00,000/- being expenses of treatment and also entitled to litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.
4. Since according to complainants, R.K. Life Line Hospital has been merged in SPS Hospital, therefore, notice was issued to the SPS Hospital op no.1 which appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that complainants prepared a false and concocted story. The op no.1 is running a separate hospital R.K. Life Line and not merged in SPS Hospital and SPS Hospital is separate hospital and both hospitals are running separately and have no any connection with each other. The contents of complaint are also denied to be incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
5. Op no.2 also appeared and filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections that complaint is misconceived, groundless and frivolous and that complainants have failed to prove negligence against op no.2, that op no.2 has not committed any negligence and there is no cause of action against op no.2. That complaint is bad for non arraignment and mis-arraignment of parties. The op no.2 is insured with Oriental India Insurance Company ltd. vide policy effective from 09.05.2017 to 08.05.2018. It is also submitted that op no.2 is a well qualified, well experienced doctor and has received training in Neurosurgery at AIIMS, New Delhi. He has also gain experiences from Hospitals like Ram Manohar Lohia and Lok Nayak Hospitals. In April 2016 he has joined R.K. Lifeline hospital Sirsa as a Consultant Neurosurgeon and has performed various types of Neurosurgeries in Sirsa and particularly talking about this case in which the patient was having co-morbidities like DM/ hypertension, it is unlikely that the patient might have succumbed due to back pain.
6. On merits, it is submitted that patient Kulwant Singh, aged 50 years visited R.K. Lifeline Hospital on 02.08.2017 as a rejected case from other hospital as the patient was diagnosed with HCV positive and no Neurosurgeon in town was willing to do the case. The patient was a known case of uncontrolled Diabetes Mellitus and Hypertension (HTN) for which he was not taking any treatment. The patient had the following complaints i.e. Backache from past five months, Bilateral LL paresthesia and numbness from past 15 days, bladder and bowel involvement from past 7 days, difficulty in ambulation from past 3 days. Upon examining the patient was bedridden and had following findings : conscious and cooperative, HMF- wnl Cr. Nv- wnl; Sensory loss below L4 bilaterally – 40%, Tone normal in bilateral LL; Bulk is normal in Bilateral LL Power in Bilateral LL = Right H-4+5/; K-4/5; A-4/5; EGL – 4/5 and Left H-4+/5; K-4+5/, A-4+/5, ELH-4+15, DTR KJ= 2=BL and AJ=1+BL. No cerebellar or meningeal signs. The patient seems to be neglected by the family as he was also developing bed sores. The patient was diagnosed with Lumbar canal stenosis (L3-L5) with multiple level PIVD and planned for Surgery after controlling Sugar levels and Blood pressure, the patient was taken up for surgery on 03.08.2017 and L3-L5 Laminectomy with L3L4 // L4L5 Discectomy was done. The following findings were seen Hypertrophied facets joints with Sever hypertrophy of ligamentum flavum with Narrowed lumbar canal d/t hypertrophied body canal with Sever disc bulge at L4L5 and L3L4 with discectomy done / No CSF leak encountered. Post-operatively the attendants were explained and they were also informed that L5S1 discectomy was not performed as there was no compression seen intraoperatively, and in case if there is recurrent disc, it will be dealt in a later stage. The intraoperative period was uneventful and post operatively recovery was upto satisfaction as the patient was comfortable and then with the attendants consent the patient was planned for discharge on 08.08.2017. It is further submitted that patient followed in OPD and was on wheel chair, patient complained of persistent pain and so a follow up MRI was done which revealed a recurrent disc at L5S1 with some compression at L4L5, the patient was re-admitted and re-operated and L5S1 microdiscectomy was done, the post-operative recovery was good, and the patient was relieved and then discharged again. After that the patient followed in OPD and was satisfied and pain free, patient was explained about diabetic Neuropathy also, the patient then lost follow up. Everything the op no.2 has done was done diligently, prudently with utmost due care and caution in treating the said patient. There was no negligence at least from their side and patient did not die during the course of admission or treatment and further the patient had lost follow up. It is further submitted that patient died his natural death. Patient party now a days have a tendency to sue the doctors unnecessarily and are in a notion that patient’s are Immortal unless killed by the doctors of Hospital. No patient or attendant should presume that pre-hospitalization part of illness is given by God and all the post hospitalization illness is caused by the negligence of Doctors. There is no cause and effect relationship with the surgery performed and natural death. Patient party had spent money for getting treatment of patient’s own spine illness. The spine illness was not created by op no.2. It is further submitted that for a doctor, treating emergency cases is like choosing between life or death because if doctor is able to save the patient, it is his duty, no big deal. If patient succumbs- doctor will be booked for murder. So now a doctor has to think twice before seeing any serious patient. It should be our bounden duty and obligation of the civil society to ensure that the medical professionals are not unnecessary harassed or humiliated so that they can perform their professional duties without fear and apprehension. Any death is unfortunate, but there is no rule of presumption that whenever a patient dies, it is because of negligence of doctors. With these averments, dismissal of complaint prayed for.
7. Op no.3 on being impleaded and on notice appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections that though the complainants have impleaded the answering op as the party in the complaint but no relief has been claimed from answering op and that complaint has been filed by complainants with the ulterior motive of extorting money from the ops by leveling false allegations of negligence, deficiency in service and unethical practice etc. while treating the patient. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied for want of knowledge. It is submitted that complainants have failed to mention the date of taking the deceased to SPS Hospital, Ludhiana, period of treatment there and the date of discharge from SPS Hospital, Ludhiana. The complainants have not mentioned the name of the place where the patient had succumbed to his illness. He might have succumbed to his ailment in SPS Hospital at Ludhiana during the treatment there and the ops here are being made scape goats in order to extort money from them. While denying the contents of complaint, it is also submitted that policy for medical establishment professional negligence and errors and omissions was issued to op no.2 and same was issued subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. In case the above complaint succeeds for any unknown reasons, the answering op will indemnify the op no.2 only in accordance with terms and conditions of the policy and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
8. The complainants in evidence have tendered affidavit of Smt. Harjinder Kaur complainant no.1 as Ex. CW1/A, receipts and bills Ex.C1 to Ex.C63, laboratories test reports, bills/ receipts Ex.C64 to Ex.C165.
9. On the other hand, op no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. S.K. Malhotra, Divisional Manager as Ex.R1 and copy of terms and conditions of policy Ex.R2. Op no.2 has tendered his affidavit Ex.R3, indoor file Ex.R4, discharge summary Ex.R5, medical notes and laboratory test reports Ex.R6 to Ex.R29. Op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Mr. Romit Ohlan, authoried person of SPS Hospital Ex. RW1/A, copy of resolution Ex.R31 and copy of business transfer agreement between seller and purchaser Ex.R32.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
11. First of all we would like to mention that though complainants have asserted that R.K. Life Line Hospital has been merged in SPS Hospital but on notice the SPS Hospital appeared through counsel and has taken a specific stand that R.K. Life Line has not been merged in SPS Hospital and SPS Hospital is separate hospital and both hospitals are running separately and have no any connection with each other. It has come on record that earlier Dr. Nitan Verma Op no.2 was working under R.K. Life Line Hospital and thereafter said hospital has been purchased by SPS Hospital and in this regard SPS Hospital has also placed on file business transfer agreement dated 19.08.2018 executed between RK Life Line and SPS Hospital as Ex.R32 whereby it was resolved between the seller and purchaser that all liabilities prior to 19.08.2018 will be of the seller i.e. R.K. Life Line Hospital. The treatment of patient Kulwant Singh was conducted before 19.08.2018 when the name of the hospital was R.K. Life Line Hospital and on 19.08.2018 the said hospital was purchased by SPS Hospital. The owner of both the above said hospitals are different and as such complainants have wrongly mentioned that R.K. Life Line hospital has been merged with SPS Hospital. The complainants after filing of above said written version of SPS Hospital have not tried to implead R.K. Life Line Hospital and have not got amended their complaint and have not tried to get summoned that R.K. Life Line Hospital. So no liability of any type can be fastened on SPS Hospital and as such the complaint against SPS Hospital deserves dismissal.
12. In so far as allegations of medical negligence against op no.2 are concerned, the complainants themselves have admitted that Kulwant Singh now deceased was suffering from serious ailment of spinal cord and was having acute pain in spinal cord and was unable to move and sit and always required attendants. In this regard op no.2 Dr. Nitin Verma has also asserted that condition of the patient Kulwant Singh was very serious and even other hospitals did not admit him and it was a rejected case from other hospital as the patient was diagnosed with HCV positive and no Neurosurgeon in town was willing to do the case. The surgery of the spinal cord on the patient Kulwant Singh was done by doctor Nitin Verma on 03.08.2017 but the complainants have also failed to prove any medical negligence against op no.2 doctor. There is nothing on file to suggest that Dr. Nitin Verma was negligent while treating the patient Kulwant Singh and that surgery which was done on the patient was not required at all. It is pertinent to mention here that a medical board consisting of seven doctors consisting of Dr. Surinder Nain, Civil Surgeon cum Chairman District Medical Board of Civil Hospital, Sirsa was constituted as per order of this Commission and the said Medical Board submitted its report. In the said report Ex.R33 the board of doctors have mentioned that according to complainants Kulwant Singh was having diabetes mellitus, hepatitis-C and back pain and had no control on stools and urine and was not able to walk independently and Dr. Gaurav Bansal refused surgery because of co- morbidities. The board of doctors have reported that patient was known case of diabetes mellitus, hypertension and Hepatitits-C and Lumbar Canal stenosis with multiple level PIVD. Prognosis was well explained to patient and his relatives in detail as mentioned in hospital records. The wound was normally healing after surgery and every treatment whether it was surgery or medical management was done in good faith after applying required expertise so as to benefit the patient. The board of doctors have further reported that after going through all the relevant records available and statements of all concerned, all the board members are of the opinion that there is nothing suggestive of Medical Negligence on the part of Dr. Nitin Verma in this case. There is no other material on file which could prove that op no.2 has caused any type of medical negligence while conducting surgery and treating the patient Kulwant Singh and that surgery which was done by him was not required at all rather it was proved on record that condition of the patient was very worst when he was taken to Dr. Nitin Verma and other doctors refused to provide any treatment to the patient seeing his severe condition and as such op no.2 doctor is not at any fault. It is proved on record that surgery which was conducted by op no.2 doctor was done as per need keeping in view the situation of the patient. The complainants have not examined any doctor of SPS Hospital Ludhiana or any other expert to prove the fact that surgery conducted by op no.2 was not required and that op no.2 caused any type of medical negligence towards the patient. Even no affidavit of any doctor in this regard has been placed on file by the complainants. In these circumstances, complainants have failed to prove their case and they are not entitled to any compensation from any of the ops and their complaint against all the ops deserve dismissal.
13. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member Member President,
Dated: 21.11.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
