DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
UDYOG SADAN, C-22 & 23, QUTUB INSTITUTIONAL AREA
(BEHIND QUTUB HOTEL) : NEW DELHI – 110016.
Case No. 112/11
Sh. Ranjeet Singh
S/o Sh. Karan Singh
R/o Village & P.O. Harchana
Distt. Bulandshahr,
Uttar Pradesh - Complainant
Vs
-
New Delhi
Through its Director
-
Research Centre Pvt. Ltd.
Pushpanjali Palace,
Delhi Gate, Agra,
Through its Owner/CMO/Director - Opposite Parties
Date of Institution: 24.03.2011 Date of decision: 31.05.2016
Coram:
N.K. Goel, President
Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that his mother who was suffering from excruciating abdominal pain was taken to hospital of OP-2 and admitted in emergency unit on 27.2.09. After undergoing various tests and examinations she was treated in the hospital of OP-2 but the condition of the patient kept on deteriorating and there was no sign of improvement. Therefore, the complainant having incurred expenditure to the tune of Rs. 55,275/- took his deceased mother to AIIMS, New Delhi on being referred by OP-2 where she could not be accommodated. Since the complainant could not get the patient admitted in AIIMS the complainant rushed to hospital of OP-1 where she was admitted on 4.3.09 at 2.10 a.m. in the general ward. Though, the complainant is stated to have requested OP-1 to keep the patient in ICU but she was stated to have been treated in general ward. She remained in the hospital of OP-1 from 4.3.09 to 25.3.09 in the general ward when the deceased mother of the complainant expired on 25.3.09 at 8.00 p.m. in the hospital of OP-1. Feeling aggrieved with carelessness, negligence and deficiency in service by OP-1 & 2, complainant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Forum with following prayer:
- Direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 80,000/- to the complainant for the loss suffered by him for medicines etc.;
- Award a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards the loss of earning, mental agony and physical sufferings faced by the complainant;
- Award a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the conveyance and misc. expenses to be incurred by the complainant;
- Award an amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards the litigation charges incurred by the complainant.
OP-1 has filed its reply denying all the allegations and asserted that the patient (Amro Devi) 75 years old female was admitted in OP-1 hospital in unconscious and critical condition and was on oxygen at the time of admission as is evident from the notings in the case-sheet; the same was explained to the attendant of the deceased repeatedly. The appropriate treatment was given to the patient in consultation with the doctors from ICU, Neurology, Nephrology and medicine department. It is stated as under:
“13. ……………….. She was operated at a private hospital and was given ventilatory support, before transfer to Safdarjung Hospital, she was on oxygen support through endotracheal intubation and oxygen support was continued at Safdarjung Hospital. Patient had features of septicemia and renal dysfunction from the time of admission. Her CT scan done on the day of admission at Safdarjung Hospital, showed multiple ischemic infracts in the brain, probably secondary to hypoxia. Her previous ECHO showed degenerative mitral value disease of heart with diastolic dysfunction.”
…………………………………..
…………………………………..
“16. ………………… The appropriate treatment was given to the patient in continuation with doctor from ICU, Neurology, Nephrology and Medicine department. On 13th March, 2009, Senior Specialist of Surgery department requested to HOD Neurology to transfer the patient to Neurology side, as no further surgical intervention was contemplated. Later on patient was transferred to neurology department (Wd-16) on 14.3.09, for further treatment. She was given appropriate treatment in Neurology Ward.”
Denying any negligency on the part of OP-1, OP-1 has pleaded for dismissal of the complaint. It is not out of place to mention here that OP-1 has enclosed complete medical record of the deceased patient running into pages 1 to 209 containing the complete history of the treatment given to the deceased patient
OP-2 has also filed its reply denying all the allegations and also stated inter-alia that this forum has no territorial jurisdiction as OP-2 is an Agra based Hospital. It is stated that the deceased mother of the complainant was brought to their hospital on 27.2.09 at about 3.37 a.m. in a serious condition with pain, abdominal distention, absolute constipation with deceased urine output with palorness and dry tongue and was shifted to ICU. After investigation and necessary tests i.e. X-ray abdomen, X-ray chest, ECG, Widal test and complete blood and urine tests at genuine charges, Dr. U.C. Arora, Nephrologist started the treatment who found that there was acute renal failure present; that on the basis of investigations on 28.2.09 the relatives of the patient were informed for the operative treatment of the patient; that Dr. R.K. Tripathi, MS (General Surgeon) operated the mother of the complainant on 28.2.2009 with exploratory laprotomy and he found 2x2 cm sized perforation in the first part of duodenum with bile coming out and the perforation was closed with patch of omentum and abdomen was closed with drain out. It is stated that decision to take the patient to AIIMS was taken by the relatives of the patient who pressed OP-2 to discharge the patient. It is stated that there was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 Accordingly, OP-2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed a rejoinder asserting the averments made by him in the complaint and denying the allegations made by the OPs. In the rejoinder to the reply of OP-1, the complainant has even denied that Amro Devi was admitted on 4.3.2009 in Casualty of OP-1 in unconscious and critical condition or she was on oxygen.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit and additional affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Dr. K.T. Bhowmik, Addl. Medical Supdt. of OP-1 and of Ms. Madhvi Singh Rana, AR of OP-2 have been filed in evidence on behalf of OPs.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of both the parties.
We have heard the arguments of the counsels of the complainant and OP-2 and carefully examined the material placed before us.
OP-1 is situated in New Delhi. Therefore, we hold that in view of Section 11 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, this forum has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint against the OP-2.
The root cause of the complaint emanates from the hospital of OP-2 i.e. Pushpanjali Hospital and Research Centre, Agra where the patient was admitted on 27.2.09 with excruciating pain in her abdomen. She was operated upon 28.2.09 (wrongly mentioned by OP-2 as 28.9.09). We are astonished to observe that she was diagnosed as a case of acute renal failure and was started given treatment by Dr. U.C. Arora, Nephrologist but operated upon by a General Surgeon for perforation of first part of duodenum. Diagnosis of patient and surgery performed on patient are diametrically opposite. The complainant has attached various documents in his complaint but we do not find any test report pertaining to Kidney profile and neither the OP-2 has enclosed any documentary evidence in support of diagnosis of acute renal failure. After operation the deceased patient was evacuated to hospital of OP-1 in unconscious state and remained so till her death. To our mind, it is seems to be a case of Res ipsa loquitur inasmuch as the case history of OP-2 reveals that she was treated for renal failure but operated upon for duodenal perforation. Had OP-2 straightway diagnosed the patient as a case of duodenal perforation without wasting time and linking up the case of renal failure, the situation would have been entirely different. After operation the patient was transferred to AIIMS in unconscious state with respiratory support where she was refused admission and subsequently transferred to OP-1 in unconscious state with ventilators is as evident from various case-sheets exhibited by OP-1. Admittedly, OP-2 in its reply has accepted that the deceased mother of the complainant was operated for duodenum perforation on 28.9.09 which fact has not been disclosed by the complainant in his complaint. We further find that OP-2 has not commented upon condition of the deceased mother of the complainant after the operation and has also chosen to deny that they had referred the patient to AIIMS whereas the summary of the case of the deceased patient dated 3.3.09 issued by OP-2 has infact been attached as Annexure C-15 (also DW1/13) by the complainant is suggestive of the fact that OP-2 after post operative failure referred the deceased patient to AIIMS for further management and also that the patient had been seen by general surgeon, Nephrologist. No document has been filed on behalf of OP-2. Conduct of OP-2 in discharging the patient in critical condition is diametrically opposite to the expectation of the patient to come out of hospital duly cured. In the instant case, the patient was discharged in serious and deteriorated condition. This amounts to deficiency in service.
Now we shall discuss the role of OP-1. We have gone through the complete case-sheet of deceased patient in the hospital of OP-1 and we find that she was treated by various specialists of Cardiology, General surgery, Nephrology and Neurology etc. However, despite the request of various doctors of ICU department to admit the patient in ICU on various dates i.e. 4.3.09, 13.3.09, 17.3.09, 22.3.09 and 25.3.09, she was not admitted in ICU due to non-availability of bed in the ICU. Ultimately she died in the hospital of OP-1 on 25.3.09. Inspite of the fact that the patient was not given any bed in ICU in OP-1 hospital, she was undisputably given all medical attention and treatment in consultation with the departments of neurology, nephrology, medicine and also senior specialist of surgery department. The copies of the entire medical treatment record in respect of the deceased patient have been filed on behalf of the OP-1 which clearly goes a long way to show that the patient was given proper attention/treatment. Therefore, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of OP-1.
In view of above discussion, we partly allow the complaint against OP-2. Admittedly, the deceased was 75 years old woman. Keeping this fact in view, we direct OP-2 to pay Rs. 75,000/- in lumpsum to the complainant as compensation towards the medical expenses, legal expenses, harassment and mental agony suffered by him.
The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order failing which OP-2 shall become liable to pay the said amount along with interest @ Rs. 7% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.
Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 31.05.2016.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
Case No. 112/11
31.5.2016
Present – None
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is partly allowed against OP-2. Admittedly, the deceased was 75 years old woman. Keeping this fact in view, we direct OP-2 to pay Rs. 75,000/- in lumpsum to the complainant as compensation towards the medical expenses, legal expenses, harassment and mental agony suffered by him. The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order failing which OP-2 shall become liable to pay the said amount along with interest @ Rs. 7% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
