Haryana

StateCommission

A/771/2014

Prem Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sandeep Chaudhary - Opp.Party(s)

07 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                Appeal No.771 of 2014

in F.A. No.492 of 2013

Date of the Institution: 16.07.2013

Date of Decision: 07.11.2016

 

Prem Chand S/o Sh.Munish Ram R/o H.No.608, Ward NO.7, Sadar Bazar, Karnal.

…..Appellant

Versus

1. Dr. Sandeep Chaudhary, Dr.Sandeep Chaudhary Nursing Home and Heart Disease Institution, Randhir Lane, Near Police Line, Karnal.
2. Dr.Anshul Kumar Jain, Maharaja Aggarsain Heart Institute and Research Centre (A unit of Maharaj Agrasen Hospital) Rohtak Road West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi.
3. Dr.Parmod Jain, Maharaja Agrasen Heart Institute and Research Centre (A unit of Maharaj Agrasen Hospital) Rohtak Road West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi.
4. Maharaja Agrasen Heart Institute and Research Centre, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi through its Managing Director/Chairman,
5. Oriental Insurance co. Ltd. Through its divisional Manager Division Office Karnal (Insurance Co. of Dr. Sandeep Chaudhary).
6. National Insurance Co. Limited through its Divisional Manager Division No.XXXIII, 106, Palika Bhawan, R.K.Puram, New Delhi-110066, Insurance co. of O.P.No.3.
7. National Insurance Co. Ltd. 29 (code No.361800), C-2, community Centre, Industrial Area Phase-1, Naraina, New Delhi 110028, Insurance Co, of O.P.No.2.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Rohit Goswami, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr.Krishan M.Vohra, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.1.

                   Mr.R.K.Trivedi, Law Officer, of respondent Nos.2 to 4.

                   Mr. D.C.Kumar, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.5.

                   Mr. Nitin Gupta, Advocate counsel for the respondent Nos.6 and 7.

 

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          It was alleged by the complainant that her wife Savitri  Devi was having heart problem and was taken to the hospital of O.P.No.1 on 04.08.2007.  Her blood test etc. were conducted, as mentioned in the complaint.  On 05.08.2007 ECG test was advised and it was told that an expert of O.P.No.4  would come to hospital and charged Rs.800/- for that purpose and receipt to that effect was issued.  After conducting ECG test by technician of O.P.No.4 on 05.08.2007 she was referred to O.P.Nos.2 and 3 working with O.P.No.4. At about 2.30 p.m. she reached O.P.No.4 i.e. Majaraja Agrasen Hospital.  O.P.Nos.2 and 3 recommended so many tests which were conducted on that day.  On 06.08.2009 angiography was done  without waiting for an other report of  Transbronchial lung biopsy which was issued on 14.08.2007 and reported as under:-

“Imperssion:- Metastatic Adenocarcinoma, clinical correlation. Advised:- CEA levels.”

In this way O.P.Nos.3 and 4 committed medical negligence at the instance of O.P.No.1.  Ultimately his wife expired on 02.10.2007.  As she lost life due to negligence on the part of the O.Ps. they be directed to pay Rs.Ten lacs as of compensation.

2.      O.Ps. filed separate replies controverting his averments. O.P.No.1 alleged that District Forum was not having territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint because there was no branch of O.P. No.4  at Karnal. Wife of complainant was known case of diabetic mellitus (DM) and hypertension.  She was brought to his hospital on 04.08.2007 with the complaint of chest pain, so ECG was done. After clinical examination it was found that she had heart attack and LV dysfunction. After blood test it was found that she was anemic and blood sugar level was high.  In order to evaluate condition of heart, echo test was conducted on 05.08.2007.  As attendants of Savitri Devi (since deceased) were willing to take Savitri Devi to a higher medical centre at Delhi so she was discharged. As they asked him to suggest any institution at Delhi he told them about Maharaja Agrasen Heart Institute and Research Centre New Delhi (in Short “Maharaja Agarsen Heart Centre”). He took all steps which were required during time of admission at his clinic.  Coronary angiography of Savitri Devi revealed that she was suffering from CAD, triple vessel disease and LV dysfunction.  Subsequent investigations also revealed that  she was also suffering from lung cancer.  Objections about concealment of true facts etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      In addition thereto, O.P.Nos.2 to 4 alleged that after admission, required investigations and tests were conducted. She had signs of early heart failure.  ECG had persistent ST elevation suggestive  of Myocardial infarction (Heart Attack) involving the inferior and posterior wall.  Keeping in view the heart condition angiography was done and was advised revascularization with bypass or PTCA.  She continued to have angina so  on 07.08.2007 she was advised IABP and revascularization , but, her attendants were not ready for the same, so she was managed medically.  It was evident from the record that she was diagnosed a priori to have disease which was considered to be pneumonitis or some cancerous growth.  This was promptly worked up by physician Dr. G.C.Singhal and respiratory specialist Dr. I.M.Chugh.  Necessary investigation was done and biopsy was performed. Result of that test was made available after  a week. For a patient with heart attack and on going angina, procedure of coronary angiography and revascularization took precedence over any other co-existent medical condition, to save the life.  There was no negligence on their part.  It was also alleged that she was discharged on 11.07.2007, but, the complaint was filed in the year 2011 i.e. after two years and was time barred. Objections about jurisdiction at Karnal was also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.      It was alleged by O.P.Nos.5 and 8 that processional indemnity insurance was to the tune of Rs.Five lacs only in case the treating persons found negligent.  Objections about jurisdiction, etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint qua them.

5.      It was alleged by O.P.Nos.6 and 7 that there was no deficiency in service, so they were not liable to pay any compensation.  No intimation was ever given to them.  Complainant did not suffer loss to the tune of Rs.Ten lacs.  Objections about territorial jurisdiction, estoppels etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

6.       After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (In short “District forum”) dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated  04.06.2013 on the ground of limitation. 

7.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant/appellant has preferred this appeal,  which was dismissed vide order dated 25.07.2013. Against that order complainant preferred revision before Hon’ble National commission, which was allowed vide order dated 01.08.2014 and directed to decide appeal on merits.

8.      Arguments heard. File perused.

9.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that from the perusal of referral slip Ex.C-5 it is clear that O.P.No.1 referred the complainant to Maharaja Agarsen Heart Centre to be treated by O.P.No.2 and they committed negligence in connivance with O.P.No.1, so District Forum, Karnal was having jurisdiction to try this complaint. 

10.    This argument is of no avail.  From the perusal of Ex.C-5 it is clear that O.P.No.1 only referred complainant to that hospital and there was no negligence on his part about treatment.  It is no where alleged that O.P.No.1 did not provide proper treatment.  There is also no evidence on the file to show that O.P.Nos.3 and 4 were negligent in providing proper treatment in connivance with O.P.No.1.  Just on the basis of his averments this fact cannot be presumed to be true.  Such like allegation is to be proved by way of cogent evidence,  but any how when Hon’ble National Commission has directed to decide this case on merits, there is no necessity to dwell upon this point.

11.    As far as the merits of the case are concerned, learned counsel for complainant vehemently argued that O.P. Nos.3 and 4  conducted angiography on 06.08.2009 which is clear from report Ex.C-65 without waiting for the other reports.  Biopsy was done on 07.08.2007 and without waiting for the report she was discharged from the hospital on 11.08.2007 whereas the report Ex.C-67 was received on 14.07.2008. As per report Ex.C-52 dated 09.08.2007 lung’s cancer was doubtful. In such situation angiography was not required and should have waited for the report of biopsy. There was clear negligence on the part of the O.Ps.  They be directed to pay compensation as claimed.

12.    There is no sufficient evidence to come to conclusion that there was any negligence on the part of the O.Ps.  It is well settled principle of medical theory that initially every effort should be made to save life of the patient.  Angiography was done when complainant was taken to O.P. No.1. complainant’s wife was having heart problem and that is whey she was referred to higher institute/hospital at Delhi. Even at the time of admission at O.P.No.4 she was having chest pain  and ECG was conducted. After conducting all the tests, it was decided to conduct angiography on 06.08.2007 when she was having angina pain continuously up to the evening of 07.08.2007 biopsy was done. Angiography is initial stage to rule out heart problem.  So, it cannot be presumed that O.Ps. No.2 to 4 did not follow proper procedure.  As there were secondaries in lungs that is why she was discharged on 11.08.2007.  It was not necessary to keep her when there was problem with lungs.  On 10.08.2007 she was taken to All India Institute of Medical Science (In short “AIIMS”) which is clear from the perusal of Ex.C-2. This fact shows that Savitri Devi was discharged as per request of complainant.  After receiving report of Biopsy Ex.-67 about cancer she was taken to various Hospital including  Shri Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital. There is no evidence on the file suggesting that angiography done by O.P.No.4  was the cause of death  or not required.  Actually due to cancerous substance she breathed her last.   It cannot be presumed that the O.Ps. did not follow the proper procedure and the principle laid down in the medical literature and cannot be held negligent.  Complainant cannot be awarded compensation as there is no medical negligence on the part of the O.Ps.  Resultantly appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

 

November 07th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.