Date of filing :26.02.2018
Judgment : Dt.26.3.2019
Mrs. Sashi Kala Basu, Hon’ble President.
This petition of complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P.Act, by the Complainant namely Pranati Das against the Woodlands Multispecialty Hospital Limited alleging deficiency in rendering service on its part.
Complainant’s case in short is that on 29.7.2017 in the evening her husband fell seriously ill and a doctor was called who on examining the husband of the Complainant, advised his immediate hospitalization. So, Complainant along with her daughter took him to the emergency department of OP Hospital around 8.30 p.m. in hope of timely treatment but the husband of the Complainant was unattended for long and without checking the patient the attending personnel told that it was a simple case of dehydration. In spite of repeated requests to call a senior doctor for proper diagnosis and speedy treatment, concerned staff of emergency department of OP Hospital advised the Complainant to perform the formalities first such as filling up form and depositing money. After fulfilling all the formalities, patient was taken to 4th floor and the doctor first attended the Complainant’s husband at 11 p.m. and he was admitted in the ICU. At 11.15 Complainant’s daughter was informed by that doctor that the condition of the patient was very serious and asked the daughter of the Complainant to sign a very very critical bond. At about 2.30 a.m. a senior doctor on checking informed the Complainant and her daughter that the condition of the patient was very critical and he was suffering from multiple organ disorder and some serious nephrological problems and shifted to ventilation and they had called a nephrologist for the treatment. On the next morning only at about 9 a.m. nephrologist came and around 9.15 a.m. Complainant and her daughter were informed that the patient had died. Complainant’s husband would have survived if he had received proper treatment in the neck of crucial time but he died due to the delay and negligence by OP and thus Complainant has prayed for directing OP to pay compensation of Rs.4,50,000/, to pay Rs.43,000/- being unrealized money towards mediclaim policy and to pay litigation cost.
Complainant has annexed with the complaint petition, photocopy of prescription of Dr. Biplab Chatterjee, cash receipt dt.29.7.2017 issued by OP Hospital, In-patient-discharge bill, detailed bill and the death certificate.
Opposite party has contested the case by filing the written version denying and disputing the allegations made in the complaint petition contending inter alia that all the medical documents reveal that the patient was brought to the emergency ward of the hospital at 10.05 p.m. on 29.7.2017 and since then had been under continuous supervision of treating doctors.
All the medicinal records had been provided to the Complainant by the Opposite Party at the time of discharge. In spite of taking all due care and performing their duty with utmost sincerely and diligence, doctors of the OP Hospital could not save the life of the patient. There has not been any deficiency in service and thus OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
During the course of evidence, both the parties have adduced evidence by filing affidavit-in-chief followed by filling of questionnaire and reply thereto.
Both the parties have also filed written notes of arguments.
Opposite party has relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in C. P. Sreekumar (Dr.), MS (ORTHO) VS S. Ramanujam reported in (2009) 7 S.C.C. 130 and another decision I n Jacob Mathew VS State of Punjab and Anr reported in (2005) 6 SCC 12.
Following points require to be determined:-
(1) Whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
(2) Whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
Point No.1 & 2
Both the points are taken up together for discussion in order to avoid repetition.
Complainant’s claim is that due to delay in attending the patient (Complainant’s husband) by the Opposite Party he died on the following morning of his admission. According to Complainant, as advised by the doctor Biplab Chatterjee for immediate hospitalization of her husband, Complainant and her daughter brought the patient to OP Hospital at 8.30 p.m. But patient was not attended till 10.15 p.m. and in spite of several requests for calling a senior doctor, the doctor first attended the patient at 11 p.m.
So, the claim is in two parts : (1) There has been delay in starting treatment and (2) for such alleged delay OP has been negligent.
It is settled law that party making the allegation has to prove the same. In this case Complainant has not filed any document in order to substantiate that the patient was taken to OP Hospital at 8.30 p.m. Even the medical prescription of the doctor Biplab Chatterjee who according to Complainant examined her husband at home and advised for immediate hospitalization, has not stated any time in the prescription. Complainant has also not filed any other document such as call log as they came in Ambulance to support that they had arrived in the hospital at 8.30 p.m. On the contrary, form of accident & emergency record of OP Hospital is very categorical that the “Date and time of arrival is 29.7.2017 at 10.05 pm”. Admission form shows that the date and time of admission 29.7.2017 at 10.15 p.m. ID Admission Slip filed by the hospital is duly signed by Priyadarshini Das the daughter of the Complainant certifying that “I have checked all the details of the patient (Name, age address, etc.) entered in the hospital records and as an authorized next of kin, confirm that the above is correct. I understand that the hospital will be unable to alter these at the time of release of the patient or subsequently”. So, the said statement of checking regarding the hospital records also includes the time of arrival and admission of the patient. In such a situation, claim of the Complainant that the patient was brought to hospital at 8.30 p.m. cannot be accepted in the absence of any cogent evidence. Hospital record further discloses that the patient was in continuous supervision of treating doctors.
Apart from this, it appears that the Complainant has filed this complaint after about six months of the death of her husband which suggest that the claim is nothing but an after thought. There is no explanation why no step was taken immediately after the death if allegedly death occurred for not attending the patient by the OP in time.
In case of C. P. Sreekumar VS S. Ramanujam, it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that Complainant alleging medical negligence “Onus of proving medical negligence lies on the Complainant. Mere averment in complaint is not evidence. Complaint to be proved by cogent evidence.”
No expert’s opinion is filed in this case by the Complainant in order to substantiate that there was any negligence on the part of treating doctors. It has been admitted by the Complainant in reply to the questionnaire by the OP that no expert opinion is filed.
In case of Jacob Mathew VS State of Punjab & Anr reported in (2005) 6 SCC 1, it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that “the accused doctor did something or failed to do something, which in the given facts and circumstances, no medical practitioner in his ordinary sense of prudence would have done or failed to do. If the medical practitioner has executed ordinary standard of care, then he is absolved of all the liabilities.”
In this case as already highlighted negligence is claimed due to delay and if delay in treatment is not proved then there could not be any negligence. As discussed above, there is absolutely no document that there has been delay in starting the treatment of the Complainant’s husband and thus allegation of negligence automatically fails.
So, the Complainant has failed to establish that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and thus this case is liable to be dismissed.
These points are thus answered accordingly.
Hence
Ordered
CC/88/2018 is dismissed on contest.
