BEFORE THE SOUTH MUMBAI  DISTRICT  CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

Puravatha Bhavan, 1^st Floor, General Nagesh Marg, Near Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Opp. M.D. College, Parel, Mumbai – 400 012.

                                                                    O.No.

Complaint No.SMF/MUM/CC/2014/229

                                                 Date of filing :   18/10/2014

                                                  Date of Order:   28/11/2017

Nitin Sood,

C/o. Mr. Munna Lal Kaushal (Khoye Wale),

131, Jugyana Moholla, Subhash Ganj,

Near Pipleshwar Mandir,

Jhansi – 284 003.

Uttar Prades, India.                                           ….. Complainant.    

  V/s.

The Managing Director,

Jaslok Hospital and Research Centre,

15, Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg,

Peddar Road, Mumbai – 400 026.

Maharashtra, India.                                  ….. Opposite Party

                    Coram:

Shri. G.K. Rathod              :   Hon’ble President

Shri. S.R. Sanap              :   Hon’ble Member

Appearance  :      For Complainant  –  Adv. Shri.  Patil  

For Opponent     -   Adv. Smt.  Deshpande    

                   // JUDGMENT //

PER SHRI. G.K. RATHOD – HON’BLE  PRESIDENT

             The brief facts of the case are summarized as under :

    It is contended that on 4/8/2014, his wife Mrs. Neetu Sood was admitted with the Opponent for delivery under Head Dr. Anahita D. Pandole,  Dr. Vaibhav Kate, (Sr. Gynecologist) was the Doctor on duty who doing observation at Jaslok Hospital and Research Centre, Mumbai. However, for delivery check on duty Dr. Vaibhav Kate alongwith  his student junior Dr. Nitin  Savaliya performed practices like inserting the hand in the female parts internally down to check whether baby can be delivered normally.  It is contended that after completing the check of her wife, the same was performed by Dr. Nitin Savaliya. When this dual check action was protested by the Complainant’s wife, she was given reason that it was a training session for the medical students. The Head Doctor Sapna Agarwal also clarified that Jaslok Hospital is a Training Hospital and patient has the privilege to refuse such training if she is not comfortable with it. Subsequently, the same to being use as commercial subject was never accepted by the Complainant’s wife.  It is further contended that Dr. Bobade examined the Complainant’s wife at approximate at 13.30 p.m. and plot the same partogram alone, it is beyond the Complainant’s understanding that when one Doctor had already made the check up then why would there be a need for  another Doctor his student junior to perform the same procedure again and submit is observations/confirmation too.  It is further contented that the same practice conducted by two doctors was actually a part of their training session and not a part of medical treatment.  When the Complainant’s wife realized that in Operation theatre there were approximately more than 20 staff personnel performing the delivery, out of which, many were only observers and were getting training.  It is further stated that the Complainant had not given any acceptance or consent to such junior doctor training gain for commercial purpose.  On the contrary, it is shocking that without having such consent, presence of these number of staff personnel in Operation Theatre is unwarranted and that has left the Complainant and the Complainant’s wife traumatized. The Complainant also demanded explanation as to which policy of the Opponent mentioned that being a husband is not allowed inside the Operation Theatre.  This conduct of hospital staff and Doctor is completely appalling and with this deed, it is evidence that Jaslok Hospital does not value lives of their patients. It is further submitted that the Complainant is a husband of the patient and  his wife mother was asked to move out of the room for privacy purposes.  It is  further submitted  that he was shocked to see how easily the doctors could  do experiments on their patients.  When he received the total bill, he found that the Complainant had received bill for the services of Doctors who were not present in the Operation Theatre of the hospital, the charges are shown in their names.  Due to the conduct and irresponsible services and mental harassment from  the Hospital staff  Doctors,  the Complainant and his wife was disappointed.  It is further submitted that he has received a bill and paid Rs. 1,00,000/- for the services of Dr. Parikh Firuza, Rajesh involved for the delivery of the baby. It is clear from the medical records provided by the hospital, it appears that same Doctor was not even present in the Operation Theatre and not placed a single visit to examine the patient, even though the hospital has charged in their names. It is further submitted that Jaslok Hospital wrongful training gain for commercial purpose including Dr. Vaibhav Kate and Operation Theatre staffs are the main culprit who gave operational and other medical training to his juniors on his wife without her consent or permission and therefore, he has sent the  notice to the Opponent on 11/9/2014.  However, the Opponent refused to take initial step to resolve the issues.  Considering the conduct of the Opponent staff and Doctors, the Complainant and his family suffered loss due to deprivation and had to undergo immense amount of mental stress and harassment on account of negligent and reckless attitude of the Opponent and therefore, the Complainant has filed the complaint and claimed relief that the Opponent be declared as the guilty under the Consumer Protection Act for medical negligence as also the Doctors of the Opponent are not authorized to provide training of junior doctors for the practice and their license alongwith Jaslok Hospital Training  authorization if any should be cancelled for such negligence and for that the Opponent be directed to pay Rs. 20,00,000/- towards compensation  for mental and physical harassment caused to the Complainant.

                   The Complainant also filed alongwith the complaint, list of documents, copy of payment receipt, copy of the complaint, copy of the notice and courier receipt.  As also filed written notes of arguments and argued orally.

(2)               After receiving the notice, the Opponent appeared and filed their written statement on 7/2/2015 and rebutted the contents of the complaint.  It is contended that it is false to say that  the post as Managing Director exist  in the Jaslok Hospital and Research Centre and therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed for mis-joinder of parties.  It is also further submitted that the Complainant is not a “Consumer, therefore, on this point also, the complaint is liable for dismissed.  It is further submitted that the Complainant was never admitted in the Opponent’s Hospital and treated by the Doctors.  Therefore, the Complainant cannot be said to be a “Consumer” as defined under this Act and the Complainant does no have any authority or Power Of Attorney from his wife.  It is further contended that the complaint is filed only with the intention to harass and extract money from the Opponent without any reasonable ground, the contents are false and denied in toto.  The statements and allegations made by the Complainant in the complaint are misconceived, vexatious, false, ill founded, bad in law and without any evidence to show that the Complainant has suffered any loss at the hands of the Opponent.  The Complainant also suppressed the relevant material particulars deliberately. It is further submitted that on 4/8/2014, wife of the Complainant was admitted in the hospital under Dr. A. Pandole, Dr. Vaibhav and Dr. Nitin are the Resident Doctors of Gynaecology Department of Hospital are Assistants of Dr. Anahita Pandole and Mrs. Neetu Sood had been the patient of Dr. Anahika Pandole for all the (09) months of her pregnancy and for her delivery. She was admitted at about 6.50 a.m. with a complaint of pain the abdomen and she was in labour.  At about 3.00 p.m., Dr. Pandole after thorough check-up informed the Complainant that the delivery of Mrs. Sood would be Cesarean Section as the cervix was poorly affected and baby’s head was still high up despite  good uterine contraction.   Both the Complainant and Mrs. Sood insisted that they would prefer a vaginal delivery.   Dr. Pandole though expressed that in the  aforesaid conditions, it is unlikely that Mrs. Sood will deliver vaginlly, but as the fetal heart beats were good, she agreed to trial of labour under very strict monitoring Assistant Resident Doctors. At about 6.00p.m. before leaving hospital, Dr. Pandole reiterated that it would not be possible for Mrs. Sood to deliver vaginally due to non progress of labour.  However, on the insistence of the Complainant and  Mr. Sood, decision to wait further was taken, however, only under the watchful eyes of team of Doctors, of Anahita Pandole including Dr. Sapna, Dr. Vaibhav and Dr. Nitin were asked to monitor Mrs. Neetu Sood round clock and they were strictly monitoring and constantly checking the patient.  It is further contended that in order to anticipate normal vaginal delivery, the examining doctors have to perform the chart.  It is called as Partogram. This includes position of the head of baby in the pelvis opening of the cervix (cervical dilation) anticipated descent of the head, uterine contractions, fetal heart rate and general condition of the mother. The constant monitoring helped Dr. Vaibhav and Dr. Nitin to follow Doctor’s and Hospital’s protocol to plot the partogram and for that internal examination of the patient is necessary.  It is further submitted that at about 9.30 p.m., when Dr. Vaibav examined patient Mrs. Neetu Sood, he felt that station of the baby’s head is still very high despite good uterine contractions and therefore, he requested his co-resident Dr. Nitin to confirm his findings. It is a normal practice  and  is done only  in the interest of patient. The internal examination is done using sterile precautions, it is not painful and does not cause any distress to the patient in labour or to the baby.  It is a normal protocol that every time internal check up is done, patient’s permission is taken, so also the permission of Mrs. Neetu Sood was taken, a  Staff Nurse was always  present while doing so and importantly there was no hesitation on the part of Mrs. Sood as she understood importance of monitoring  as everything possible was done to try and ensure vaginal delivery as per the Complainant’s desire.  It is further contended that Jaslok Hospital is a Training Centre for Post Graduate students. As a Training Institute, resident doctors  take history, does physical examination of the patient, perform procedures routinely as part of the medical curriculum. As per the regular practice of the hospital, usual number of staff of the Doctors, Anaesthetist, nurses etc. were present in the Operation Theatre. The presence of number of people is only to ensure safety of mother and the child, therefore, this cannot be a reason for the Complainant to make any grievance about. It is submitted that no consent of the patient or patient’s relatives is neither  necessary nor was signed by the Complainant.  It is further submitted that it is a standard practice followed by all the hospitals as well by the Doctors that when patient is examined by doctor or nurse, the relatives wait outside. Moreover, if Mrs. Sood had any concerned about her husband waiting outside, she should have expressed it to Dr. Pandole,   she would have allowed the Complainant to be with his wife. It is further submitted that it is a policy of many Hospitals not to permit relatives of the patients to be inside the Operation Theatre for surgery, the reason to have such rule is since on such actions, of seeing surgery being performed on the loved ones, the relatives can become hysterical or may faint or may react in  inappropriate manner.  Jaslok Hospital does not allow the relatives to remain present in Operation Thatre and therefore, the Complainant was asked to wait outside.  The Opponent has denied that 20 unknown and unauthorized  staff/ doctors/students were easily allowed in the Operation Theatre. It is also denied that Doctors did any experiments on their patients and after paid Rs. 3,39,953/- towards the clause B Delivery Package. The Opponent also denied that Jaslok Hospital was wrongful gain commercial purpose train Doctors including Dr.Vaibhav and Operation Theatre staff give training to its juniors. It is further submitted that there is no CCTV Cameras installed in Operation Theatre of the Jaslok Hospital and there is no recording. It is also denied that due to wrong treatment on the part of the Opponent, the Complainant was made to suffer mentally and physically. The Complainant has failed and neglected to elaborate or explain and failed to establish how he has suffered mental and physical loss, therefore, question does not arise that the Complainant has suffered mental and physical loss.  There is no negligence on the part of the Opponent.  The complaint should be dismissed with cost. 

                   The Opponent also filed affidavit, written notes of arguments as also argued orally.                  

(3)               The following points arose for my consideration.

 Reasoning -

(4)              We have gone through the contents of the complaint, affidavit evidence, as also contents of the written arguments and documents placed on the record by the Complainant.  We have also gone through the contents of the written statement, affidavit evidence, written arguments and documents placed on record by the Opponent.  We have also heard the arguments on behalf of the  Complainant’s Counsel and Opponent’s Counsel. There is no sufficient evidence to show that Jaslok Hospital is Training Institute and they  used patient for the purpose of training of the students. We found the substance in the submission of the Opponent that the Complainant is not a ‘Consumer’  as he was not patient in the Hospital.  From the facts it appears that the wife of the Complainant was under treatment of Dr. Firuza Parikh for primary infertility of 10 years duration.  The Complainant’s wife Neetu Sood and the Complainant had consulted Dr. Firuza Parekh on 1/10/2013 for primary infertility of 10 years duration and the Complainant’s wife decided that she wished to follow up and deliver her baby with the team  of Dr. Firuza Parikh in the Jaslok Hospital and the Complainant and his wife were fully aware of the terms of the treatment and the costs that they would incurred during antenatal  care and delivery and they fully agreed to the  same.  The Complainant’s wife was admitted in Dr. Parikh Hospital for her antenatal care.  Though she was not present at the time of delivery, it was made abundantly clear to the Complainant that her team of experts would take care of Mrs. Sood and Dr. Parikh would guide them if necessary.  She would not remained present at the time of delivery.  Accordingly, on all the occasion Dr.Parikh was updated about all the  developments as well as  immediately after delivery that the mother and  baby are hale and hearty. Thereafter, Mr. Sood the Complainant’s husband  readily paid  Dr. Parekh’s entire fees for the year on 24/08/2014.  It is further disclosed from the fact that Dr. Vaibhav Kate and Dr. Nitin Savaliya  performed practice like checking wife of the Complainant to see that baby can be delivered normally irrespective of  the pain and bleeding, as  part of training session.  However, Dr.Vaibhav Kate has having Medical Registration No. 2009/09/3172 (Maharashtra) and Dr. Nitin Savaliya Medical Registration No G-50540 (Gujarat) are the resident doctors of Gynecology Department of the Hospital and are assistants of Dr. Anahita Pandole and they were not  Ward Boys and they were present from the date of admission and at the insistence of the Complainant and his wife Doctors preferred vaginal delivery. At about 6.00 p.m. before leaving hospital Dr. Pandole reiterated that it would be very unlikely for Mrs. Sood to deliver vaginally due to non progress of labor.  However, at the insistence of the Complainant and Mrs. Sood, the decision to wait further was taken only under the watchful team of  Doctors of Dr. Anahita Pandole including Dr. Sapna Agarwal, Dr. Vaibhav Kate and Dr. Nitin Savaliya were asked to monitor Mrs. Neetu Sood round clock and accordingly, they were constantly checking.  It is further seen from the fact that it is a normal practice and it is done only in the interest of the patient.  Jaslok Hospital is a Training Hospital for post graduate students as a Training Institute resident doctors take history, conduct physical examination of the patient, perform procedure routinely. Jaslok Hospital being a Training Centre and teaching go on simultaneously for DNB courses which are conducted by the National Board Of Examination under the Ministry of Health Government of India. The resident doctors were not conducting any experiment / trial on the patient but monitoring her, her child and progress of labor.  In this case, the pain of the Complainant’s wife had to undergo was only because of the Complainant’s insisted on a normal delivery even after Dr.Pandole had advised Cesarean Section and there was a constant monitoring shows that great care was being taken by the patient to ensure that neither she nor the fetus were at risk. As per the regular practice, number of staff of doctors, Anesthetists, nurses etc. were present in the Operation Theatre and only 12 persons were present including Dr. Pandole, resident doctors, Dr. Vaibhav Kate & Dr . Nitin Savaliya, Anesthetist Dr. Parab, resident Anesthetist Dr. Mallika, Senior Pediatrician Dr. Fazal Nabi and  his Assistant Dr. Anuja, Sister Akshaya  and the circulating nurse Brother Lijin, 2 Ward boys Santosh Jadhav and Yuvraj Kadam and one nurse from Pediatric  Nurse Lizy  George to receive the baby and the presence of number of people is only to ensure safety of mother and the child. If the Complainant’s wife had any concerned about her husband waiting outside and if Mrs. Sood would have expressed it to Dr. Anahita Pandole,  Doctor would have made an exception and allowed the Complainant to wait with his wife.  It is the policy of many hospitals not to permit relatives of the patients to be inside the Operation Theatre for surgery. Jaslok Hospital has no CCTV cameras installed in the Operation Theatre and hence there is no recording and therefore, they are unable to provide footage of the CCTV.  All persons were present for their responsibilities, duties and therefore, the allegations against the Opponent do not find any substance and therefore, we came to the conclusion that there is no deficiency in services or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opponent. We do not find any substance in the complaint, therefore, I  answered point Nos. (1) & (2) in negative.   Hence the complaint is dismissed  with the following order :-

// O R D E R //

1. The complaint stands dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Certified copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.       

         sd/-xxx                                           sd/-xxx

      (Shri. S.R. Sanap)                              (Shri.G.K. Rathod)

        Hon’ble  Member                            Hon’ble President