Haryana

Ambala

CC/227/2017

Amar Nath - Complainant(s)

Versus

Union of India - Opp.Party(s)

Tarum kumar Kalra

21 Aug 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

             Complaint Case No.      : 227 of 2017

  Date of Institution         : 10.07.2017

              Date of Decision            : 21.08.2018

 

Amar Nath son of Sh.Bachua, Retired COS age 70 years Resident of House No.10/76, Chander Puri Colony, Near DRM Office, Ambala Cantt.

……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1.       Union of India, through the General Manager, Northern Railway, Headquarter Office, Baroda House, New Delhi.

2.       The Chief Medical Director, Northern Railway, Headquarter Office, Baroda House, New Delhi.

3.       The Additional Chief Medical Superintendent, Divisional Hospital, Northern  Railway, Ambala Cantt.

4.       The Divisional Rail Manager (D.R.M.), Northern Railway, Ambala Cantt.

5.       Sh.Om Parkash Patni (DMO/UMB), Orthopedic Doctor Posted at Railway Hospital, Ambala Cantt.

6.       Mrs.Nutan Kumari, Nurse, Posted at Railway Hospital, Ambala Cantt.

 

                                                                   ……Opposite Parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                  

Present:       Sh.Tarun Kalra, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh.Jaipal Sharma, counsel for OP Nos. 1 to 4.                                          OP Nos.5 & 6 exparte.

 

ORDER

 

                   The facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is ex-employee of Railways and the department of railways had deducted a sum of Rs.12863 vide AB No.1401 of 01.05.2007 for medical card and medical facility from railway hospitals. On 08.06.2012 wife of the complainant namely Smt.Nirmaa felt ill and was brought to railway hospital Ambala Cantt. but the Op No.5 and 6 being doctor and nurse did not attend her properly despite knowing the fact that she was heart patient, sugar and high blood pressure and left her abandoned without any treatment, test and checking. After half an hour the complainant, his sons and daughter put Smt.Nirmala (wife of the complainant) on wheel chair to take her in  ICU  (Intensive Care Unit) but the lift of the hospital was out of order and all the doors of the ramps of ICU were locked and no worker/employee of the hospital helped them. After about 15-20 minutes the lock of the doors were opened but due to delay and negligence the condition of patient become critical and then in ICU Op No.6 put the oxygen mask on the face of the patient and started and two-three injections were injected on the body of patient and thereafter Op Nos.5 & 6 went to sleep leaving the patient in ICU and when the condition of patient got worst then they did not properly attend her. It came to the knowledge of complainant that OP No.5 is an Orthopedic and due to this reason he was unaware about the condition of patient and even did not refer her either to PGI or other higher institute but lateron they had prepared fabricated and false medical record after destroying the original medical record and did not disclose her serious condition. Due to contributory negligence of OPs the wife of the complainant died at about 4 AM. The complainant moved an application to set up medical board and to take necessary action against negligent persons on 11.06.2012, 25.07.2012, 28.07.2012, 13.08.2012, 30.08.2012, 20.10.2012 and 18.11.2012 but only the enquiry was entrusted to Dr.Ateek Ahmed, who in his report dated 23.07.2012 accepted and there was negligence on the part of OP Nos.5 & 6. The Chief Medical Director, Northern Railways, New Delhi/OP No.2 also accepted the negligence of railway. The wife of the complainant died due to negligence on the part of Op Nos.5 & 6 working under the control of Op Nos. 1 to 4. He got legal notice upon the Ops but to no avail. The act and conduct of the OPs clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  In evidence the complainant has tendered affidavits Annexure CX, Annexure CY, Annexure CZ and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C48.

2.                          On notice OPs appeared and filed their joint reply wherein it has been submitted that the above said facility was free of costs to the railway employees, their family members and dependent relatives of Group A, B, C and D vide para No.602 of IRMM-2000. The complainant had brought his wife Nirmala to the hospital on 08.06.2012 at 02.30 hours for treatment with history of difficulty in breathing for last 4-5 hours. The patient was examined in casualty and admitted in ICU for treatment. The patient was attended by the doctor on duty thrice and administered oxyzen & medicines but despite all efforts she collapsed at 03.45 Hours. All efforts towards cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) to revive the patient proved futile and she was declared dead at 04.30 hour in ICU but due to said news the complainant and his family members started shouted and abusing the staff and apprehensive physical assault and called Additional Chief Medical Superintendent, Ambala. A fact finding enquiry was conducted and during the enquiry Sh.Bharat Lal ACMS/ Ambala opined that entire episode took place within one and half hours span of time and within this period, treatment given by the treating doctor was adequate in nature.  Sh.Bharat Lal is a chest specialist and he had found that the treating doctor was not at fault. Further an enquiry was conducted by Dr.Attek Ahamd, Physician NRDH/UMB when a formal complaint was received from complainant. The complainant does not come under the purview of complainant. The patient was admitted in ICU at 03.15 AM & pulse and blood pressure recording was done. Shifting a patient to bed, examining her, initiating first aid and completing hospital records etc. does not happened at a blink of eye. The term properly has been used without elucidation as to what more needed to be done to make the examination proper. In the enquiry it was held that the Nurse on duty gave all the treatment prescribed by the doctor in the case file.  In ICU other patients were also admitted and the nurse had to take care of other patients as well. Since the patient was restless and taking off oxyzen mask, the relatives were told to take care of mask and she awaked all the time and frequently visited the patient and called the doctor on duty twice to see the patient. The patient was diabetic, therefore, random blood sugar test was done and recorded and when the condition of the patient did not improve, Trop-T test was done and recorded in the case file. All these tests were done with a drop of a blood. In emergency only, the essential tests are done to get the urgent information. Any MBBS doctor is qualified to give treatment to a patient in a similar condition as the patient was in this case. The treatment was given to the patient is a part of MBBS curriculum and OP No.5 was competent to give such treatment in emergency situation like this as first priority in any emergency is to provide basic life support, stabilize the physical condition and complete urgent test. It is denied that the OPs were having any knowledge of her being a heart patient. As per record, the patient was suffering from hypertension, diabetes and anxiety. It is denied that medical record was fabricated and false and the original medical record was destroyed.  Referral to PGI/CDG or any other higher institute can only be made after patient is found fit and stable enough to undertake the journey to the referral centre. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the appearing OPs have tendered affidavit Annexure RA and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R9.

3.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file very carefully.

4.                The counsel for the Ops have taken the objection the service rendered by the hospital is free of charges run by railway department so the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and is not covered under sub para (10) of para 55 of judgment Indian Medical Association Vs. V.P.Shantha, 1995 (6) SCC 651.  In the present case the railway department has deducted charges of Rs.12863/- for preparation and enrolment of medical and medical facility from railway hospital for the complainant and his family members and the department had issued the medical card as per Annexure C21 and medical health book Annexure C29 has also been issued, therefore, it is very well established that the complainant is consumer of the Ops and his family members are also covered under the said medical health card issued by railway department. This Forum has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint.

5.                          It is proved on the case file that the complainant being a retired employee of railway department alongith his family members are entitled for the medical facilities from hospital run by railway department as per medical health certificate. On dated 08.06.2012 wife of the complainant seriously ill as she was feeling difficulty in breathing i.e. known case of heart patient. She was immediately shifted to railway hospital i.e. at Ambala Cantt. at about 2.30 A.M.on 08.06.2012 but the doctor on duty Mr.Parkash Patni Op No.5 and Nutam Kumari Nurse Op No.6 saw the medical card and after that doctor after knowing that she is patient of high blood pressure and sugar did not attend the patient properly and left her abandoned outside for half an hour without treatment and after that doctor asked the complainant to brought the patient in ICU and when complainant and his sons put Smt.Nirmala on wheel chair tried to shift the patient in ICU but the lift of the hospital was out of order and all the doors of ICU were locked and no employee of the hospital helped the complainant to shift the patient in ICU. After waiting 20 minutes due to hard efforts of the complainant they opened the lock of the door and patient was shifted to the ICU through ramp. Due to delay in shifting the patient in ICU the condition of the patient become critical and nurse had put the oxygen mask on the face of the patient and started and 2/3 injections were injected but condition of the patient become worst and at about 3.45 A.M. patient died and she was declared dead on 4.30 A.M. due to negligence on the part of the hospital as well as on the part of treating doctor as they have no ECG, Trop T Test and SPO2 done which were very essential to know the condition of the patient and the patient was also not put on multiparamonitor to monitor her vitals and general conditions and even then modified early wearing system score was neither done and the treating doctor and nurse have not explained the critical condition of the patient to the family members.

6.                          On the other hand OPs have alleged that there is no deficiency in service on their part as the patient was attended well in time. The complainant in order to prove this case is relying on the enquiry report conducted on the application of the complainant Annexure C32 and Annexure C33. The enquiry officer has found the following facts:

                   (4)     Hospital attendant shifted the patient on wheel chair from causality to ICU, there was some delay in shifting due to lock door of ramp and both lifts were out of order.

                   (5) Patient reached ICU at 3.15 as per the hospital record of the patient.

                   (12) Patient was collapsed at 3.40 A.M. and expired at 4.30 A.M. as per record of hospital.

                   (13) As per the hospital record patient was follow up case of Type II DM, Diabetic nephropathy, HTN, Anxiety. She was admitted in ICU with the complaint of difficulty in breathing for 4 to 5 hours. Though she was conscious but was dyspnoec and restless her BP was 200/110 mmhg puls 100/mt and random sugar 277 mg/dl as per hospital record of the patient.

                   As per the enquiry report Annexure C39 the doctor Ateek Ahmed Enquiry Officer found the following deficiency:

                   (14) There was no systemic examination findings were written at the time of admission.

                   (15) Though patient was severely dysponec and restless her SPO2 was not recorded.

                   (16)The ECG was not done though it was order in the case file.

                   (17)As per record Trop T was done at 4 A.M. when patient was collapsed as per patient case file.               

                   The complainant is relying upon the above said report and other party has not rebutted the said report by cross-examining the enquiry doctor and the treating doctor/nurse have also not filed their affidavits.

                   On the above said discussion, it is clear that there is deficiency in service on the part of hospital which itself speaks their negligence in treating the wife of the complainant and running their hospital in a casual manner. Life of the person is very precious and nobody can be allowed to play with the life of person coming to the hospital for urgent medical aid. Had hospital and its staff performed their duty well in time as per the medical standard, the life of patient might be saved. In the present case it is established from the report of the enquiry officer, the hospital has treated the patient like animals and allowed to have loss of their lives due to their sheer negligence on the part of the treating doctor/nurse as they have failed to provide the necessary medical aid in time and even they have failed to shift the patient in ICU on stretcher instead of wheel chair.

                             We have come to the conclusion that the OPs are negligent in treating the wife of the complainant and the complainant is entitled for the compensation on this ground.

                             It is admitted fact that the deceased lady was 59 years old as per the treatment record. The complainant has lost his life partner in the age when he was in need of assistance of his partner and his life in the absence of life partner become solitary. Although there is no any reliable evidence with regard to income of the deceased value of the gratuitous services rendered by the deceased were taken Rs.6,000/- per month and applying the multiplier as per the  Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 as per the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, Civil Appeal No.3482 of 2008 decided on 15.04.2009. Accordingly, we accept the complaint of the complainants with cost which is assessed at Rs.5,000/- and loss of the dependency in this case as Rs.2,40,000/-  only (Rs.4,000 x 12 x 5) on account of service being rendered by the deceased to the complainant alongwith sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of love and affection and addition a sum of Rs.20,000/- to complainant  on account of loss of consortium. The OPs directed to pay the awarded amount and to comply with the following directions within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order:-

To pay Rs.2,40,000/-  (Rs.4,000 x 12 x 5) service being rendered by the deceased to the complainant alongwith sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of love and affection and addition a sum of Rs.20,000/- to complainant on account of loss of consortium within 30 days failing which this amount would carry 9 % interest for default period till realization.

 

Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned after due compliance.

 

ANNOUNCED ON:      21.08.2018                                                  Sd/- 

                                                                                                 (D.N. ARORA)

                            PRESIDENT       

         

                     Sd/-

(PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                      MEMBER