Punjab

StateCommission

A/11/143

Mehta Hospital - Complainant(s)

Versus

Usha Rani - Opp.Party(s)

Vaibhav Narang

14 May 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   First Appeal No.143 of 2011

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 24.01.2011

                                                          Date of Decision : 14.05.2015

 

1.       Mehta Hospital, through its owner Dr.Sunny Kumar Mehta &      Dr.Shweta Mehta, Main Road, Khanauri Mandi, District Sangrur,       Punjab.

                                                         

2.       United India Insurance Company Limited 54, Janpath, Connaught        Place, New Delhi 110001                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     …..Appellants/Opposite parties.

                                      Versus

 

1.       Usha Rani W/o Balraj Kumar R/o Ward No.1, Khanauri Mandi     Tehsil Moonak, District Sangrur.

 

2        Balraj Kumar S/o Jagroop Singh R/o Ward No.1, Khanauri Mandi,        Tehsil Moonak, District Sangrur.

3.       Arya Spiral C.T Scan Center and Maternity Home, through its Owner Dr.Vijay Kumar and Dr.Kiran V. Kumar Pehowa Chowk, District Kaithal. Haryana.

                                                          …..Respondents /Complainants

         

First Appeal against order dated 19.11.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur

Quorum:-

 

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.

          Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member

 

Present:-

 

 

          For the appellant                       :         Sh.Vaibhav Narang, Advocate

          For the respondent nos.1 & 2     :         None.

          For the respondent no.3.           :         None 

 

 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

 

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellants (the Opposite parties in the complaint) have directed this appeal against the respondents no.1 and 2 of this appeal (the complainants in the complaint), challenging order dated 19.11.2010 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Sangrur, accepting the complaint of the complainant and directing the OP No.1  to pay Rs.1,00,000/- and OP No.2 was also directed to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% from the date of order till the actual payment with further direction the OP No.1 Dr. Shweta Mehta to claim reimbursement thereof, as per terms and conditions of the Professional Indemnity Policy. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the OP No.1 now appellant.

2.      The complainant No.1 Usha Rani and complainant no.2 Balraj Kumar have filed the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that complainant no.1 Usha Rani was pregnant and was under the treatment of OP No.1. The previous medical slip of the treatment, which was two month earlier and of ultrasound report, which was conducted on the advice of OP No.1 is annexed. OP No.1 knew very well about the condition of the pregnancy of the complainant Usha Rani. The complainant Usha Rani experienced labour pain on 06.05.2010 early in the morning at 5.30 am and she was taken to OP No.1 hospital, in as much as she was under treatment of Dr. Shweta Mehta and Dr. Sunny Mehta thereat. She was admitted and given assurance that her delivery would be quite normal and child is safe in the womb, but her labour pain did not stopped till 1.00 pm and child was dead in the womb of the complainant no.1 due to injection or other treatment administered by OP No.1 to her. The complainant Usha Rani had to face huge pain and swelling on account of infection in the womb or over all her body. She was referred by OP No.1 Mehta Hospital at 1.00 pm to OP No.2 at their clinic at Kaithal. On account of complication and reaching the alarming situation, the complainant reached at 2.00 pm at the Arya Spiral CT Scan Centre and Maternity Home, Pehowa Chowk, Kaithal (Haryana) on account of referral slip of OP No.1. She was admitted and ultrasound test was conducted on her and it was found that child was dead in the womb of complainant Usha Rani. OP No.2 suggested the complainant to go in for operation, Dr. Kiran V.Kumar and Dr. Vijay Kumar treated the patient Usha Rani thereat. They operated the complainant Usha Rani at 9.00 pm. They also committed negligence, while conducting the operation of the complainant Usha Rani. Three-four stitches were broken of the womb of the complainant and due to that reason, she was not feeling properly and her womb became full of infections and huge pain was there. Doctor of OP No.2 admitted the complainant till 12.05.2010 in the hospital and on the same day, she was discharged with the assurance that she would be OK and she would not face the problem in further. After 2-3 days from her discharge, Usha Rani became infectious again and started running high temperature and she was feeling uncomfortable and was admitted for four days. The doctor felt that they were negligent in stitching  and the operation created problem in the body of Usha Rani and her condition thereby became critical. Doctor of OP No.2 wanted Usha Rani to be referred to Rohtak Medical College, but complainant no.2 brought the patient Usha Rani at PGI on 24.05.2010 at 12.00 pm. The complainant no.2 spent Rs.50,000/- on the treatment of complainant no.1 Usha Rani in the clinic of OP No.2. Usha Rani was admitted at PGI Chandigarh on 25.05.2010  and doctor of PGI told that condition of patient Usha Rani became critical, as there were many stitches in her womb , which were broken during the operation conducted by the doctor at hospital of Arya Spiral CT Scan Centre and womb of the patient was fully infected and she was not able to take normal breath with the oxygen. The doctors conducted the operation of the patient Usha Rani on 26.05.2010 successfully, but they declared that she would not be able to be pregnant again. The complainants have, thus, filed the present complaint claiming compensation of Rs.13 lacs for negligence on the part of OPs, Rs.1,50,000/- with interest thereupon and Rs.50,000/- for compensation for the mental harassment faced by them and Rs.21,000/- as costs of litigation.

3.      Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed separate written reply and contested the claim of the complainant vehemently. It was averred in preliminary objections that the complaint has been filed on groundless basis. Any negligence by OP No.1 was vehemently denied in the written reply filed by them. It was further pleaded that there is no cause of action with complainant to file the present complaint. It was further contended that the patient Usha Rani was properly examined, investigated and on request, first aid was given by OP No.1 to her as per the prescribed standard norms of general practice, which are mentioned in the text-books and journals. She was referred for ultrasound test without losing any time. The doctors of OP No.1 hospital are qualified  doctors with good repute and adequate experience in providing First Aid. Doctor of OP No.1 hospital examined and diagnosed Usha Rani patient carefully and referred her to higher centre after giving her first aid only. The patient Usha Rani was seen and given first aid by Dr. Sweta Mehta and the latter was duly insured with United India Insurance Company Limited under Professional Indemnity Policy No. 040100/46/09/35/00003879  valid for the period from 04.12.2009 to 03.12.2010. The complaint was resisted even on merits by the OPs. It was furtheraverred that the complainant Usha Rani came to Mehta Hospital on 06.05.2010  at about 8.30 AM with the complaint of sever pain and bleeding per vaginal having pregnancy of 6.5 -7 months. She was examined by Dr. Shweta Mehta, who found that her uterus was contralep and foetus heart was not audible and BP was 100/70. Dr. Shweta Mehta explained the serious condition of the complainant Usha Rani to the attendants with the advice to get the ultrasound test. In view of the  condition of the patient, Dr. Shweta, after getting written consent of Usha Rani and the mother-in-law of the patient , gave First Aid treatment and injections i.e. Drotin, injection Dwadilan and injection Pause and referred her to Arya C.T Scan Centre & Maternity Home Kaithal for getting her ultrasound test. Any medical negligence on the  part of the OP No.1 was vehemently denied on the ground that OP No.1 only gave First Aid to Usha Rani Patient and it prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

4.      OP No.2 was set exparte before District Forum, vide order dated 06.08.2010.

5.      The complainant tendered in evidence, the affidavit of Usha Rani Ex.C-1, copy of ration card Ex.C-2, copy of voter card of Usha Devi Ex.C-3, treatment slip of Mehta Hospital/OP No.1, copy of Ultrasound report Ex.C-5, copy of prescription slip of OP No.2 dated 24.05.2010 Ex.C-6, detail of slip of bills Ex.C-7, copies of receipts of bills Ex.C-7-A to Ex.C-7-B, copy of OPD Card of PGI Chandigarh Ex.C-8, copy of general receipt dated 25.5.2010 Ex.C-9, copy of test receipt dated 26.5.2010 Ex.C-10, copy of bill of medicines for Rs.5680/-purchased by Usha Rani from Consumer Medical Hall Ex.C-11, copy of another bill regarding purchase of medicines  for Rs.5680/- Ex.C-12, copies of test reports of PGI Chadigarh Ex.C-13 to Ex.C-17, copy of bill regarding purchase of medicines by Usha Rani from  Consumer Medical Hall Ex.C-18, copy of receipt of PGI Ex.C-19, copy of bill regarding purchase of medicines by Usha Rani from Super Chemists for Rs.397/- Ex.C-20, copy of purchase of medicines for Rs.2426/- by Usha Rani from Consumer Medical Hall Ex.C-21, another bills regarding purchase of medicines by Usha Rani from Super Chemists Ex.C-22 to Ex.C-25, copy of bills regarding purchase of medicines from Goyal Chemists by Usha Rani complainant Ex.C-26 to Ex.C-27, another copies of bills regarding purchase of medicines from Usha Rani from Ex.C-28 to Ex.C-32, copy of ward receipt Ex.C-33, copy of bill from PGI Ex.C-34, copy of bill from Kumar Brother Ex.C-35 to Ex.C-36, copy of PGI OPD Card Ex.C-37, copy of letter addressed by complainant Usha Rani to Deputy Commissioner Sangrur Ex.C-38, affidavit of Balraj Kumar Ex.C-39, affidavit of Rani Devi Ex.C-40, affidavit of Rajinder Singh Ex.C-41, affidavit of Jarnail Singh Ex.C-42, affidavit of Surjit Singh Ex.C-43.  As against it, OPs tendered in evidence the affidavit of Dr.Shweta Mehta Ex.R-1, affidavit of Jasbir Singh Ex.R-2, affidavit of Balkar Singh Ex.R-3, copy of indoor patient register Ex.R-4, copy of treatment chart of Mehta Hospital Ex.R-5, copy of prescription register Ex.R-6, copy of policy of United India Insurance Company Limited Ex.R-7. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Sangrur, accepted the complaint of the complainant and directing the OP No.1 to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and OP No.2  to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to complainant  along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till its actual realization with further direction that the OP No.1 Dr. Shweta Mehta might ask for reimbursement from United India Insurance Company Limited as per terms and conditions of the Professional Indemnity Policy. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Sangrur, the instant appeal has been preferred against the same by OP No.1 now appellant.

16.    We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have also examined the record of the case, whereas none has appeared on behalf of respondents in this case before us at the time of arguments.

 17.   The submission raised by counsel for the appellants is that  the District Forum fastened the liability on OP No.1 by saddling them with compensation primarily on the ground that they are not qualified allopathic doctors. The emphatic submission of counsel for the appellants is that even BAMS are qualified to practice alopathy branch of medicine. He referred to memo no.21/19/2004-HB7/11124 dated 18.06.2004 issued by the Government of Punjab, Department of Health and Family Welfare in this regard.  The counsel for the appellant further submitted that Dr. Shweta Mehta has received three months clinical experience in  Gynaecology and Obstetrics Department and Maintenance of clinical records and she was thus competent to deal with such type of cases. On this account, there is no negligence on the part of the Dr. Shweta Mehta/OP No.1 in this case. We have examined the entire material on the record and the copy of registration certificate of Dr. Shweta Mehta  in Ayurvedic  and Unani system of medicines  is on the record. She has been registered under Punjab Ayurvedic and Unani Act 1963 as practitioners. The submission is that under Section 19(a) of Punjab Ayurvedic and Unani Act 1963 Dr. Shweta Mehta is entitled to perform duty as Medical Practitioner. It was further contended that there is no such medical negligence on her part in this case, taking  this point separately even from the evidence on the record.  We find that there are circumstances on the record, which points out the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 in this case. Dr. Shweta Mehta was not as much qualified doctor as a regular Gynaecologist, she had been treating Usha Rani complainant , for her pregnancy, when her pregnancy was only seven months old. Usha Rani felt abdomenal and bleeding per vaginal and she  reported to OP No.1/Dr. Shweta Mehta. No ultrasound test was conducted at that time by Dr. Shweta Mehta. Dr. Shweta Mehta administered injections  i.e. Drotin, Dwadilan and Pause to her, as per her own version contained in her written reply. The condition of Usha Rani got worsened therewith after administering of injections and she was referred to OP No.2/Hospital, thereafter for correctional treatment. When there were complications with Usha Rani, then Dr. Shweta Mehta who could not have handled serious gyneacological cases with complications, should have referred the complainant forthwith to higher center but she kept her for some time in the hospital of OP No.2 and rather administered injections to her. No ultrasound test was got conducted on her forthwith so as to save the life of the child in the womb. The plea of the complainant as contained in the complaint is that when the injections were administered to her, they led to  worsening of her condition and she was taken to OP No.2/Hospital. Even otherwise, Dr. Shweta Mehta on her prescription slip represented herself as a qualified gyneacologist, whereas actually she has neither done MBBS nor MD in Gyneacology, so as to be called as Gyneacologist. On account of serious complications faced by Usha Rani, she was not property attended even at OP No.2/Hospital and ultimately was referred to PGI Chandigarh, where she had to spend a lot of money on her treatment. Usha Rani was rather kept admitted at hospital of OP No.1 instead of immediately referring her to higher center by OP No.1 when she was bleeding and there was pain in her abdomen as well due to pregnancy. OP No.1 preferred to get the written consent of Usha Rani and her mother in law in this regard,  instead of referring her to higher center forthwith. Some delay has been committed by OP No.1 in referring Usha Rani to the higher center, which further worsened her condition enroute thereto. Admittedly, there was no complete infrastructure in the hospital of OP No.1, which is generally available in the hospital of well qualified Gyneacologist, so OP No.1 preferred to admit her in the hospital for some time and thereby caused the delay in her appropriate treatment and all these circumstances lead us to the conclusion that there is negligence on the part of OP No.1 in this case as well, when the condition of the Usha Rani was deteriorating and OP No.1 was not equipped with proper facilities and infrastructure to handle her, therefore, there was no question of admitting her in the hospital and keeping her there and thereby to cause delay to save her life. The complainant was referred to PGI Chandigarh, when matter was out of their control and capacity only and by that time, much delay had already occurred, which further worsened the condition of the child in the womb and Usha Rani.

18.    As a result of our above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the order of the District Forum awarding compensation of Rs.1 lac to complainant Usha Rani against OP No.1 now appellant is quite justified and reasonable one. We find no ground to interfere therewith in this appeal. So far as the award of compensation by OP No.2 is concerned, no such appeal has been preferred against the award by OP No.2 before us nor there is any other argument raised by any other party in this appeal and hence we affirm the order of the District Forum under challenge in this case and we hereby dismiss the appeal of the appellants.  

19.    The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25000/- at the time of filing the appeal, vide receipt dated 24.1.2011 and Rs.25,000/-, vide receipt dated 07.03.2011. These amounts with interest, if any, accrued thereon be refunded by the registry to the complainant Usha Rani by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after  45 days from receipt of copy of this order. Remaining amount as per order of the District Forum shall be paid by the appellants/OPs to the complainant with 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

20.    Arguments in this appeal were heard on 07.05.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.

21.    The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

                                                               (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA)

                                                                        MEMBER

 

                       

                                                           (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM)

                                                                          MEMBER

 

May  14    2015.                                                             

(ravi)