The son of respondents had met with an accident on account of which he had suffered fracture of the wrist as also injury to the lungs. He was treated at the appellant/opposite party-hospital where x-ray chest, x-ray ribs, x-ray skull, x-ray abdomen were conducted. On the next day sonography was done which suggested bilateral plural effusion (large amount on left side) and ascitis (haemo penitonicum) likely due to liver tear. The patient was operated on the wrist by reduction method. On the next day on 18.6.1996 Dr. Dixit did plural and peritoneal tapping between 2.00 p.m. to 4.00 p.m. and also effort was made to aspirate the effusion but it was not successful. The patient ultimately died on account of respiratory arrest in the evening of 18.6.1996. The post mortem report suggested that the cause of death was injury to the right lung and the accumulation of blood was found to the extent of 350 ml. to 400 ml. on the right side lung where there was a small injury.

          The complainant-respondent approached the State Commission for compensation and the State Commission has awarded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as against the hospital and the complaint as against opposite parties Nos. 2 to 4 doctors of the hospital was dismissed. The said amount was to carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint. This order is subject matter of challenge in this appeal.  

We have heard counsel appearing on both sides. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that in view of the clear findings of the State Commission that the opposite parties are not guilty of negligence, the State Commission erred in coming to the conclusion that the deficiency of service was apparent in order to fix responsibility on the hospital. He also pointed out that even though efforts were made to aspirate the effusion from the lung but no effusion could be aspirated. He also pointed out that the condition of the patient throughout was satisfactory and did not give any indication of any impending danger to the said patient. He, therefore, contends that the appeal be allowed and the order of the State Commission be set aside.

          On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted before us that sonography was delayed for more than 24 hrs. and even after the report of sonography had shown that there was bilateral plural effusion on the left side and there was injury to the liver no proper treatment was given for the same which ultimately led to the death of the patient. He also pointed out that not only no fluid was aspirated but no further sonography was done in order to find out the position of the bilateral plural effusion. He also pointed out that the fact that no bilateral plural could be aspirated would go to show that either the method adopted was not proper or the part of the affected lung was not tapped for the purpose of aspiration.  According to him the death had resulted on account of improper treatment of the patient in so far as lungs and liver is concerned which led to respiratory arrest. He also pointed out that even the attempt to aspirate bilateral plural effusion was delayed for more than 24 hrs. and the attempt was made only between 2.00 to 4.00 p.m. and the patient had ultimately died on account of respiratory arrest at 7.50 p.m. He, therefore, contends that the order of the State Commission does not call for any interference whatsoever.

          Admittedly, the patient had suffered injury to the lung as also to his liver. Though ex-ray was done of various parts of the body yet no sonography was done till about 3.25 p.m. on the next day. It was only during the sonography test that the bilateral plural effusion in large amount was found in the left side of the lung. Dr. Dixit had made an attempt to remove fluid but the attempt was not successful. Why the said attempt was not successful has not explained? The post mortem report shows that there was accumulation of blood in the liver of the patient and there was small injury to the right lung and blood was oozing out. The accumulation of blood was to the extent 350 ml. to 400 ml. at the right side of the lung and the cause of death was injury to the right lung. The post mortem ruled out injury being caused due to ryles tube as suggested by the appellant. In fact, there was considerable and fatal delay on the part of the appellant hospital for not conducting urgent sonography which had revealed injury to the liver and lung and accumulation of blood in the chest. Thus, there has been clear deficiency of service on the part of the hospital authorities in not properly attending, treating and diagnosing for the purpose of proper and effective treatment.  The doctors who treated the patient are employees of the appellant hospital. On account of delay in conducting sonography, internal bleeding persisted resulting into respiratory arrest on account of which the patient had died.

          In the aforesaid facts, we do not find that any case has been made out for interference with the order of the State Commission. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.