DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.617/2006
1. Ms. Alka Chaudhary
W/o Col. V. S. Chaudhary (Retd.)
2. Col. V. S. Chaudhary (Retd.)
Both R/o
Flat No.3103, Q Block, Devinder Vihar,
Sector-56, Gurgaon, Haryana ….Complainants
Versus
Vidya Sagar Institute of Mental
Health & Neurosciences,
through its Director,
No.1, Institutional Area,
Nehru Nagar, New Delhi-110065 ……Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 13.12.06 Date of Order : 17.09.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Initially the complaint was filed before the State Commission and registered as complaint No.157/2005. Vide order dated 16.02.2006, the State Commission sent the matter to this Forum by observing that the compensation in any case will not exceed Rs.20 lacs.
Briefly stated, the case of the Complainants is that Complainants admitted their son deceased Revant Chaudhary who was 18 years old in the OP hospital on 18.08.2003. Revant Chaudhary was a patient of acute psychosis with substance dependence because he had a tendency of committing suicide due to his medical condition and he was suffering from depression under the treatment of consultant Sh. Jitender Nagpal. During the admission of their son they were not able to stay in the hospital as attendant and the attendant was provided by the hospital and OP had stated that they will take complete charge and care of their son and they do not permit or encourage outside visitors/relatives in the case of an indoor patient and the family members had to seek prior permission to meet the patient; that for this purpose their hospital claimed to provide attendants 24 hours for these patients and they charged for this service. They agreed to the said terms and conditions of the OP to pay for their charges as their son will be looked after properly and get proper treatment. At the time of discharge of their son on 29.09.03 they were directed to again visit the hospital on 05.11.03 for check up and a sum of Rs.1,39,747/- was paid for the treatment. On 05.11.03 on reaching the OP hospital they met Doctor Bhuttan (Dr. Nagpal’s assistant) as to what they had decided about their son. They replied that the doctor will advice what was better for their son. The doctor advised them to admit their son for about 48 hours for extensive counseling and after this the patient will be discharged. As per the advice of the doctor they admitted their son in the hospital for second time and paid Rs.2000/- and the doctor advised them to take prior appointment from Dr. Nagpal before coming to meet their son. On 10.11.2003 they took the appointment from Dr. Nagpal and met him and he allowed them to meet their son. Their son had spoken and told to her (perhaps complainant No. 1) “this time I would sneak out so cleverly from this place (the hospital) that no one even come to know”. Thereafter they met Dr. Nagpal and requested for providing him extra security and precaution and told him about the words spoken by their son. However, Dr. Nagpal assured them that they do not worry about the security of their son in the OP hospital. As per the practice of Complainant No.1 she used to call two times daily in the ward to the attendant. On 11.11.03 when the Complainant rang up in the ward at about 10 a.m. the receptionist informed her that the patient was okay and had gone for a walk with the attendant. On the same day, the Complainant No.1 again phoned to talk to the attendant who informed that their son did not go for morning walk and was sleeping. At about 4:45 p.m. on the same i.e. 11.11.03 some officials of the OP hospital telephoned at their residence stating that their son was missing from the hospital. After coming to know about this, they informed their relatives and family friends and thereafter proceeded to hospital for further search of their missing son. At about 9:30 p.m. when the Complainants were passing from Dhaula Kuan where they had earlier been residing they came across a crowd near the Railway Crossing behind Dhaula Kuan Part-II and discovered to their shocks the body of their son on the Railway Tracks and the police was already present at the spot and conducting enquiry in the case. The post-mortem of their son was conducted in AIIMS on 12.11.03 and thereafter the body was delivered to them. The Complainants have stated that their son was brilliant student of one of the leading school i.e. Delhi Army Public school and had excellent record in sport and other curriculum activities; he participated in various competitions including the inter school health quiz completion. He was a dependent member of Army Golf Course. Due to negligence of the OP their son committed suicide; if the OP had taken reasonable care in discharging its duties such an accident would not have happened. Due to sudden demise of their son the Complainant No.2 was hospitalized several times. The Complainant No.1 has stated that they had filed W.P. (Crl.) No.541 of 04 for registration of an FIR against the OP. The High Court directed the State to investigate the matter and register an FIR against OP on 30.08.05. Hence, pleading medical negligent on the part of OP and pleading that rule of res ipsa loquitur applies to the facts of the case, the complaint has been filed with the following reliefs:-
- Direct the OP to pay Rs.24 lacs alognwith 18% interest from the date of death of their son as detailed in para No.15 of the complaint.
OP in the written statement has stated that the Complainants’ son was admitted earlier on 18.08.03 for Poly Substance Abuse with Psychotic Features (Marijuna, opoid) and was discharged on 29.09.03. As per the medical records the patient had no tendencies to commit suicide; rather he was aggressive, defiant and hostile towards patients, hospital staffs and constantly demanded ‘drugs’ for addiction. Before formally admitting it was clarified to the attendants of all involuntary admissions in Psychiatric wards with OP are not meant to confine patient by force. It is further submitted that inspite of precautions, occasionally patient do abscond from the hospital premises and it is always advised that a family member stays with the patient during involuntary admissions. Reference has been made to Para 18 of the Undertaking of Hospital Rules and Regulations but, however, if due to personal circumstances the family did not want or could not stay they hired private attendants. In this case family (complainants) of their own convenience suitable to cope with the behaviour as notified by Complainant No.2 they (complainants) hired private attendant from M/s Gurdev Nursing Attendants Bureau W-2, 315P, Gali No.18, Sant Nagar, Delhi; that the agency was private and independent and relatives had direct dealing for e.g. hiring, contract with the bureau including payments made directly to the agency by relatives. The OP does not provide 24 hours attendant. It is the responsibly of the family to stay with the patient or hire attendant from the private agencies. On review on 05.11.03 as per the case history the Complainants’ son had again started drugs soon after discharge from the hospital. He became aggressive and violent. While admitting him again in OP Hospital no assurance was ever made by Dr. Nagpal in any manner whatsoever. The attendant and security aspect are the sole responsibly of the family and the hospital is not to be blamed in this regard. On 11.11.03 onwards 1630 hrs. patient absconded from the hospital. Soon after search was started which proved futile and subsequently family and police were informed accordingly as per protocol. No doubt the death of the son of the Complainants was unfortunate but was in no way on account of any negligent or deficiency on the part of OP. Prolong sickness with which the deceased was suffering had developed psychotic disorder and the loss to the family is indeed unfortunate. The Complainants had filed a writ petition which was also based on mis-statements and the proceedings in this regard. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special cost.
Complainants have filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP and stated that on the advice and directions of Dr. Nagpal, they hired the services of the attendant from M/s Gurdev Nursing Attendants Bureau. The doctor had also advised them that when they had hired the services of the attendant, there was no need for stay of any of the family members in the hospital. However, they did not know about the agency of providing the attendants and it was the doctors and Administration Branch of the hospital who made all the arrangements for the same and not the Complainants. It is submitted that the complainants had hired the services of M/s Gurdev Nursing Attendants Bureau at the advice, recommendations and directions of the Hospital authorities and the charges for the same were also deposited with the Opposite party. Regarding rules and regulations of the OP, it is stated that “at the time, the relations of the patient were/are not in a position to understand the complicated and intricated rules and regulations of hospital authority or the terms used therein to take a shifting stand subsequently; on the contrary the hospital authority put any document before him, the innocent relatives signs the same without comprehending the contents implications as a layman”. The case is based on careless and negligence and providing deficient service by the OP to the Complainants and they are not claiming the compensation for sympathy from the OP as their son was admitted under the care and custody of the doctors and the attendant provided by M/s Gurdev Nursing Attendant Bureau under an agreement between the hospital and the said private agency which provided the attendants on payment to all such patients.
Complainant No.2 has filed his affidavit in evidence whereas affidavit of Dr. (Gen.) R. P. Arora, Chief Administrator has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties. We have also gone through the file very carefully.
It is not in dispute that the Complainants’ son was admitted in the hospital of OP twice. During the second time he was admitted on 09.11.03. The Complainants signed the rules and regulations of the OP hospital wherein in clause 18 it is mentioned that “It is to be understood that Psychiatry wards are not meant to confine patients using force. In spite of precautions occasional patients do abscond from hospital premises. In the case of disturbed patients it may be compulsory for relative or a paid attendant to be with the patient at all times. It is advisable that the relatives stay with the patient for the first few days of if the consultant doctor so advises” (copy Ex. CW1/6). The Complainants have filed the bill dated 29.09.03 wherein it is clearly mentioned that the attendant charges for 42 days @ Rs.320/- per day for Rs.13600/- was charged by the OP hospital (copy Ex. CW1/2). Ex. CW1/3 is the copy of the receipt whereby Rs. 13600/- was paid to Gurdev Nursing Attendants Bureau for attendant charges in respect of the son of the complainants. It also bears the signatures of the Administrative Officer and Dr,. Jitender Nagpal of OP Hospital. However in bill Ex. CW1/2 the following endorsement has been made in hand:
“Attendant charges for 42 days @ Rs. 320/- per day for Rs. 13600/- is enclosed in addition to the above bill amount to Rs. 134517.30/- reduced to Rs. 124147.30/- after relevant discount.”
It shows that the payment to the Bureau was made separately and was not charged by the OP.
In view of the above, it is evident from the records that the Complainants had themselves appointed an attendant as advised by the OP for their son to take care in the hospital. Inspite of precaution, the Complainants’ son absconded from the hospital premises and committed suicide. There is no evidence on the record (the previous medical record of the Complainants’ son) that he had the tendencies to commit suicide. He was aggressive, defiant and hostile towards the patients, hospital staff and constantly demanded drugs for addiction and he was admitted in psychiatric ward at OP hospital. The Complainants had appointed the attendant as per their convenience and sweet will and it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the OP has committed any medical negligence towards the patient. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not all applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, the Complainants have failed to prove any medical negligence on the part of the OP. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
Announced on 17.09.2016.
Case No. 617/06
17.9.2016
Present – None
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
