Back
`UNION TERRITORY CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava, President; Mrs.
Devinderjit Dhatt & Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor, Members,
JAGTAR SINGH—Appellant
versus
POST GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH & ORS.—Respondents
Appeal Case No. 520 of 2003—Decided on 9.3.2004
For the Appellant :Mr. Attar Singh Gulia, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1:Mr. Rohit Sapra and H.S. Awasthi, Advocates.
For the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3: None.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the standard of care expected from medical professionals and the liability for medical negligence.
Headnote:
Medical Negligence - Medical Treatment - [Consumer Dispute, Medical Negligence, Compensation] - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 14(1)] - The court discussed the medical negligence in the treatment of the deceased, the conflicting diagnoses, and the standard of care expected from medical professionals. The court highlighted the importance of accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment, and ruled in favor of the complainant, awarding compensation for medical negligence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant's son was allegedly not properly treated at a medical institute, leading to his death. The appellant filed a complaint seeking compensation for medical negligence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there were considerable differences in the diagnosis and treatment, indicating medical negligence on the part of the respondents. The court ruled in favor of the appellant, awarding compensation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the medical professionals were negligent in their treatment of the deceased and if the complainant was entitled to compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the conflicting diagnoses and the eventual ruling out of Rabies indicated medical negligence. The court emphasized the importance of accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the complaint was allowed. The respondents were directed to pay compensation and costs of litigation to the complainant.
Mr. Justice K.K. Srivastava, President—This is an appeal filed against order dated 2.6.2003 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum] in Complaint Case No. 1199 of 1998, Jagtar Singh v. P.G.I., Chandigarh and 2 Others. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint on the ground that the appellant/complainant has not been able to prove medical negligence on the part of O.Ps. in the treatment of his own son Shri Rakesh Kumar (since deceased). The appellant filed the complaint in the District Forum alleged, inter alia, as under:
2. Shri Rakesh Kumar, since deceased, was suffering from fever and he was taken by the appellant to Barnala Nursing Home, Cheeka in Kaithal District in the State of Haryana and there he was examined by Dr. Ranbir Bansal at a Nursing Home who prescribed some medicines and diagnosed that Shri Rakesh Kumar was suffering from dog bite/Rabies. Dr. Ranbir Bansal referred the son of the appellant to Rajindra Hospital at Patiala where doctors did not handle the case due to lack of facilities in the hospital. The appellant, thereafter, brought his son Shri Rakesh Kumar in the night of 9.7.1998 to the Hospital situated in Sector 22, Chandigarh for treatment of Rabies. The doctors at Sector 22 Hospital, Chandigarh were of the opinion that Shri Rakesh Kumar was not suffering from Rabies as he was drinking water. The complainant ultimately brought his son Shri Rakesh Kumar to the emergency wing of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter referred to as the PGI) where he reached about 10.30 p.m. Shri Rakesh Kumar was attended by Dr. Uppal and Dr. Bharat Kumar Gupta who examined him. After laboratory test of blood and corneal smear, the aforesaid doctors diagnosed that Shri Rakesh Kumar was suffering from tuberculosis and informed the appellant that a treatment of minimum six months was required with admission in the hospital for at least three months. After indoor treatment in the hospital, the patient will have to take medicine at home and then he would be all right. On 10.7.1998 at about 10.00 a.m., the doctors at PGI got x-ray and blood test of Shri Rakesh Kumar and reported that he was not suffering from tuberculosis as earlier detected by Dr. Uppal and Dr. Bharat Kumar Gupta. At about 3 p.m., Shri Rakesh Kumar was referred to Borstal ward of PGI and a bottle of glucose was administered along with some other medicines. At about 6 p.m. the same day, doctors without conducting further laboratory test came to the conclusion that the patient was suffering from Rabies and there was no treatment of the said disease. A skin test was also done the same day at PGI, which showed that Shri Rakesh Kumar was not suffering from Rabies. The condition of Shri Rakesh Kumar started deteriorating and became worse and ultimately Shri Rakesh Kumar died on 11.7.1998.
3. The grievance of the appellant/complainant was that the death of his son was caused due to wrong diagnosis and wrong treatment/medicines. Shri Rakesh Kumar died thus due to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. The complainant prayed for award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 4 lacs, which included expenses on the medicines also.
4. Notices were issued to the O.Ps. who filed reply and contended, inter alia, that Shri Rakesh Kumar (since deceased) was promptly attended by a team of doctors in the emergency wing of PGI on 8.7.1998 and they carried out all possible investigations and treatment. The out-patient card showed that the deceased was brought to PGI on 8.7.1998 and not on 9.7.1998 as was alleged in the complaint. The patient Shri Rakesh Kumar had a history of fever and dog bite and was afraid of water and used to cough out water and he could drink only the small quantity of water with the help of attendants. The cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) test and blood test were carried out. The CSF test showed elevati
