Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.K. Gupta,
Presiding Member & Mr. B.K. Taimni, Member
MANJU GARG—Complainant
versus
GOEL HOSPITAL & ANR.—Opposite Parties
Original Petition No. 68 of 1995—Decided on 7.4.2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant :Mr. C.N. Sreekumar, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties :Mr. Salil Paul, Advocate.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 21(a)(i) -Complaint of medical negligence-Hospital not equipped to carry out alleged treatment-No material in support-Rejected.
The second OP was a qualified doctor in orthopaedics and the treatment advised was only plastering of arm there was a plaster room in which such a case is taken up. Thus, all the necessary facilities were available there. Hospital was well equipped even to meet an emergency like what happened in this case including some life saving devices. The plea of complainant does not stand to scrutiny.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 21(a)(i) -Complaint about medical negligence-Fracture of arm-Treatment by close reduction procedure-Allegation of administration of anaesthesia by an unqualified person-Proposed treatment did not require administration of anaesthesia and none was administered-Held, No merit in this allegation.
Allegation of administration of aneasthesia by an unqualified person not proved in absence of pleading and evidence. What was proposed to be done was to carry out the close reduction procedure for which no anaesthesia is required.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 21(a)(i)-Complaint about medical negligence - Non-availability of specialist in time-Record showing that they were there when deceased was still breathing-They tried to revive the deceased but failed-No cross-examination though allowed-Held, no merit in this allegation also.
Both the doctors have stated in their affidavits that they reached when the deceased was still breathing with great difficulty, then all worked together to revive the deceased, but their efforts failed and unfortunately the deceased died. In view of their unrebutted affidavits no plea can be accepted doctors were not there to help to revive the patient.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 21(a)(i)-Complaint about medical negligence-Allegation that medical record is false-No proof-No question put in cross-examination has no force.Point raised in affidavit filed on behalf of complainant alleging that medical record was false and fabricated which was a different version from stand taken in reply to legal notice served on him. There is no other proof except bald statement, plea of complaint stood nullified.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 21(a)(i) -Complaint about medical negligence-Argument that no tests were carried out on the patient at the time of admission-No pre-test done before administering "Fortwin" and Calmpose-No warning of any pre-test-Case of Pencilin distin-guished-No case of wrong exercise of judgment-Held: No merit in these pleas.
If there is more than one option available, exercise of one option by a doctor cannot be said to be a case of medical negligence. In the instant case, based on medical literature and also evidence led as also material on record, it cannot be said that the administering of Fortwin and Calmpose could be faulted in any manner. In the absence of anything to the contrary, there is no merit in the plea taken by the complainants.
Mr. B.K. Taimni, Member— Complainant, Smt. Manju Garg, the widow of the deceased Shri Pawan Kumar Garg, has filed this complaint alleging medical negligence on the part of the opposite party, Goel Hospital and its owner Dr. Mahavir Goyal, 2nd OP, with his hospital at Jagadhari, Haryana.
2. The facts of the case are that the deceased had gone for some work to Jind in connection with his business on 4.11.1994 where on account of some reasons, he sustained injury on his arm where he consulted a local Doctor, who bandaged the arm after which the deceased came back to Jagadhari, the same day.
3. As per complaint, the deceased consulted Dr. Kohli, the same day who, as per material on record advised operation. Perhaps with a view to have a second option, the deceased was taken to the Hospital, 1st OP on 5.11.1994 at about 1.30 a.m, where it is alleged that the 2nd OP took the deceased to the Operation room. After some time the brother and father of the deceased, who had accompanied the deceased, noticed the compounder of the Hospital making frantic efforts to get in touch with another Doctor on phone. On inquiry the brother and father of the deceased were told that after injecting some medicine on the body of the deceased, his condition has become critical. At about 2.30 p.m., the second OP came out of the Operation room and when the relatives of the deceased went inside the operation room, they found Shri Pawan Kumar Garg already dead. Since they were in deep sorrow, autopsy on the body was not performed. After several days of the death of late Pawan Kumar Garg, an F.I.R. was lodged with the Police who started investigation into the matter. Legal notice was also served on the 2nd OP to reply to this notice it is stated that Shri Pawan Kumar Garg when he went to the 1st OP Hospital was in good health. It is alleged that he died on account of the negligence on the part of the second OP. It is also alleged that the 2nd OP was not equipped to handle the operation of the nature sought to be performed by him on the deceased. There was no Anaesthesiologist in the Hospital, a medicine by name of Penthol was administered, from which late Shri Pawan Kumar Garg did not revive. According to the complainant, in the reply to the Legal Notice, the allegation that the patient had certain cardiac problem is ill-conceived and is an afterthought.
4. The basic fact is that the 2nd OP was totally negligent and callous in performing surgery without the help of Anaesthetist, thus alleging medical negligence, a complaint was filed before this Commission in April 1995, claiming in all Rs. 67,27,572/- break-up of which is as follows:
"The individual income as per the assessment orders of late Shri Pawan Kumar Garg for 1993-94 showed that he had an income of Rs. 51,804/-. In his family, people have lived upto old age and approximately 80 years can be reckoned as the possible life span. Accordingly, if the total income for the remaining portion of his life is calculated, it will work out to
Rs. 51,804/- x 43 -
Rs. 22,27,572/-
Loss of estate
Rs. 20,00,000/-
Consortium
Rs. 15,00,000/-
Compensation
towards Suffering
and agony
Rs. 10,00,000/-
Total :
Rs. 67,27,572/-”
5. In their replies filed by both the OPs, it was stated that the OP is a qualified Orthopaedic Surgeon and when Shri Pawan Kumar Garg came to him at about 11.30 a.m. on 5.11.1994, he removed the bandage and decided that this was a case of fracture which could be treated by way of close reduction. Since at the time of the removal of the bandage, the deceased complained of severe pain, he was given an injection of 'Fortwin' and 'Calmpose', the injection normally and widely prescribed under such circumstances, within the prescribed limits. Immediately after this, the deceased became restless and starting perspiring. The deceased was put on IV 5% Dextrose and given injection of Betnesap. Despite this, the deceased developed cardiac arrest and in spite of administering all well established procedures, cardiopulm
