Back
JHARKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RANCHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Choudhary S.N. Mishra, President;
Mr. Suphal Hansda and Mrs. Kalyani Kar Roy, Members
S.S. PRASAD (DR.)—Appellant
versus
SUMITRA DEVI—Respondent
A.P. No. 162 of 2004—Decided on 2.5.2005
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. S.N. Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Ram Narayan Prasad, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a medical practitioner can be held liable for gross negligence and laches in providing medical services, leading to the patient's death, and may be required to pay compensation under the Consumer Protection Act.
Headnote:
Medical Negligence - Consumer Protection Act - [Medical Negligence] - [Consumer Protection Act, Section 27] - The court found that the appellant, a doctor, had shown gross negligence and laches in rendering medical services to a patient in his private nursing home. The court held the appellant liable to pay compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in medical services.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a doctor, was found to have shown gross negligence and laches in rendering medical services to a patient in his private nursing home, leading to the patient's death. The District Consumer Forum directed the appellant to pay compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in medical services.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had failed to provide timely and adequate medical treatment to the patient, leading to the patient's death. The court also noted that the appellant's actions were intentional and mala fide, aimed at extracting money from the patient.
Issues: The main issues were whether there was a release of the patient from one medical facility to another justified, and whether there was any deficiency, laches, and negligence on the part of the appellant in providing medical treatment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant, being the head of the department at a medical facility where the patient could have received expert treatment, should not have admitted the patient to his private nursing home. The court also found that the appellant's actions were intentional and mala fide, aimed at extracting money from the patient.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to pay compensation to the complainant within three weeks, failing which the complainant would be at liberty to execute the order in accordance with the law, including the remedy available under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Mr. Justice Choudhary S.N. Mishra, President—A smart and brilliant manoeuvre has been adopted by the appellant Dr. S.S. Prasad in the instant case. No doubt, this is a creation of matured and fertilised brain of appellant Dr. S.S. Prasad and their associates but undoubtedly it does not justify their action. Reasons : the deceased husband of the complainant was earlier examined at S.D.A. Hospital, Ranchi and from there he was referred to the Rajendra Medical College and Hospital (in short R.M.C.H.). The Casualty Officer on duty in R.M.C.H. has, however, referred the patient to the private clinic, namely Prasad Nursing Home of the appellant, who, at the relevant time, was Head of the Deptt. of Medicine and Nephrology, for treatment. The patient was required to udergo immediate dialysis including transpltanation of kidney. It is alleged that at the relevant time, the patient’s serum creatinine was 10.7 and his blood urea was also very high. As directed by the appellant, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 2,200. After paying a sum of Rs. 2,200, the opposite party/appellant further demanded Rs. 3,000 otherwise the appellant will not take up his case. However, due to delay in arranging further amount as demanded by the appellant, the patient died on 7.5.1996. Accordingly, the complaint was filed before the District Consumer Forum, Ranchi, for compensation and other related reliefs.
2. On being noticed, the opposite party/appellant appeared and filed his written statement wherein it has been admitted that on transfer from R.M.C.H., the patient was admitted in his Nursing Home on 5.5.1996. It is alleged that the patient needed immediate dialysis, but 5.5.1996 being Sunday, Dialyser from Azad Pharmacy could not be purchased. After having deposited the amount, the opposite party/appellant purchased the dialyser from Azad Pharmacy on 6.5.1996 and immediately after purchase of the same, the dialysis was started on 6.5.1996 but unfortunately the patient could not survive. In sum and substance, the appellant has denied that there has been any deficiency and laches on his part while treating the deceased husband of the complainant. The District Consumer Forum, Ranchi, on consideration of the materials available on the record, including circumstantial evidences has recorded the findings that there had been a gross negligence and laches on the part of the opposite party/appellant Dr. S.S. Prasad in rendering the medical services to the patient in his private Nursing Home and accordingly the opposite party/appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1.00 lakh to the complainant through a cross cheque and/or Bank draft within a period of two months failing which the appellant/opposite party will be liable to pay an interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of default till the date of realisation. Hence this appeal.
3. Mr. S.N. Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant has challenged the order of the Court below and submitted that in this case the appellant has not been able to contest the case properly since he was in jail at the relevant time in connection with kidney scandal, the rebuttal evidence could not be made available to the Court below. Mr. Gupta, has further submitted that since the serum creatinine of the deceased husband of the complainant was 10.7 and blood urea was also very high, the patient was immediately needed dialysis but unfortunately, 5.5.1996 being a sunday the services of the technicians were not available. Dialyser was available only at Azad Pharmacy but the said pharmacy was also closed being Sunday, as a result, the machine could not be made available. However, the machine was purchased on the following day i.e., 6.5.1996. It is further submitted that the appellant Dr. S.S. Prasad, Head of the Deptt. of Medicine and Nephrology of R.M.C.H., Ranchi where the treatment in such cases are done with the help of technicians under his guidance. Since, the survival ratio of such patients is very low, the patient
