Back
2010(3) CPR 321
UTTARAKHAND STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DEHRADUN
Irshad Hussain, President; C.C. Pant and Mrs. Kusum Lata Sharma, Members
R.K. Sharma (Dr.). —Appellant
versus
Murttiya Devi —Opp. Party
First Appeal Nos. 3 and 4 of 2007
Decided on 6.3.2009
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. J.K. Jain, Advocate.
For the Opp. Party:Ms Anupama Gautam, Ld. Counsel, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Wrong line of treatment adopted by doctor constitutes medical negligence.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 2(1)(g), 2(1)(o), 14(1)(d), 15 and 17—Medical services—Medical negligence—Death of patient—Wrong line of treatment adopted by appellant concerning lungs disease afflicting the patient—Treatment of T.B. continued for long by appellant without proper diagnosis and sputum test—Compensation of Rs.1,00,000 with 6% interest and cost of Rs.1,000 awarded by District Forum—Patient was suffering not from T.B. but from some other form of pulmonary disease—In terms of guidelines issued by WHO appellant committed negligence in properly diagnosing the case—Appeal filed by appellant dismissed—However, regarding claim for enhancement of amount of compensation, it was also duty of complainant to switch over to some other physician, if treatment plan prescribed by opposite party was not responding even after three months’ time—Compensation, interest and cost as awarded by District Forum is proper and cost as awarded by District Forum is proper and just-Appeal dismissed. Paras 7, 12, 14 to 17)
III (2008) CPJ 150(NC): II(2008) CPJ 232 (NC) —Relied on.
2003(2) CPC 329: I (2009) CPJ 32 (SC): II (2005) CPJ 394: IlI (2008) CPJ 7 (NC): III (2008) CPJ 53(NC): II (2007) CPJ 336(SC): I (2007) CPJ 303(NC) —Referred to.
C.C. Pant, Member— These two appeals are directed against the order dated 6.12.2006 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar, partly allowing the consumer complaint No.68/2005 and directing the consumer opposite party Dr. R.K. Sharma, to pay to the complainant sum of Rs. 1,00,000 towards compensation and expenses incurred by the complainant in the patient’s treatment within n month from the date of the order, failing which amount was directed to be paid together with interest @ 6% p.a. The complainant was also awarded cost of litigation of Rs.1,000.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that Smt. Murttiya Devi-complainant approached Dr. R.K. Sharma opposite party on 29.12.2003 for the treatment of her husband Sh. Ramvriksh Gupta. The opposite party diagnosed Sh. Ramvriksh Gupta as a case of tuberculosis and told the complainant that the treatment would continue for nine months. When the complainant noticed that there was no improvement in her husband’s health, even after continuing the treatment for more than eight months, she asked the opposite party the reason for the same. The opposite party advised sputum test. The test indicated T.B. negative. The complainant consulted the doctors of Bhawali Sanitorium, Nainital, where the doctors diagnosed the patient as a non-tuberculosis case and expressed the possibility of some other disease of lungs. The doctor referred the patient to AIIMS, New Delhi. However, the complainant could not get a bed in AIIMS, New Delhi immediately for her husband, therefore, she took her husband on 20.10.2004 to V.P. Chest Institute, New Delhi, where he was admitted for treatment. After conducting several tests, the doctors concluded the patient as a case of “Sarcoidosis” and told that it was now in advanced stage. The patient died on 30.11.2004 in the hospital. The complainant, alleging that the opposite party kept the patient under his treatment without conducting proper tests and, thus, made medical negligence and, therefore, she filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar.
3. The District Forum vide impugned order, partly allowed the complaint in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, both the parties have filed these appeals. First appeal No.03/2007 has been filed by Dr. R.K. Sharma opposite party challenging the impugned order on the ground that he had taken proper care in the treatment of the patient and had not made any medical negligence. First appeal No.04/2007 has been filed by the complainant, challenging the impugned order on the ground that the compensation awarded by the District Forum, is inadequate in view of the facts of the case. Both the appeals are being disposed of by this common order.
4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.
5. Dr. R.K. Sharma has submitted in his defence that he had given the finding of “Bilateral Koch’s” or “tuberculosis in both the lungs”, on the basis of the x-ray report brought by the complainant herself, when she had approached her on 29.12.2003 with her husband. The patient had complained of cough and fever. Since the patient was having dry cough, sputum test was not possible. He had given the treatment on the lines, as prescribed in medical literature. Dr. R.K. Sharma also submitted that after giving the treatment, the patient’s condition improved and his weight also increased, which was initially 53 kg on 29.12.2003.
6. Dr. R.K. Sharma referred to the extracts of “Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine” (Paper Nos. 29 /9 to 29/31 of the original record), which says that, “a sputum smear is negative in 80% of cases” and also that, “the key to the diagnosis of tuberculosis is a high index of suspicion. Diagnosis is not difficult with a high-risk patient e.g. a homeless alcoholic who presents with typical symptoms and a classic chest radiograph showing upper lobe infiltrates with cavities”. It has further been written in the literature that, “Often
