Back
2012(1) CPR 199
UTTAR PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUCKNOW
Bhanwar Singh, President; Rampal Singh and Chandra Bhal Srivastava, Members
Sri Hemant Kumar and Ors. —Complainants
versus
Jaswant Rai Speciality Hospital
and Ors. —Opp. Parties
Complaint No. 13 of 2002
Decided on 27.9.2011
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainants:Sri R.K. Gupta, Advocate.
For the Opp. Party No. 1:Sri Sunil Sharma, Advocate.
For the Opp. Party No. 3:Sri Navin Kumar Tiwari, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
There cannot be presumption that use of drug without Blood test might have become fatal.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 2(1)(g), 2(1)(o) and 17—Medical services—Medical negligence—Death of patient—Prescription of wrong drug—Complainants have not adduced medical opinion that prescription of Unicontin in given circumstances without Blood Serum Concentration test or PEF/PA O2 test proved to be dangerous—There cannot be presumption that use of drug without such test might have become fatal—Medical proficiency and bona fide of doctor are obvious—Complaint was filed within limitation period of two years but fact that for about one year and eleven months neither any notice was served upon hospital or doctor by complainants leveling allegations of medical negligence against them clearly shows an afterthought idea of maligning doctor and hospital management—Complaint dismissed. (Paras 9 to 17)
Bhanwar Singh, President—This complaint has been filed by the legal heirs of Late Smt. Suman Saxena. Whereas the complainant no. 1 Sri Hemant Kumar is the husband of the deceased Smt. Suman Sexana, the other complainants Sri Ayush Saxena and Sri Akarsh Saxena are her sons. They were minors at the time of the complaint being filed. Unfortunately Smt. Suman Saxena expired on 17-02-2000 at 8 a.m. when she was in the ICCU unit of Jaswant Rai Speciality Hospital, Meerut, the respondent no. 1 . Dr. Rajeev Agarwala was the Physician who had attended her in the hospital and provided medical treatment. Her husband Sri Hemant Kumar brought her to the above hospital on 15-01-2000, where she was examined of her ailment–Hypertension with Bronchial Asthma. She was suffering from severe congested chest, breathlessness and wheezing. Dr. Rajeev Agarwala examined and admitted her in the ICCU unit and Bed No. 1 was provided to her. Some pathological tests were suggested. As her general condition improved, she was discharged two days after i. e. on 17-01-2000 from the hospital. Dr. Rajeev Agarwala suggested for her next checkup after ten days but Smt. Suman Saxena had to be taken to the hospital for consultation on 24-01-2000. It was alleged in the complaint that despite her condition being grave again, Smt. Suman Saxena, and her husband were persuaded by Dr. Rajeev Agarwala to continue to be at home with the course of treatment prescribed by him. On 15-02-2000 the complainant No. 1 brought his wife Smt. Suman Saxena to the hospital and conveyed to the doctor that there was no improvement in her condition. The doctor made him again to believe that improvement would be gradual and advised her to continue with the medicines prescribed. Smt. Suman Saxena with her problems persisting was again admitted in ICCU ward of the hospital on 16-02-2000. On 17-02-2000, she suddenly suffered from breathlessness and inspite of her deteriorating condition, as alleged further by the complainants, Dr. Rajeev Agarwala reached late by when she died.
2. The complaint was filed with the positive allegations that Dr. Rajeev Agarwala prescribed a medicine know as ‘Unicontin’ 600 (Theophyllin) without requisite tests and soon after the said drug was consumed, the abovenamed patient died. As a matter of fact, the drug named above could not be prescribed unless Blood Serum Concentration test and P.E.F./P.A.O2 test were conducted. Secondly, the decision of Dr. Rajeev Agarwala to discharge the patient on 17-01-2000 amounted to negligence on his part as he directed for her discharge even though she was not feeling well. Either Dr. Rajeev Agarwala had no experience to handle the cases of Hypertension cum Bronchial Asthma or he was making experiment with the patient’s life, as alleged further in the complaint. Smt. Suman Saxena was a teacher by profession and earning
Rs. 1,30,000/- per annum. The complainants paid the bills of the hospital. A compensation of Rs. 18,00,000/- has been claimed by the complainants on account of the loss of life of Smt. Suman Saxena, besides pending and future interest.
3. Both the abovementioned opposite parties denied the allegations as levelled by the complainants. They denied that the patient was wrongly discharged on 17-01-2000 against the wishes of the complainant no. 1 As a matter of fact, she was discharged because her condition at that time was stable and satisfactory and in the estimation of the opposite party no. 2 she was not required to be kept further in the hospital. The Complainant no. 1 never expressed his desire to continue hospitalization of the patient. Her condition was definitely better when she was brought to the hospital on 24-01-2000, therefore, the medicines were reduced and the patient was advised to visit three weeks after. On 24-01-2000 antibiotic and steroid were stopped and bronchodilator was reduced from 600 mg. to 200 mg. The patient was advised on 15-02-2000 for hospitalization but the complainant no.
