Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
D.K. Jain, President; Mrs. Vineeta Rai and Vinay Kumar, Members
Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute And Research Centre & Ors. —Appellants
versus
Lt. Col (Reted.) Zile Singh Dahiya —Respondent
First Appeal No. 251 of 2008
(Against the order dated 17.4.2008 in Complaint Case No.C-108/2001 of the State Commission, Delhi)
Decided on 24.4.2014
For the Appellants :Ms. Karuna Nundy, Ms. Mansi Bajaj, Advocates and Dr. R. Sekhon
For the Respondent:Dr. Sushil Kr. Gupta, Amicus curiae with the respondent in person.
IMPORTANT POINT
Status of a hospital carries an implied assurance that quality of services offered by it, would be commensurate with its status and reputation.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 17, 19 and 21—Medical services—Medical negligence—Death of cancer patient—Compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- awarded by State Commission—Resultant failure to reach a timely and clear diagnosis, with consequent failure to commence requisite treatment, amounted to medical negligence or deficiency of service— Delay in diagnosis and resultant delay in treatment have happened at Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre, a premier institution of great repute—When a person decides to be treated in such an institution, it is with expectation of higher quality of treatment and care—Status of a hospital carries an implied assurance that quality of diagnostic, clinical, surgical, Para-medical and all other services offered by it, would be commensurate with its status and reputation—Quantum of compensation cannot be reduced. (Paras 23, 28, 29 and 30)
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
Vinay Kumar, Member—The Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute & Research Centre (for short, the ‘Cancer Institute’) has filed this appeal challenging the award of Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in complaint Case No.C-108/2001. The State Commission has allowed the complaint and awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.5 lakhs in favour of the Complainant.
2. The matter relates to the treatment of Mrs. Krishna Kumari, wife of the complainant, for cancer of the cervix. The disease was diagnosed in August 1999 and the patient succumbed to it in February, 2001. The complaint petition filed on 20.4.2001, traverses the events and developments between the surgery at OP-1 on 22.10.1999 and the patent’s death on 6.2.2001.The case of the complainant was that his wife underwent radiation therapy at PGI MS Rohtak during August-September 1999. It was followed by RADICAL HYSTERECTOMY at OP-1/ Cancer Institute on 22.10.1999. As per the complaint petition, OP-3 decided to rush through this without proper tests. Also, there was negligence and deficiency in the manner this operation was performed, as a result of which metastasis developed within a period of ten months. Allegedly, the intervening short period of less than a year, indicated that the cancer would not have resurfaced, if the surgery had been done meticulously and carefully.
3. It is further alleged that, the FNAC (Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology) report of 16.10.2000 indicated growth of the secondaries of cancer but Dr. A.K. Chaturvedi (who conducted the test) and Dr. K.K. Pandey categorically declined to accept the presence of malignancy. Later, when the concerned slides were got reviewed at Indraprashta Apollo Hospital, New Delhi on 04.12.2000, ‘Squamous Cell Carcinoma’ was confirmed. Similarly, the bone scanning report prepared at OP-1 clearly gave the findings of metastasis. This too was rejected by Dr. K.K. Pandey. When the same reports were sent to Dr. S.H. Advani of Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, he confirmed metastasis of cancer.
4. Per contra, the OPs had contended that on 16.10.2000 a CT guided FNAC was done at OP-1. The report was inconclusive and found only ‘necrotic material’. OP-3 also advised the patient to undergo Kidney Function Test, Liver Function Test, Bones Scan Whole Body, Colour Doppler Test and CT Scan of Whole Abdomen. As per the written submission of OPs before the State Commission, no secondaries had developed till 16.10.2000. However, the patient was again brought on 30.10.2000. Scintigraphy of the whole body was done, which was suggestive of bone metastasis involving left SI joint. Allegedly, it was only suggestive, not confirmatory, as other reports seen at OP-1 were negative. The deceased was therefore advised to continue with the drugs which she was taking for relief from backache. After 30.10.2000, the patient did not report to the Cancer Institute till 14.12.2000.
5. On the allegation that when the slides of FNAC done at OP-1 on 16.10.2000 were later reviewed at Indraprashtra Apollo Hospital, cancer was confirmed, the Written Submission states that:-
“On 14-12-2000, the opposite party no.3 was informed that two slides tested on the deceased has been reported as positive. The opposite party no.3 advised another opinion on the slide from the outside and if found positive, the deceased was advised to go for Chemotherapy. Thus the allegations of the Complainant that the Opposite Party refused to give any treatment, is false, frivolous and baseless”.
6. On consideration of the pleadings and evidence of the two sides, the State Commission arrived at the following findings:-
(I) After the radio therapy treatment the deceased was totally cured. OP/hospital was approached for second opinion. But, the OP/hospital without any test or investigation, except CT Scan, conducted Radical Hysterectomy operation, which was not required at all.
(II) The Radical Hysterectomy operation was not carried out properly. This caused metastasis later on.
(III)
