SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
LT. Col. Surjit Singh (Retd.)
and Anr. —Appellants
versus
Silver Oaks Hospital and Anr. —Respondents
First Appeal No.378 of 2009
Decided on 3.1.2018

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Ms. Amita Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondents Nos.1 and 2:Mr. Jatin Mongia, Advocate
For the Respondent No.3: Deleted

IMPORTANT POINT
There is no deficiency in treatment or negligence where treatment was given to patient as per clinical assessment and after proper investigations.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 17, 19 and 21—Medical services—Medical negligence—Death of patient due to bedsore—Complaint dismissed by State Commission—Patient was 66 years old having multiple health problems—She was previously operated for breast cancer and underwent radiotherapy—She was hypertensive and also was suffering from Urinary Tract Infection, Type II Diabetes, respiratory failure, acute renal failure, hyponatremia and septic shock—Pulmonary thromboembolism was also suspected—As patient was admitted with loose motion and edema over leg, OP treated patient with multiple anbitotics—Patient was given further dialysis and respiratory support—As the patient was comatose for a month and further bedridden for long period, led to development of bedsore—Bedsore can be avoided with intensive nursing care by frequent change of posture and mattresses but, even with best efforts, it was difficult to prevent bedsore in seriously ill patient—During hospitalization patient including bedsore was properly treated as per standard norms—Board of Experts from Director, PGI, Chandigarh opined that patient was seriously sick and treatment provided was appropriate—There was no deficiency in treatment or negligence on part of OPs—OP/doctor has not deviated from his duties and there was no failure of duty of care—Treatment was given to patient as per clinical assessment and after proper investigations—Appeal dismissed.

       Held: The Hon’ble Supreme Court in number of cases had discussed about the elements of medical negligence. I would like to rely upon the judgment Dr. Laxman Balkrishna Joshi (Dr.) Vs. Dr. Triambak Bapu Godbole, AIR 1969 SC 128, it was held that a doctor when consulted by a patient owes him certain duties. It has held as under:

        A person who holds himself out ready to give medical advice and treatment, impliedly undertakes that he is possessed of skill and knowledge for the Purpose.Such a person when consulted by a patient, owes certain duties, namely, a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case, a duty of care in deciding what treatment to give, and a duty of care in the administration of that treatment.

        In the instant case, the OP/doctor has not deviated from his duties and there was no failure of duty of care. The treatment was given to the patient, as per clinical assessment and after proper investigations.

        On the basis of foregoing discussion, I do not find any negligence on the part of OP/hospital. I, therefore, do not find any infirmity, illegality in the well reasoned order passed by the State Commission and the same is upheld. The present appeal is ordered to be dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (Paras 10 & 11)

       Result: Appeal dismissed.

       

ORDER

This first appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 12.8.2009 passed in Complaint Case No. 21 of 2009 by Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (for short, ‘the State Commission’) whereby the complaint of the complainant was dismissed.

2. The brief facts:

Ms. Rashmi Singh (hereinafter referred as ‘the patient’) aged about 66 years of age, wife of Lt. Col. Surjit Singh (retd.) was admitted in Silver Oaks Hospital, Mohali/OP 1 under care of Dr. Akhil Bhargava/OP-2 on 12.1.2008 for the problems of loose motion and swelling of lower limbs. She was conscious and alert. On clinical examination and laboratory investigations, it was not a serious medical problem. The patient remained in the hospital upto 20.3.2008. During the treatment, on 26.1.2008 morning, she was given oxygen and later in the evening, the complainant/attendant noticed the swelling on her face and called for the duty doctor, who in turn called the specialist. On the advice of specialist, she was shifted to ICU and patient was put on life support and administered heavy doses of antibiotics. It was informed to the complainant and the attendants, that the patient had suffered renal failure, but as per her past reports, including ultrasound there was no renal problem. Thereafter, on 6.2.2008, Dr. Akhil Bhargava opined that patient had multi-organ failure and septicemia and issued a certificate that the patient’s condition was critical and put on the life support. Subsequently, patient developed Coma. There was no bedsore till that stage. The patient slowly developed the hospital borne infections. No attendant was allowed in ICU, therefore, it was the duty of medical staff in the ICU to provide physiotherapy, turning the patient at intervals and to take all precautions to avoid bedsore. But, due to failure ICU staff to take proper care, the patient developed bedsores. The staff there every time told that nothing to worry, as it was a minor issue. On 12.3.2008, patient recovered from coma and she was operated on 15.3.2008 for removal of dead skin at bedsore on the lower back and patient was shifted to normal room. The bedsore cavity was nearly 5 inches in diameter and 2-3 inches in depth. On 20.03.2008, hospital informed the complainant that the patient requires only nursing care, accordingly, she was discharged on the same day. It was alleged that patient was in critical stage due to deep bedsore, which had developed in the ICU and by that time, she had already suffered memory loss because of being in coma for about 40 days.

3. The nursing care at home for the bedsore was not manageable, the patient deteriorated further, therefore, on 26.3.2008 she was taken to Command Hospital, Chandimandir. She was treated there by Plastic Surgeon and Psychologist. In May, 2008, the Military hospital performed the surgery for 3½ hours to cover the bedsore, but patient expired on 1.6.2008. The cause of death was mentioned in the death certificate was “pre-renal Azetomia with bedsore”. It was alleged that due to the alleged deficiency in service and the lapses in the treatment, the patient died. The complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission, Punjab against the OPs for alleged medical negligence.

4. The OPs filed their written version and denied the negligence on their part. The OP-2 submitted that the treatment given was proper. The patient had previous history of Cancer and Diabetes. She was also a known hypertensive on medication. Previously, she had been operated for Laminectomy (Lumbar spine) and also had surgery in the right ankle. She was admitted in the hospital/OP-1 with the complaint of loose motions, increased frequency of urination with urgency, pain in lower back, region and nausea. After admission, she was examined by Gastroenterologist. For her abdominal complaints, she underwent Sigmoidoscopy and CECT of abdomen. Colonoscopy was also done with barium enema. She was also s


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top