NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
Master Vaibhav Apurva Vohra —Complainant
versus
Sunil J. Parikh and Ors. —Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.58 of 2003
Decided on 12.12.2017

IMPORTANT POINTS
1) When a Doctor is consulted by a patient, the former, namely, the Doctor owes to his patient certain duties which are (a) a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the casea duty of care in deciding what treatment to give.
2) Doctor owes a duty of care in the administration of that treatment.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Medical Negligence—Complainant suffered from Idiopathic Aplastic Anemia, and was made to undergo Anti Lymphocyte treatment—Hospitalisation lasted twenty five days—Post discharge OP asked him to undergo another test to check for Fanconi’s Anemia, and when report came positive his previous line of treatement was immediately ceased—Patient’s health started getting worse threafter, and he was asked to go to Hammersmith Hospital, London, U.K—In UK tests revealed that Fanconi’s Anemia was absent, and thus restarted the same course of treatment that he had initially been given in India—Patient’s family suffered financially and emotionally as a result—Child had been needlessly subjected to anabolic steroids for several months—Patient’s family seeks compensation from the OPs—study of medical report and literature shows that this issue does not fit the criteria of medical negligence—Appeal dismissed.

       Held: The crux of the present matter is whether the OP was responsible for any deficiency during treatment of the patient, which resulted in deterioration of health of the child and ultimately death. Looking into the sequence of events in the instant case, the child was brought to OP 1 in the month of June, 2001. Initially on clinical assessment and bone marrow study, OP-1 diagnosed it as Aplastic Anemia (idiopathic). Therefore, the proper line of treatment was immuno suppressive therapy alongwith supportive treatment. Initially, the patient was given blood transfusion. OP-1 started ALG Therapy for 10 days. According to the medical literature, OP-1 adopted correct method i.e. standard treatment in case of aplastic anemia. There are several causes of aplastic anemia, thus, it was the duty of OP-1 to rule out other causes of aplastic anemia. Accordingly, the patient’s blood was tested from Jaslok Hospital/OP-3 to rule out Fanconi’s Anemia. After chromosomal breakage study at OP-3, the report revealed Fanconi’s Anemia. On the basis of this report, OP-1 stopped ALG therapy and started anabolic steroids. In our view, the efforts of OP-1 to rule out other causes of AA are acceptable. OP 1 did not agree with Chromosomal breakage study done by OP-3, with its diagnosis as Fanconi’s Anemia. Therefore, he suggested that the patient seek further evaluation and management from Hammersmith Hospital at UK wherein Fanconi’s Anemia was ruled out and AA was confirmed, thereafter same treatment of ALG therapy was recommended or bone marrow transplant was suggested. Thus, we do not find any fault with OP-1, who referred the patient to Hammersmith Hospital, U.K. Referring of the patient is not a negligence. In our view, it was a conscious effort of OP-1 to arrive at proper diagnosis.

       Now, the question whether OP-3 was at fault for wrong diagnosis of FA. As per the evidence of OP-3, total 400 metaphases were counted before arriving the diagnosis of Fanconis Anemia. According to the medical literature, due to mosaicism, error can occur. Even the Hammersmith Hospital have not categorically ruled out possibility of Fanconi’s Anemia and never said that the report of OP-3 was wrong. Therefore, in our view, OP-3 also performed his duty with care and caution. The interpretation of report was given on the basis of number of breaks in the chromosomal breakage studies by using MMC.

       Now whether the stoppage of ALG therapy and administration of anabolic steroid by OP 1 from 24.12.2001 to 2.4.2002 caused any harm to the patient. There is no cogent evidence produced by the complainant to prove the side effects, which occurred in the child after steroid therapy. The medical literature states that the use of anabolic steroid in the treatment of aplastic anemia, has been proved to be very useful in children with congenital aplastic anemia.

       Considering the entirety, in our view, the method adopted by OP-1 in the diagnosis, treatment and referral, was correct as per the reasonable and standard of medical practice. We do not find any negligence on the part of OPs.

       The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Laxman Balakrishna Joshi vs. Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godbole & Anr. AIR 1969 SC 128 and A.S. Mittal vs. State of U.P. AIR 1989 SC 1570, has laid down that when a Doctor is consulted by a patient, the former, namely, the Doctor owes to his patient certain duties which are (a) a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case; (b) a duty of care in deciding what treatment to give; and (c) a duty of care in the administration of that treatment. A breach of any of the above duties may give a cause of action for negligence and the patient may on that basis recover damages from his Doctor.

       In the instant case, there was no deficiency or failure on duty of care from OP 1 during diagnosis, treatment and the referral.

       Hon’ble Supreme Court in case “Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab & Anr.” AIR 2005 SCC 3180, held that, the complainant is required to prove that the doctor did something or failed to do something which in the given facts and circumstances, no medical professional in his ordinary senses and prudence would have done or failed to do.

       In the instant case, the act of OP 1 was consistent with the professional tone, without any lapses.

       On the basis of foregoing discussion and relying upon the medical literature and the legal precedents, we do not find any negligence on the part of OPs. The complaint is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

       Result: Complaint dismissed.