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
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
Union of India and Ors. —Appellants
versus
Major J.P.S. Malhi and Ors. —Respondents
First Appeal Nos.190 and 412 of 2008
Decided on 13.12.2018

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Mr. A.S. Singh and Mr. Mukand Gupta, Advocates
For the Respondent Nos.1 to 3:Mr. Mukand Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.4 and 5:Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate for Mr. K. Maruthi Rao, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.1 to 3:Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate for Mr. K. Maruthi Rao, Advocate
For the Respondent No.2:Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
When the doctor and the hospital is found guilty, they are liable to pay the compensation.

Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 – First Appeal - Late Smt. Rupinder Kaur, wife of complainant No. 1 and mother of complainant No. 2 and 3 was admitted in Military Hospital where she was diagnosed with Appendicular Lump - She was initially treated and operated by Lt. Col. P.K. Malaker, with assistance from Lt. Col. N.S.C. Waghray, an Anaesthesiologist - On 10.4.2002, she complained of severe pain in the right lower part of her abdomen and also had mild fever – Dr. Praful Reddy who visited the military hospital had seen and treated the patient and was advised to shift to Apollo hospital for further treatment – After the surgery, the patient died – Attributing negligence, complaint was filed which was allowed – Hence, the present appeals were filed separately by UOI and Apollo Hospitals separately - Heard the counsels, perused the documents and the record – It is held that UOI is not liable and hence the appeal filed by them is allowed – In the appeal 412/2008, the Apollo hospital, is directed to pay a sum of Rs.3.00 lacs as compensation to the complainant for making interpolation in the ‘High Risk Consent’ taken from complainant No.1 Major JPS Malhi, along with interest on that amount @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint.

       Result: Appeal is disposed of with a direction that Apollo Hospital is liable to pay compensation.

       

ORDER

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—Late Smt. Rupinder Kaur, wife of complainant No. 1 and mother of complainant No. 2 and 3 was admitted in Military Hospital where she was diagnosed with Appendicular Lump. She was discharged on 04.2.2002 and suggested removal of Appendicitis after some rest and recovery period. She was again admitted in the aforesaid hospital and was operated on 08.4.2002 by Lt. Col. P.K. Malaker, with assistance from Lt. Col. N.S.C. Waghray, an Anaesthesiologist. On 10.4.2002, she complained of severe pain in the right lower part of her abdomen and also had mild fever. In the night, she was shifted to the ICU for intensive care. Since her husband was not satisfied with the answers given by the surgeon to his queries, he met Lt. Col. P.K. Malaker, along with Col. K.K. Tiku on 11.4.2002 when he was informed that the doctor was trying to control the infection, which had spread in the body of his wife. On 11.4.2002, she was examined by Dr. Prapul Reddy of Apollo hospital, who visited the Military hospital for this purpose and was advised immediate surgical removal of the source of the septic. Therefore, she was shifted to Apollo hospital and was operated late in the night on 11.4.2002. The Laparoscope having failed during the procedure, laparotomy was performed on her. The case of the complainants is that the anaesthesiologist could not bring the patient out of the effect of the anaesthesia and therefore, she had to continue with forced ventilation and other life support system. She was then shifted to the surgical ICU of Apollo hospital but she continued to be critical till she expired on 27.4.2002. It is alleged by the complainants that instead of removing the source of infection, Dr. Prapul Reddy just cleaned up the peritoneal cavity and provided two drains to remove the pus, which could form in future, as a result of which the infection kept spreading even after the aforesaid procedure. It is further alleged that the patient acquired secondary infections present in the hospital environment, besides developing bedsores and the doctors were negligent in her treatment, as a result of which a minor surgery resulted in her death. The complainants therefore, approached the concerned State Commission by way of a consumer complaint instituted against the Apollo hospital, Union of India and Dr. Prapul Reddy. No doctor of Military hospital was impleaded in the consumer complaint.

2. In their written version, respondent No.1 Apollo hospital and respondent No.3 Dr. Prapul Reddy inter-alia stated that on examining the patient in Military Hospital, Dr. Reddy had opined that she was having peritonitis with septicaemia shock due to collection and spread of infected material in her abdomen as was evident from the ultrasound done in the Military hospital. He therefore, felt that the patient should be operated through laparoscopic procedure. Since the laparoscopic procedure was not available in Military hospital, she was shifted to Apollo hospital at about 9.30 pm on 11.4.2002, with the concurrence of the complainant and the concerned Commandant. Her diagnostic laparoscopy showed distended bowel loops with inter- loop purulent collection in the pelvis. Since the internal adhesions required to be released carefully without perforation and damaging blood supply, Dr. Reddy planned for laparotomy, which lasted about two hours. Collection of infected material in the pelvis was noted and the small bowel was found distended. Two small dark patches were also seen over terminal ileum. No perforation of bowel was found, and the abdomen was closed after keeping two tube drains the patient was found to have derangements in her renal parameters which were taken care of by Nephrologist whereas the Cardiologist took care of her hypotension and tachycardia. The patient died due to a cardiac arrest on 27.4.2002. It was also alleged that the patient had undergone second surgery under the condition of the septicaemia shock from which she was not r













































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