Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member and Dinesh Singh, Member
Charan Kamal Chopra —Petitioner
versus
Dr. R.K. Gupta and Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.1942 of 2018
(Against the Order dated 01/05/2018 in Appeal No. 8/2017 of the State Commission Haryana)
Decided on 18.4.2019
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rit Arora, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
If there is nothing to show that the treatment was not as per standard and with due care, the treating doctor cannot be held guilty.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) – Medical Negligence – District Forum partly allowed the complaint. In appeal, hospital was not made respondent – State Commission allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint. Hence, Revision.
Facts – It is alleged that the mother of the complainant was unnecessarily treated for kidney ailment. Dialysis was performed without diagnosis. Due to old age, the patient could not sustain the treatment. Hence, died.
Defence – The patient herself was brought in serious condition. In spite of appropriate injection, no improvement observed-The patient was treated with standard and reasonable care.
Held,The doctor had rightly advised hemodialysis.
There is nothing to show that the opposite party no. 1 (doctor) did not exercise the reasonable care and the requisite diligence. We, thus, find that medical negligence is not established. (Para 11)
Result: Revision dismissed.
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member—We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner – complainant and perused the material on record.
2. This case relates to alleged medical negligence, which resulted in the death of the mother of the complainant.
3. The District Forum had partly allowed the complaint and directed the respondents no. 1 and 2 – the opposite parties no. 1 (doctor) and 3 (insurance co.) to pay a lumpsum of Rs.1,00,000/- jointly and severally to the complainant and to further pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. (The opposite party no. 2 (hospital) was not made a respondent in the appeal before the State Commission.)
4. In appeal, the State Commission had re-appraised the case and vide its Order dated 01.05.2018 had allowed the appeal and set-aside the Order dated 06.12.2016 of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint:—
27. After close perusal, we find the case laws cited by the learned counsel for the opposite parties fully support the version of the opposite parties. From the facts and circumstances of this case, it clearly appears that treatment was given to the patient by Dr. R. K. Gupta, to the best of his skill and ability. It is not uncommon that treatment is provided to patients using dialysis process in old age also when age of the patient is more than 80 years or even 90 years. We also feel that there are possibilities of improvement in the condition of a patient after dialysis in most of the cases. Dialysis is the process of removing excess water, solutes and toxins from the blood in those whose native kidneys have lost the ability to perform these functions in a natural way.
28. There is no doubt of any type in this regard that medical profession is a noble profession. People involved in the medical profession, more particularly the doctors command respect in our Society. At the same time, expectations of the public persons are also much more from the doctors than the other institutions and sections of the Society. In fact, a doctor cannot give complete assurance and guarantee to save life of a patient. Certainly for a patient process of treatment is a question of life and death. In this way, a doctor is required to be more and more careful at the time of treatment of a patient. A little negligence on the part of a doctor can make life of a patient hell. A doctor can help a patient by providing him best possible medicines/treatment. Sometimes, mistake may also be possible on the part of a doctor also at the time of treatment. After all, a doctor is also a human being. Working of a doctor cannot be expected like a machine or a computer.
29. The opposite party No. 3 – United India Insurance Company Limited has provided insurance policy to the opposite parties No. 1 and 2. Although the insurance policy has been provided but when the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 cannot be held liable to make payment of the amount claimed, certainly no findings can be given in this case against the opposite party No. 3.
30. As a result as per discussions above in detail, we have no hesitation in holding that the complainant has failed to prove that the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 have committed any act of carelessness and negligence causing death of Smt. Kamla Rani. The impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is held to be illegal and invalid and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
(paras 27, 28, 29 and 30 of the
State Commission’s Order)
5. This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the said Order dated 01.05.2018 of the State Commission.
6. We find the Order of the State Commission to be well-appraised and well-reasoned. Within the meaning and scope of section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, we find no jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice.
7. The sum and substance of the complainant’s allegations was that his mother, the patient, was treated unnecessarily for a kidney
