Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
RAUSHANI DEVI - Appellant
Versus
MAHARAJA AGRASEN HOSPITAL AND ORS. - Respondents
Original Petition No. 136 of 2002
Decided on : 13-08-2013
Mr. Vivek Tripathi, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Aseem Chanda and Mr. Anurag Singh, Advocates, for the Respondent
The court established that medical professionals are liable only if their conduct falls below the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in the field, and negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor as long as they perform their duties with reasonable skill and competence.
Headnote:
Medical Negligence - Consumer Protection Act - Sections 21, 22
Fact of the Case:
The complainant alleged medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in the treatment of her deceased husband. She claimed compensation of Rs. 52,50,000 under various heads.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no deficiency in service or medical negligence by the opposite parties in the treatment of the patient. The complaint was dismissed.
Issues: Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, whether the complainant proved the elements of negligence, and whether the complainant deserved the compensation as prayed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the opposite parties did not act negligently and followed the standard medical practice in the diagnosis and treatment of the patient. The complainant failed to establish her case about medical negligence and deficiency in service.
Final Decision: The complaint was dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.
ORDER
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member - The complainant has filed this complaint under Sections 21 and 22 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in treatment of complainant's deceased husband Mr. Radha Kishan Garg and has claimed compensation of Rs. 52,50,000 from them under various heads.
2. The facts of this case:
The complainant's husband late Shri Radha Kishan Garg, a businessman about 50 years of age with earnings about Rs. 20,000 per month. He was the head of the family and in sound health without any major disease. On 9.1.2002 Shri Radha Kishan (herein as Patient) went to OP-Hospital with a complaint of chest pain. He was diagnosed as a chronic case of acid peptic disease and the treatment was advised. As the patient had continued chest pain for further two days consulted the OP-2 and 3 on 11.1.2002 after laboratory and ECG investigation he was diagnosed as Acute Inferior Wall Myocardial Infarction ( in short AIWMI). Accordingly, the OP-2, Dr. Amar Singhal advised Coronary Angiography (CAG) and continued with the same treatment of acid peptic disease and also insisted the complainant to deposit Rs. 2 lacs for by-pass surgery. On next day i.e. 12.1.2002 at 11.00 a.m. Dr. Amar Signal and Dr. Prakash Jain conducted CAG and as per OP showed Triple Vessel Disease (TVD), thereafter Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty (PTCA) conducted only on Rt Coronary Artery (RCA) despite respondent demanded Rs. 2 lacs from complainant for this RCA. After post-operation OP recorded its progress report stating the jerking in eye, vomiting, giddiness, etc. which clearly signifies some problem in brain of the patient. The patient was referred to a Neurologist who diagnosed the case as "Posterior Circulation Stroke" and advised for C.T. Scan and MRI of head region. The neurologist advised injection Clexane, if there was no bleeding in C.T. and withheld Tab. Monotrate but the OP-2 Dr. Amar Singhal after seeing the C.T. Report, restarted the injection of Clexane. Hence, it was against the Neurologist's advice which was administered earlier to the C.T. Scan which revealed massive bleeding in the brain. As Clexane is blood thinner which results in further bleeding or haemorrhage. Also stopping of tablet Monotrate despite patient suffering from CAD and high blood pressure. The complainant also complained that as the OP -1 is Heart Institute not taken proper care to control the high blood pressure of patient and it was illogical to withhold Tablet Monotrate.
3. It was also alleged that OPs did not take opinion of two expert prior to angioplasty decision which is mandatory in medical practice, and did unnecessary angioplasty as the condition could have been managed even by oral medication. At the end, the patient died of brain haemorrhage at CCU on 13.1.2002.
4. The complainant who was not well qualified and unaware of complexities of the case deposited Rs two lacs on account of By-pass surgery. But, actual cost for angioplasty was between Rs. 20,000 to 40,000 therefore OP not performed By-pass surgery but charged Rs. 1,50,200 for angioplasty. Thereafter on 15.1.2002, the family members of complainant held a meeting with one Mr. Laxmi Narain, one of the trustees of hospital along with the OP doctors in which it was admitted that the case was not handled properly.
5. It is alleged that because of negligent attitude of OP doctors the complainant lost her husband who suffered an irreparable loss as doctors were deficient in providing the service. The complainant, therefore, claimed a compensation of Rs. 52,50,000 as under:
(i) Medical expenses incurred and paid to the Respondents. Rs. 1,50,200
(ii) Loss of life during the course of treatment Rs. 15,00,000
(iii) Loss of future earning (taking net income as Rs. 20,000 p.m.) Rs. 21,00,000
(iv) Loss of love and affection of the husband Rs. 10,00,000
(v) Compensation towards mental agony and torture. Rs. 5,00,000
Total Rs.
