Back
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
J.D. Kapoor, President and Rumnita Mittal, Member
JAGDISH KUMAR ARORA AND ANR. - Appellants
Versus
KHOSLA MEDICAL INSTITUTE AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AND ORS. - Respondents
Complaint No. C-386 of 1999
Decided on : 12-09-2008
Ms. Shobha, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. D.D. Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Sanjeev Mehta, Advocate, Ms. Deepa Chacko, Advocate, for the Respondent
Hospitals are expected to equip themselves with necessary treatment facilities and medicines for complications that may arise during a patient's treatment, and patients have the right to claim compensation for sufferings due to medical negligence.
Headnote:
Medical Negligence - Compensation - 1. Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha and Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 651. 2. Jacob Mathew (Dr.) v. State of Punjab and Anr., (2005) SCC (Cr.) 1369.
Fact of the Case:
The complainants sought compensation for alleged medical negligence resulting in the death of the patient due to fungal infection and pancytopenia. The hospital and doctors denied the allegations, attributing the patient's condition to pre-existing arthritis and side effects of medication.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the hospital liable for deficiency in service, as it failed to equip itself to treat complications arising during the patient's treatment. It held the hospital solely responsible for the patient's sufferings and directed it to pay compensation of Rs. 1 lac plus Rs. 10,000 as litigation costs.
Issues: Alleged medical negligence, liability of hospital and doctors, responsibility for treatment and medication, patient's right to claim compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The hospital is expected to equip itself with all necessary treatment facilities and medicines for complications that may arise during a patient's treatment. The patient has a right to claim compensation from the hospital for sufferings due to medical negligence.
Final Decision: The hospital was held solely liable for the deficiency in service and directed to pay compensation to the complainants.
ORDER
J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral)- The complainants are husband and son of the deceased patient Chander Kanta, who died due to alleged medical negligence on the part of Opposite Party (in short "O.P.") Nos. 1 to 4. Alleging deficiency on the part of the OPs the complainants have through this complaint sought compensation of Rs. 18,50,000 on various counts.
2. The allegations in brief are that the patient Chander Kanta, a middle aged lady, was a patient of arthritis since 1991 and was getting treatment from Karnal and Sonepat till 1997. In the year 1997 the O.P.1 hospital came in the panel of FCI where the complainant No. 1 was employed and working at Sonepat. On 27.11.1997 the complainant got his wife referred to O.P.1 Hospital and got her admitted there for treatment. On 10.12.1997 the doctors informed the complainant that the patient was responding well to the treatment would be discharged in a week or so. However, on 12.12.1997 O.Ps.2 and 3, the doctors working with O.P.1 Hospital informed that the patient had developed fungal infection. On 16.12.1997 the patient was shifted to the ICU of O.P.1 Hospital and was given two units of blood but her condition started deteriorating. On 18.12.1997, O.P.2 doctor asked the complainant to purchase an Inj. Leucomax which was not available with O.P.4-Medical Store. However, the doctor on the pretext that if the injection was not available at their medical store then it would not be available any where else and that the injection was necessary for treatment asked the complainant to shift the patient to some other hospital without even suggesting the name of another hospital. Ultimately one resident doctor of O.P.1 accompanied the complainant and the patient to Batra Hospital-OP-5 where she was admitted in a very serious condition and there she was treated for Pancytopenia. It was recorded in their OPD card that the patient had developed this disease in the last 2-3 days. However, on the next day itself the patient was shifted to O.P.6-Batra Hospital, where she breathed her last on 23.12.1997.
3. It is the case of the complainant that the fungal infection developed due to negligence of O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 i.e. the hospital and the treating doctors, and due to defective medicines supplied by O.P.4-Medical Store.
4. In their defence, O.Ps. 1 to 3, denied all the allegations of medical negligence or deficiency in service and have contended that the patient was an acute case of arthritis and was taking steroids before coming to O.P.1 hospital and on admission after various investigations she was found to be a case of advanced stage of rheumatoid arthritis and hypertension and was treated with the well known drug Methotexrate. This medicine was to be administered in three doses but as the patient started showing symptoms of side effects the third dose was not administered. As per the investigations conducted, the side effect of the said medicine resulted in recession of TLC and Hb and to raise the TLC three doses of Inj. Leucomax were prescribed but the injection was not available at O.P.4 Medical store and the complainant refused to procure this injection from outside as the cost was around Rs. 6,000. Under these circumstances, the complainant was asked to take the patient to some other hospital and the patient was referred to AIIMS/Batra Hospital.
5. As regards the fungal infection the O.Ps. contended that the fungal infection existed when the patient was admitted for treatment of arthritis and further that as per the case of the complainant itself the fungal infection was caused due to the injection supplied by the O.P.4-Medical Store and hence they are not liable for the same since the O.P.4 has no connection with them and only space has been provided by O.P.1 to run the store.
6. However, in its reply O.P.4-Medical store has taken the stand that the Inj. Leucomax is available with only such chemists who are designated by the manufacturer and hence the same was not available with them. Since the
