Back
CHANDIGARH CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
K.C. Gupta, President, Maj. Gen. S.P. Kapoor and Devinderjit Dhatt, Members
VEENA MAHAJAN AND ORS. - Appellants
Versus
VED KUMAR GUPTA (DR.) AND ORS. - Respondents
Complaint Case No. 21/2003(Pb)/2 of 2007
Decided on : 11-05-2007
Mr. G.L. Bajaj, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Gaurav Bharadwaj, Advocate, Mr. Karanbir Singh, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a doctor is not guilty of negligence if they have acted in accordance with accepted medical practices and have attended to the patient with due care, skill, and diligence.
Headnote:
Medical Negligence - Medical Malpractice - [Medical Negligence] - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o)(ii), Section 2(1)(o)(iii), Section 2(1)(o)(iv), Section 2(1)(o)(v), Section 2(1)(o)(vi), Section 2(1)(o)(vii), Section 2(1)(o)(viii), Section 2(1)(o)(ix), Section 2(1)(o)(x), Section 2(1)(o)(xi), Section 2(1)(o)(xii), Section 2(1)(o)(xiii), Section 2(1)(o)(xiv), Section 2(1)(o)(xv), Section 2(1)(o)(xvi), Section 2(1)(o)(xvii), Section 2(1)(o)(xviii), Section 2(1)(o)(xix), Section 2(1)(o)(xx), Section 2(1)(o)(xxi), Section 2(1)(o)(xxii), Section 2(1)(o)(xxiii), Section 2(1)(o)(xxiv), Section 2(1)(o)(xxv), Section 2(1)(o)(xxvi), Section 2(1)(o)(xxvii), Section 2(1)(o)(xxviii), Section 2(1)(o)(xxix), Section 2(1)(o)(xxx), Section 2(1)(o)(xxxi), Section 2(1)(o)(xxxii), Section 2(1)(o)(xxxiii), Section 2(1)(o)(xxxiv), Section 2(1)(o)(xxxv), Section 2(1)(o)(xxxvi), Section 2(1)(o)(xxxvii), Section 2(1)(o)(xxxviii), Section 2(1)(o)(xxxix), Section 2(1)(o)(xl), Section 2(1)(o)(xli), Section 2(1)(o)(xlii), Section 2(1)(o)(xliii), Section 2(1)(o)(xliv), Section 2(1)(o)(xlv), Section 2(1)(o)(xlvi), Section 2(1)(o)(xlvii), Section 2(1)(o)(xlviii), Section 2(1)(o)(xlix), Section 2(1)(o)(l), Section 2(1)(o)(li), Section 2(1)(o)(lii), Section 2(1)(o)(liii), Section 2(1)(o)(liv), Section 2(1)(o)(lv), Section 2(1)(o)(lvi), Section 2(1)(o)(lvii), Section 2(1)(o)(lviii), Section 2(1)(o)(lix), Section 2(1)(o)(lx), Section 2(1)(o)(lxi), Section 2(1)(o)(lxii), Section 2(1)(o)(lxiii), Section 2(1)(o)(lxiv), Section 2(1)(o)(lxv), Section 2(1)(o)(lxvi), Section 2(1)(o)(lxvii), Section 2(1)(o)(lxviii), Section 2(1)(o)(lxix), Section 2(1)(o)(lxx), Section 2(1)(o)(lxxi), Section 2(1)(o)(lxxii), Section 2(1)(o)(lxxiii), Section 2(1)(o)(lxxiv), Section 2(1)(o)(lxxv), Section 2(1)(o)(lxxvi), Section 2(1)(o)(lxxvii), Section 2(1)(o)(lxxviii), Section 2(1)(o)(lxxix), Section 2(1)(o)(lxxx), Section 2(1)(o)(lxxxi), Section 2(1)(o)(lxxxii), Section 2(1)(o)(lxxxiii), Section 2(1)(o)(lxxxiv), Section 2(1)(o)(lxxxv), Section 2(1)(o)(lxxxvi), Section 2(1)(o)(lxxxvii), Section 2(1)(o)(lxxxviii), Section 2(1)(o)(lxxxix), Section 2(1)(o)(xc), Section 2(1)(o)(xci), Section 2(1)(o)(xcii), Section 2(1)(o)(xciii), Section 2(1)(o)(xciv), Section 2(1)(o)(xcv), Section 2(1)(o)(xcvi), Section 2(1)(o)(xcvii), Section 2(1)(o)(xcviii), Section 2(1)(o)(xcix), Section 2(1)(o)(c), Section 2(1)(o)(ci), Section 2(1)(o)(cii), Section 2(1)(o)(ciii), Section 2(1)(o)(civ), Section 2(1)(o)(cv), Section 2(1)(o)(cvi), Section 2(1)(o)(cvii), Section 2(1)(o)(cviii), Section 2(1)(o)(cix), Section 2(1)(o)(cx), Section 2(1)(o)(cxi), Section 2(1)(o)(cxii), Section 2(1)(o)(cxiii), Section 2(1)(o)(cxiv), Section 2(1)(o)(cxv), Section 2(1)(o)(cxvi), Section 2(1)(o)(cxvii), Section 2(1)(o)(cxviii), Section 2(1)(o)(cxix), Section 2(1)(o)(cxx), Section 2(1)(o)(cxxi), Section 2(1)(o)(cxxii), Section 2(1)(o)(cxxiii), Section 2(1)(o)(cxxiv), Section 2(1)(o)(cxxv), Section 2(1)(o)(cxxvi), Section 2(1)(o)(cxxvii), Section 2(1)(o)(cxxviii), Section 2(1)(o)(cxxix), Section 2(1)(o)(cxxx), Section 2(1)(o)(cxxxi), Section 2(1)(o)(cxxxii), Section 2(1)(o)(cxxxiii), Section 2(1)(o)(cxxxiv), Section 2(1)(o)(cxxxv), Section 2(1)(o)(cxxxvi), Section 2(1)(o)(cxxxvii), Section 2(1)(o)(cxxxviii), Section 2(1)(o)(cxxxix), Section 2(1)(o)(cxl), Section 2(1)(o)(cxli), Section 2(1)(o)(cxlii), Section 2(1)(o)(cxliii), Section 2(1)(o)(cxliv), Section 2(1)(o)(cxlv), Section 2(1)(o)(cxlvi), Section 2(1)(o)(cxlvii), Section 2(1)(o)(cxlviii), Section 2(1)(o)(cxl...]
Fact of the Case:
Sh.Subhash Mahajan, a government contractor, was advised to undergo surgery for the removal of gall bladder. The complainants alleged medical negligence and claimed compensation of Rs. 22.00 lacs. The opposite parties contested the complaint, denying any deficiency in service and alleging that proper medical procedures were followed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainants' allegations of medical negligence were not substantiated. It held that the opposite parties had provided medical treatment with due care, skill, and diligence, and dismissed the complaint.
Issues: The main issue was whether the opposite parties were negligent in their medical treatment of Sh.Subhash Mahajan.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a doctor is not guilty of negligence if they have acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical professionals. It emphasized that as long as a doctor attends to the patient with due care, skill, and diligence, it would be difficult to hold the doctor guilty of negligence.
Final Decision: The complaint was dismissed.
ORDER
K.C. Gupta, President - Briefly stated the facts are that Sh.Subhash Mahajan was A-class Government contractor, whose annual income was more that Rs. 5 lacs. Smt. Veena Mahajan-complainant No. 1 is his widow while complainant Nos. 2 to 6 are his children and all were dependent upon him.
2. It was next averred that on 14.4.2001, Subhash Mahajan visited the hospital known as Dr.Ved Hospital, Heart Care and General (Amritsar) and Dr.Ved Gupta-OP No. 1and Dr.B.B.Goel OP No. 2 declared that he was suffering from Cholilithiesis and chronic obstructive airway disease as mentioned in OPD card. He was advised by OP Nos. 1 and 3 to be admitted immediately in their hospital for operation/surgery for removal of gall bladder with the help of laparoscopic Cholecystectomy. Thus, on their advice, he got himself admitted in the hospital on the same day.
3. It was further averred that he was a known COAD case but neither his X-ray (chest) was done to rule out any lungs disease, nor any ECG test was taken to rule out any cardiac disease which showed great negligence on the part of OP Nos. 1 and 3. OP No. 1 being not a surgeon, was not competent to admit and operate Sh.Subhash Mahajan because he was medical specialist but OP No. 1 admitted him for greed to extort money through unfair means. The operation theatre maintained by them was not having proper facility for conducting operation/surgery in his hospital.
4. It was next averred that OP No. 2 Dr.B.B. Goel must have been a dummy surgeon or inexperienced person to perform laparoscopic surgery for which Subhash Mahajan was admitted but later on operation was done by exploration of abdomen without informing about the same to Subhash Mahajan or his attendants. However, OP No. 2 was working as Professor in Government Medical College, Amritsar without holding any surgical qualification and was not competent to operate Subhash Mahajan.
5. It was further averred that pre-operative ABG findings were clearly suggestive of respiratory acidosis calls for which treatment was necessary before he could be operated upon but this was not done and on the other hand, he was labelled chronic smoker and alcoholic . During surgery, Subhash Mahajan suffered respiratory cardiac arrest but OP failed to revive the patient in time i.e. within five minutes and resultantly Subhash Mahajan went into cerebral hypoxia leading to brain damage or brain death and he never regained consciousness till his death.
6. It was next averred that three units of blood were given to Subhash Mahajan during operation after cardiac respiratory arrest which showed that there must be acute blood loss as a result of some serious injury to major artery or aorta which sent the patient into a shock and this showed negligence on the part of operating team and ultimately he went into coma.
7. It was further averred that Subhash Mahajan was discharged on 15.4.2001, just after one day and that too on the request of his attendants but attendants never made such request and OP No. 3 accompanied Subhash Mahajan to D.M.C. Ludhiana and even the death summary of D.MC. suggested that biliary leakage led to biliary peritonitis leading to septicemia which showed incomplete surgery of gall bladder by inexperienced and negligent persons. The copy of the death summary is Annexure C-4. In the D.M.C. Hospital OP No. 3 falsely furnished history of Subhash Mahajan by stating that he was chronic chain smoker and alcoholic which was not true. Ultimately Subhash Mahajan died on 6.5.2001.
8. Alleging negligence in treatment of OPs of Subhash Mahajan, present complaint was field on 6.5.2003 and claimed compensation of Rs. 22.00 lacs.
9. Opposite parties contested the complaint. OP Nos. 1 and 3 denied the allegations and stated that there was no deficiency in service on their part. They denied that Subhash Mahajan was A-class Government contractor whose annual income was more than Rs. 5 lacs. They further stated that on 14.4.2001 Subhash Mahajan through Dr. B.B. Goel h
