Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member & Dinesh Singh, Member
V.P. Sharma & Ors. —Complainants
Versus
Dr. G.S. Kochar & Ors. —Opp.Parties
Consumer Case No. 9 of 2003
Decided on 11.8.2020
For Complainants :Mr. Vikas Mahajan, Mr. Vinod Sharma and Mr. Anil Kumar Advocates
For OP No. 1 & 2 :Mr. V. P. Chandna, Advocate along with Dr. G.S. Kochhar, OP-1 in person
For OP No. 3 :Mr. Vivek Sharma, Advocate for Mrs. Nanita Sharma, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Doctor is not liable for negligence if he performs his duty with reasonableness and with due care and mode of treatment/ skill differs from doctor to doctor.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 17 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019—Section 51]—Medical services—Medical negligence—Urology—Failure of Doctor to diagnose septicaemia and DIC—Patient’s medical history clearly revealed that she was suffering from various co-morbidities like breathing difficulty, hypothyroidism and post tuberculosis inflammation of lungs—Such co-morbidities are fatal in this case—There was no dereliction in duty of care from Doctor—He is qualified urologist and treated patient as per standard of practice—DMC and MCI also did not find negligence from hospital and treating doctors therein—There is no negligence during treatment of patient, blaming doctor and hospital is not correct— Doctor is not liable for negligence if he performs his duty with reasonableness and with due care and mode of treatment/ skill differs from doctor to doctor—Complainant has failed to conclusively establish deficiency / negligence on part of treating doctor / hospital—Complaint dismissed. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14)
Result: Complaint dismissed.
ORDER
Dr. S.M. Kantikar,Presiding Member —Complaint:
Since May 2002, Smt. Kusum Lata (for short ‘the patient’) was suffering from recurrent urinary tract infection (UTI). She consulted Dr. G. S. Kochhar (OP-1) at his private clinic and shown the urine Culture and Sensitivity (C/S) report. There was growth of Staphylococcus pyogenic organisms sensitive to Co-trimoxazole. The OP-1 prescribed Tab. Bactrim for 7 days. Thereafter, again in July 2002, forsimilar urinary complaints, the patient contacted OP-1 along with the urine C/S report dated 20.07.2002, it showed significant growth Escherichia-coli (E-coli) organisms with colony count > 1,00,000 per ml urine. However, the OP- 1 did not prescribe any medicines, but advised for surgery only and told the patient to get admitted on 8.8.2002 in Holy Family Hospital (OP-2 Hospital). It was alleged that the OP-1 did not follow the standard of practice, he failed to treat Esch.coli infection for 10 to 14 days by specific antibiotic. Also, OP-1 before the operative procedure failed to advise fresh urine C/S to ascertain it was sterile. The Complainant further alleged that the OP-2 hospital issued two different discharge summaries with contradictory noting. Her husband (the Complainant No.1) approached the hospital with the 1st discharge summary and pointed out the mistakes. The hospital took it back and issued 2nd discharge summary. It was alleged that due to negligence the OP-1 failed to diagnose the septicemia and DIC. Thus to cover-up negligence of OP-1 and 2, under the garb of suspectedcardiac problem shiftedthe patient to Escorts Hearts Institute & Research Centre, New Delhi ( for short ‘EHIRC’).
Defense:
2. The OPs filed their respective written versions and denied any negligence during the treatment. The preliminary objection raised was on maintainability of the complaint on the point of free service given by OP-2, therefore, the patient was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complaint was defective for jurisdiction and non-joinder of the parties. The OPs further submitted that the operation was performed on 9.8.20002 and uneventful. After the procedure the patient was under observation and attended to by the on duty as per the instructions of OP-1. She was given IV fluids and antibiotics. The fall of the blood pressure was a routine after the procedure and it was efficiently managed, IV Haemaccel was started. At 7.30 pm patient complained of nausea, but no vomiting. The patient was attended by Dr. Ajay Kumar who was on call duty, examined her. The patient was conscious, well hydrated and she was passing clear urine and no evidence of blood in her urine. Dr. Ajay Kumar telephonically updated OP-1 about the condition of the patient. OP-1 advised to get an ECG done and let the patient be examined by physician. The patient was attended time to time by physician Dr. Jaydeep Mandal/ Dr. S. Mukherjee, MD Senior Consultant (Medicine). On 10.08.2002 at 8.20 AM Dr. S. Mukherjee and the OP-1 Dr. G. S. Kochhar jointly examined the patient in the ICU. The Chief of Medical services of BHEL Dr. S.C. Jolly was also present. It was revealed that patient’s cardiac enzymes were rising and ECHO was not normal therefore acute cardiac problem was suspected. The doctors after discussion with each other in the presence of the Complainant 1, Shri V.P. Sharma decided to shift the patient to EHIRC which was situated across the road of the OP-2 Hospital. The patient was shifted 11.15 am under the supervision and accompanied by one doctor and one nurse of Holy Family Hospital. At the time of shifting, all test reports were given to the patient’s attendants.
Arguments:
3. The learned counsel for the Complainants submitted that it was the case of UTI due to virulent Esch. Coli organisms were the main cause of septicemia and later progressed to DIC and septic shock. OP-1 ought to have treated the patient for UTI before operative procedure. He further argued that the OP-2 hospital issued two d
