IMPORTANT POINT
Compensation of Rs. 10,000/- directed to be paid to complainants for death caused due to negligence in injecting wrong chemotherapy medicine.

ORDER

This original petition has been filed by the complainants Priya Narhari & anr. alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite parties Chief of Army Staff and Ors.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainants’ mother, who was a beneficiary of Ex Servicemen Contributory Health Scheme by virtue of her late husband being an army officer, was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in May, 2004 and underwent chemotherapy for six cycles at Research & Referral Hospital, New Delhi with drugs Gemcite and Carboplatin and declared cancer free. She suffered a relapse in February, 2006 and the treatment was again started with the same medicines for a 21 days cycle. As alleged, she was showing tremendous progress, however, when she went for 4th cycle, the opposite party No.4 doctor mentioned on her case sheet ‘same protocol as on February 17th 2006’. The opposite party No.5- Ward In-charge requested for supply of Cisplatin instead of prescribed drug Carboplatin. During previous cycles, opposite party No.5 was herself administering the drug, but this time she asked her junior nurse (opposite party No.6) to administer the drug who also did not pay any attention that a wrong drug was being administered. Due to administration of wrong drug the patient suffered extreme uneasiness and severe pain and, subsequently, the patient died due to multiple organ failure. It is alleged that the dead body of the patient was given to complainants only after taking an undertaking that they shall not initiate any criminal proceedings against the opposite parties. That only after much pressure from the complainants, the opposite parties started an internal investigation and conducted court inquiry in the matter but kept the complainants away from those proceedings. That the complainants were not made available the medical documents of the deceased despite several efforts and the application filed under RTI Act in this regard. That the complainants on their visit to India in 2008, came to know through newspapers that the Army had sentenced three years loss of seniority to the opposite party no.5. Thus, alleging admission of medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties and negligence in injecting wrong chemotherapy medicine, due to which the precious life of their mother had been lost, the complainants filed this complaint.

3. The complaint has been resisted by the opposite parties by filing the written statement and by stating that medicine Cisplatin was mistakenly given by the Nurse opposite party No.5 in lieu of Carboplatin and the Army Court inquiry was proceeded against the Opposite party No.5 and appropriate punishment has already been given. The mistake was not deliberated and it was a bona-fide mistake, therefore, it cannot be considered as medical negligence. It has been requested to dismiss the complaint.

4. Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavits which have been taken on record.

5. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record. Learned counsel for the complainants stated that the deceased started suffering ovarian carcinoma with hypertension since February, 2004 and was managed at AHRR with cytoreductive surgery (R-1) Resection followed by adjuvant chemotherarpy with pacliatxel based therapy + Carboplain. The treatment was completed in September, 2004 and the patient became free from cancer. In February 2006 the patient again suffered with relapse of this cancer and was treated with the same medicines i.e.

gemcit and carboplatin. On 20th April, 2006 doctor opposite party No.4 advised the following:-

“IV cycle chemotherapy as per protocol on 17 Feb 2006.”

6. On 21.04.2006, the medical record states that the patient got Cisplatin in lieu of Carboplatin and the patient developed vomiting and headache. By that time, it was known to the doctor and other staff of the hospital that a wrong medicine has been administered to the patient. The learned counsel stated that all the parties have acce