Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
Dr. Bikramjit Singh Sandhu and Ors. —Appellants
versus
Simple Bhandari and Ors. —Respondents
First Appeal No.481 of 2014 and First Appeal No.1186 of 2014
Decided on 20.10.2020
For the Appellants:Mr. K.G. Sharma and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent Nos.1 to 3:Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.4 and 5:Mr. Amit Wadhwa, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.7 and 8:Mr. S.K. Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent No.11:Mr. Harsh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent No.13:Dr. Sushil Kr. Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.6, 9, 10 and 12: Nemo
IMPORTANT POINT
Treating doctors held negligent for not performing haemoperitonurn on deceased, a victim of roadside accident.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 19 : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019]—Section 41—Medical Negligence—Accidental death—Claim for—Husband of respondent no. 1 and father of respondent nos.2 and 3 met with a roadside accident—He was admitted in hospital—Ultrasound indicated haemoperitoneurn and pelvic hematorna—As per post-mortem report his death was caused due to hemowhagic shock resulting from multiple injuries in a road side accident—Respondents alleged negligence on part of appellants—Admitted by, haemoperitonum was suspected in the clinical evaluation—Case of appellants rather in that they had planned laparotorny for the treatment of haemoperitonurn but the laparotorny could not be done since family members of deceased having refused consent sought by them for performing the said procedure—Despite haemoperitonurn having been confirmed, no attempt was made by hospital and treading doctor to undertake laparatomy even till the patient was discharged—Therefore, appellants were clearly negligent in the treatment of the deceased by not undertaking laparotomy even till the time he was discharged—Compensation of Rs. 14 lacs have been awarded by MACT—In view of facts and circumstances of the case, a compensation amounting to Rs. 15,00,000/- to complainants held justified—Further direction issued. (Paras 9 to 13)
ORDER (ORAL)
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member.—Late Sh. Anshu Bhandari, husband of respondent no.1 and father of respondents 2 & 3 met with a roadside accident at about 7 pm on 17.04.2009 and was taken to Civil Hospital, Jagraon. After giving first aid to him, he was advised to be taken to a well-equipped hospital for further management. The deceased Anshu Bhandari was accompanied by respondent no.1 his wife Mrs. Simple Bhandari at the time he met with the accident and she had also sustained some injuries in the said accident. Both of them were brought to the emergency department of Ludhiana Medicity, a unit of AA Hospital Pvt. Ltd. at about 9 pm. Deceased Anshu Bhandari was in a critical condition at the time he was brought to Ludhiana Mediciti. He was examined by the doctor on duty namely Dr. Pankaj who informed Dr. B. S. Sekhon, MD (Anaesthesia). Dr. B.S. Sekhon examined him at about 9-10 pm and called Dr. Bikramjit Singh Sandhu, appellant in FA/481/2014. Dr. Sandhu examined him at about 09:30 pm. At that time, blood pressure of the deceased was 90/60 and his heart rate was 120. After starting intravenous fluids and inserting a urinary catheter besides giving the pain killers, several investigations were advised by Dr. Sandhu. He was shifted to ICU at about 10 pm and his bed side X-ray and ultrasound was done. The X-ray did not indicate pneumothorax. The ultrasound started at about 10:15 pm and took about 20 minutes. The ultrasound indicated haemoperitoneum and pelvic hematoma. The deceased was discharged from Medicity, Ludhiana at the responsibility of his family members at about 11:30 pm and was taken to CMC Hospital where he expired at about 01:45 am on 18.04.2009. As per the post-mortem report, his death was caused due to hemorrhagic shock resulting from multiple injuries in a road side accident. Alleging negligence in the treatment of late Sh. Anshu Bhandari, the complainants approached the concerned State Commission by way of a Consumer Complaint filed on 09.12.2009.
2. Dr. Gaurav Sachdeva, Dr. Raman Singla, Dr. Parveen Popli and Dr. Bikramjit Singh Sandhu of Mediciti, Ludhiana were also impleaded as parties in the Consumer Complaint besides impleading the insurance companies and insurance consultants.
3. The complaint was resisted by the hospital as well as by the doctors who were impleaded as the OPs in the Consumer Complaint. It was inter-alia stated in its written version that there was no negligence in the treatment of the deceased at Medicity, Ludhiana and that the treating doctors had planned a laparotomy for the treatment of haemoperitoneum but the family members of the deceased refused the consent required for the aforesaid procedure and they took discharge at their own responsibility when the patient was in a critical condition and was not in a position to travel upto CMC Hospital.
4. The State Commission, vide impugned order dated 22.05.2014, directed as under:
21. The next point is quantum of compensation. The deceased patient was an Advocate, aged about 30 years. In 2007-08 his return was Rs. 99,300/- and in 2008-09, it was Rs. 1,14,600/-. As a round figure it is to be taken as Rs. 1,14,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd, the dependency is Rs. 76,380/- and after applying the multiplier of 16, it will come to Rs. 12,22,080/- and after giving the future prospectus to the extent of 30%, it will come to Rs.3,66,624/-, its total will come to Rs. 15,88,704/- and after taking into consideration the expenses on treatment, it can be taken as Rs.16 lacs. Rs.2,00,000/- are awarded on account of pain and suffering and Rs.21,000/- are awarded as litigation expenses. Out of this amount Rs.10 lacs will be paid by OP Nos. 1 & 2 and remaining amount by OP No.4.
22. So far as OP No.4 is concerned, he has pleaded that he is covered with the insurance policy of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. There is written reply/statement
