Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member, S.M. Kantikar, Member
Shrawan Kumar Jaipuriyar - Complainant
Versus
Commandant, Base Hospital & Anr. - Opposite Parties
Consumer Complaint No. 274 of 2012
Decided On : 04-12-2014
For the Complainant : In person.
For the Opposite Parties :Mr. Anuj Aggarwal and Ms. Niti Jain, Advocates with Maj. (Dr.) Puneet Dewan, Base Hospital.
The duty of care, informed consent, and standard of medical treatment are crucial in determining medical negligence under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Medical Negligence - Section 21(a)(i) - Summary of Acts and Sections: Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 13 - The court discussed the duty of care, informed consent, and standard of medical treatment under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant filed a complaint against two hospitals for medical negligence resulting in his wife's paraplegia and subsequent death. The defense argued that the LP was performed in good faith and the patient was informed orally.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the LP was performed in good faith, and the absence of written consent was not a serious deficiency. The court dismissed the complaint, stating that the complainant failed to prove negligence in the diagnosis and treatment of the patient.
Issues: Informed consent for Lumbar Puncture, negligence in diagnosis and treatment, and the causal relationship between the alleged negligence and the harm suffered by the patient.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the duty of care and the standard of medical treatment, considering expert opinions and relevant medical literature. It also discussed the significance of informed consent and the absence of written consent in the context of medical negligence.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the complaint, directing the parties to bear their own costs.
ORDER :
S.M. Kantikar, Member
Col. Shrawan Kumar Jaipuriyar filed this Complaint under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for the award of compensation of Rupees two crores against the OP No. 1, Commandant, Base Hospital and Rupees one crore against the OP-2, Commandant, Army Hospital (R & R) for their being deficient in rendering service to the wife of the Complainant resulting in paraplegia (paralysis of her body waist downwards) and for the award for the mental agony.
2. The Complainant, a retired Col. from Army also an Orthopaedic Surgeon served as a professor, his wife Dr. Mrs. Shanti Prasad aged about 64 years (herein referred as “Patient”) was a retired CMO-cum Civil Surgeon, Araria (Bihar). In July, 2004, she was operated for carcinoma right breast at OP-2 hospital; she took chemotherapy, radiotherapy and hormone therapy. She was also a Diabetic (DM Type-ll) and hypertensive. In the first week of October, 2010 she suffered fever and was empirically treated at Patna, thereafter, the Complainant decided to take her to the Army Hospital R R (OP-2) at Delhi Cantt. for further investigations and management. Accordingly, he contacted the Deputy Commandant of OP-2, on telephone and requested him for assistance in bringing the patient from Patna to Delhi, for hospitalization. Because of Postural Hypotension of his wife, he could not bring her by air, hence on 11.10.2010, both travelled to New Delhi from Patna by Sampoorna Kranti Express Train. Due to road jams in Delhi during Common Wealth Games with great difficulty he reached OP-2 around 200 p.m. on 12.10.2010. Complainant alleged that, the OP-2 just neglected her to admit in ICU and behaved casually. There were no specialists at the instance and after great pursuance of Deputy Commandant of OP-2, Lieutenant Col. Srivastava, a Physician examined her, who after investigations diagnosed her as Hyponatramia (Low Sodium levels). After completing the admission formalities, the patient was denied admission for non-availability of bed due to heavy rush. Finally the doctors at OP-2 advised the Complainant to take the patient at OP-1, Base Hospital, where he had served. Therefore, the complainant alleged that, the patient was literally thrown out of the hospital in such critical state; it was just a death warrant. The golden hour of patient’s care was lost, the condition of the patient went on deteriorated further. Thus, no alternative, he took the patient to OP-1, and as per telephonic instructions of Commandant Maj. Gen. Chopra, the patient was admitted in ICU at 4.33 p.m., on 12.10.2012, under Dangerously Ill health List (DIL). She was treated with IV fluids, antibiotics and other supportive measures. On the same night somebody performed Lumber Puncture (LP) without consent of either patient or the complainant. Thereafter, on 16.10.2010, the Complainant noticed that the patient could not move her lower limbs and was senseless, i.e. she developed sudden paraplegia. Further, she lost her bladder sensation, hence, she was put on continuous urinary catheterization. Due to damage to the nerves by LP, she developed “Lower Motor Neurone Type of Paralysis” it was suggestive of “Cauda Equina Syndrome”. On 20.10.2010, the patient was discharged from Base Hospital in moribund state of health with the advice to approach ECHS empanelled hospital for Radiotherapy treatment under an Oncologist. Thus, the Complainant took the patient to AIIMS. It was alleged that, at AIIMS, she was examined on OPD basis, and just to pass the bucks MRI of Dorsolumbar spine was done on 22.10.2010. AIIMS ignored the MRI Dorso Lumbar spine which was done at Base Hospital, just 4 days before i.e. on 18.10.2010, thus it caused inconvenience to the patient (who was paraplegic and immuno compromised). AIIMS made a diagnosis of Leptomenihgeal carcinomatosis vide Investigation No. N 002999/10 dated 20.10.2010.
3. Thereafter, she was advised radio therapy, which was agreed by the Oncologist Army Hospital (R &
