Back
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
VEENA BIRBAL, SALMA NOOR, JJ.
Tilak @ Tilak Raj Sikri – Appellant
Versus
Sri. Balaji Action Medical Institute – Respondent
Complaint Case No. 299 of 2010
Decided On : 06-09-2018
The main legal point established in the judgment is the hospital's duty to provide timely and appropriate medical treatment, and the liability for negligence resulting in permanent disability.
Headnote:
Medical Negligence - Consumer Protection Act - 1986, Section 17 - [MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE] - [CONSUMER PROTECTION] - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 17] - The court discussed the complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging medical negligence resulting in the complainant's loss of eyesight. The court found lack of care and negligence on the part of the hospital in not providing timely treatment for the complainant's eyes, leading to permanent disability. The court awarded a total amount of Rs. 35,00,000 (Rs. thirty five lakh only) to the complainant, inclusive of compensation and medical expenses.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant alleged that the hospital's negligence and wrong treatment resulted in the loss of his eyesight. He sought compensation for the expenses incurred on medical treatment and the mental torture and agony suffered.
Finding of the Court:
The court found lack of care and negligence on the part of the hospital in not providing timely treatment for the complainant's eyes, leading to permanent disability. The court awarded a total amount of Rs. 35,00,000 (Rs. thirty five lakh only) to the complainant, inclusive of compensation and medical expenses.
Issues: The issues involved the hospital's alleged negligence and wrong treatment, the complainant's loss of eyesight, and the claim for compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the hospital's delay in providing treatment for the complainant's eyes constituted negligence, resulting in permanent disability. The court awarded compensation to the complainant for the expenses incurred on medical treatment and the mental torture and agony suffered.
Final Decision: The complaint was allowed, and the court awarded a total amount of Rs. 35,00,000 (Rs. thirty five lakh only) to the complainant, inclusive of compensation and medical expenses.
ORDER :
1. A complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the “Act”) is filed by the complainant Shri Tilak @ Tilak Raj Sikri wherein it is stated that Complainant is a resident of Panipat (Haryana). On 4.10.2008, he was suffering from high fever. He was checked by Dr. Ahuja of Ahuja Hospital, Sanoli Road, Panipat, in the morning. After checking, the doctor advised the complainant and his father to immediately go to Delhi for better treatment. Thereupon, complainant got admitted in OP hospital for treatment of fever on the same day i.e. 4.10.2008 at about 2.00 p.m. (Saturday). On diagnosis it was found that complaint was suffering from Dengue Fever. The complainant was transferred to ICU of the hospital and his treatment was started. The requisite amount was deposited by the complainant and his father. The doctor attending him advised many tests which were carried out in the said hospital. As per tests carried out on 4.10.2008, Dengue NS-1 Antigen was Negative and on 6.10.2008 at about 4:45 p.m. the Platelet count was 50 and on 7.10.2008 at 5:50 a.m., the Platelet count was 128.
2. It is alleged that on 5.10.2008, when the complainant was in the ICU, he started losing his eyesight of both the eyes in the evening time. The complainant immediately informed the nursing staff present there but the Junior Doctors/Nursing Staff did not bother and continued with the wrong treatment throughout whole night. It is alleged that no senior doctor was consulted by them as the senior doctors were not available in the hospital being Sunday. In the intervening night of 5.6.10.2008, the condition of the complainant became very critical in the ICU.
3. On 6.10.2008, senior doctor came. The staff informed the condition of complainant, the senior doctor i.e. Dr. Raj Anand advised for MRI and the complainant was sent to Krystal MRI Scan & Diagnostic Centre-1, Paschim Enclave Main Road, Near Peera Garhi Chowk, New Delhi where MRI was done.
4. It is alleged that the doctors of OP hospital could not control infection in both the eyes of complainant, as a result of which the complainant became completely blind. On 7.10.2008 in the late hours, the attending doctor of the OP hospital asked complainant’s father to take him to All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi and stated that they were unable to understand the reason of blindness of the complainant. In the discharge summary, it has been recorded by the doctors that both the corneas have become small in size and severely damaged and not reacting to light.
5. It is alleged that family of the complainant tried to get him admitted in AIIMS on the same day but he could be admitted only on the next day i.e. 8.10.2008 where his treatment was started. On 9.10.2008 he was admitted in Dr. Rajendra Prashad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences (Department of AIIMS for eye treatment) and remained there up to 24.10.2008. However, he could not get his vision. Thereupon, complainant got treatment from Shroff Eye Centre, A-9, Kailash Colony, New Delhi on different dates. The complainant also got treatment from Patanjali Yogpeeth, Haridwar and Mohan Eye Institute. He also consulted prominent Dr. Daljit Singh Eye Hospital at Amritsar and Dr. RR-Rama Raja Gopal from Sankara Nethralaya from Chennai and also got treatment from Dr. Mahipal S. Sachdev from Centre for Sight at Delhi but his vision could not be regained. Thereupon, he consulted number of reputed doctors but could not succeed in getting his eyesight. It is stated that complainant has spent more than Rs. 5 lacs on his treatment. It is alleged that complainant has lost eyesight of both eyes due to wrong treatment and negligence of doctors of OP hospital. The complainant was left in the ICU of OP hospital under the care of nursing staff/junior doctors who were not competent to take care of any eventuality and emergency. It is alleged that had the nursing staff called the Senior Doctor as and when the complainant for the first time com
