PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President, Kiran Sibal, Member
Harpreet Kaur & Ors. - Complainants
Versus
Fortis Escorts Hospital Majitha & Ors. - Opposite Parties
Consumer Complaint No. 104 of 2012
Decided On : 08-09-2017
Medical Negligence - Consumer Protection - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 17 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 17 - The court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the complainants did not have the authority to file the complaint as they were not considered 'consumers' under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The complainants filed a consumer complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, claiming compensation for medical negligence resulting in the patient's paraplegic condition. The hospital and doctor denied the allegations and raised preliminary objections.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the complainants did not have the authority to file the complaint as they were not considered 'consumers' under the Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the complainants had the authority to file the complaint as 'consumers' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainants did not have the authority to file the complaint as they were not considered 'consumers' under the Act.
Final Decision: The complaint was dismissed, and the court suggested that the complainants could file a fresh complaint if they had the authority to do so.
ORDER :
Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
The complainants Smt. Harpreet Kaur wife of Shri Varinder Singh, three minor children Samanpreet daughter of Varinder Singh, Karandeep and Gaganroop sons of Shri Varinder Singh through their mother being natural Gaurdian and Sh. Iqbal Singh, Father and Smt. Jaswant Kaur, mother of the patient, Varinder Singh (hereinafter to be referred as ‘patient’) have approached this Commission, by way of consumer complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the Act”), claiming compensation of Rs. 60,00,000 on account of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties; Rs. 20,00,000 for future maintenance of Varinder Singh; and Rs. 1,00,000 for loss of love and affection. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 81,00,000 has been claimed against opposite party No. 1-Fortis Escorts Hospital, Amritsar (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Hospital’) and opposite party No. 2-Dr. Raj Kumar, Consultant surgeon ENT (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Doctor’) at Fortis Escorts Hospital, alleging medical negligence on their part.
2. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that Varinder Singh, patient, husband of complainant No. 1, father of complainants Nos. 2 to 4 and son of complainants Nos. 5 and 6, approached the Fortis Hospital on 11.5.2011 for treatment, consultation and diagnosis. The preliminary investigations were conducted, as advised by Dr. Raj Kumar Saini. After perusal of the investigation reports, he was advised to undergo surgery for removal of Polyps, for this purpose, functional/endoscopic sinus surgery is immediately required. Thereafter, patient got admitted in the hospital on dated 18.5.2011 for operation, known as ‘Functional Endoscopic Sinus Surgery’ (in short, ‘FESS’) for removal of Polyps. The diagnosis was as under:
Polyposis nose, Bifrontal ICH with B/L infarcts post-operative.
CSF Rhinorrhoea, DVT right lower limb, hypertension.”
During the operation/surgery for removal of the Polyps, on account of medical negligence of the operating surgeon, Cribriform Plate separating brain from nasal cavity, which attaches to structure located on the frontal bone of the skull known as Ethmoidal Notch, was broken/ruptured; causing complication during surgery. The patient was sent to Non-Contrast Computerized Tomography (in short, “NCCT”) from the operation table, on the recommendation of Neurosurgeon, in incubated condition. It was clinically diagnosed that Cribriform Plate had been disrupted and intra-cerebral haemorrhage had occurred in bilateral basifrontal region and patient was put on ‘life support system’ and he was managed conservatively. Thereafter, there was slight improvement in the condition of the patient, but the patient had become paraplegic and it was so recorded in the Discharge Summary, which reads as under:
“Conscious, obeying commands, taking orally and on Foley’s cath.
Paraplegic +.
Upper limb power is improving.”
The patient was discharged on 16.7.2011 after about 2 months by opposite party No. 1-Hospital. In fact, there was no improvement in the condition of the patient and the total bill of the patient was Rs. 12,01,170 but opposite party No. 1 simply requested the complainants to take him away, stating that no further charges would be levied upon them and only the charges, which would be paid by the Insurance Company, would take care of the patient’s bill. Out of the said bill, an amount of Rs. 1,33,000 was paid by ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company and no extra amount was demanded by opposite party Nos. 1 and 2, as they were fully aware that they had committed gross medical negligence and had rendered the patient 100% disabled, who had become paraplegic for whole of his life. The complainants took the patient to various top hospitals of the country, like VIMHANS, AIIMS and other specialized Neurologists, not caring for the expenses, b
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.