Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R.K. Agrawal, President and
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
ESI Hospital and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
Ravinder Gupta and Anr. – Respondents
Revision Petition No.726 of 2014
(Against the Order dated 27/08/2013 in Appeal No.203/2009 of the State Commission Delhi)
Decided on 18.6.2021
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) (Consumer Protection Act, 2019 Section 58(1)(b)) – Revision Petition - Against the Order of the State Commission dt. 27.08.2013 - Complainant’s/Respondent herein daughter suffered injury to her left hand, approached ESI Dispensary, further referred to ESI Hospital, Basaidarapur - Alleged that doctors applied plaster to her left hand despite no fracture being seen in the X-ray - Patient developed pus discharge and complications in her left hand and underwent several operations at Opp. Party No. 1 Hospital - Later referred to AIIMS, New Delhi – Did not completely cure and became handicapped –claiming compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/- - District Forum partly allowed the claim and ordered Respondent No. 2 to pay Rs. 3 lakhs instead of Rs. 4,50,000 as claimed in complaint to the Complainant – Respondents filed Appeal before State Commission - Appeal dismissed - Order passed by the District Forum affirmed - Hence, the Revision Petition - Appears that patient developed acute osteomyelitis due to infected hematoma as there was no surgical intervention at the time of admission, further resulted into degeneration of humerus - Referred to AIIMS on 08.11.2006 for bone grafting but no date for surgery available till 30.03.2007 - Cannot hold AIIMS for failure of duty of care for the non-availability of date for operation - No negligence of treating doctors at ESI Hospital either in diagnosis or the treatment of left hand fracture of the patient - Doctors adopted standard method of treatment - No breach in the duty of care.
Held: It was alleged that the doctors applied plaster to her left hand despite no fracture being seen in the X-ray. Thereafter, she developed pus discharge and complications in her left hand for which she underwent several operations at the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital. On 08.11.2006 she was referred to AIIMS, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Opposite Party No. 3’) however she did not get completely cured and became handicapped.
Being aggrieved by the negligent treatment, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint against both the Opposite Parties before the District Forum, Janakpuri, New Delhi claiming compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/-.
The District Forum partly allowed the claim and ordered the Opposite Party No. 2 to pay Rs. 3 lakh to the Complainant. The Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The Appeal was dismissed and the Order passed by the District Forum was affirmed.
It is pertinent to note that due to fall the patient suffered injury to her left arm, there was swelling. It was not compound fracture and there were no external injuries. The treating doctors gave U slab to stabilize the bone and soft tissue. It appears that the patient developed acute osteomyelitis due to infected hematoma because there was no surgical intervention at the time of admission. Thus it was hematogenous spread of infection which caused osteomyelitis and subsequently chronic osteomyelitis. It further resulted into degeneration of humerus and for treatment bone grafting was essential. Therefore on 8.11.2006 the patient was referred to AIIMS for bone grafting. We do not find any inordinate delay from the Opposite Party No. 2 in the said reference. The case was discussed with Dr. Kotwal who suggested Fibula grafting, however at AIIMS there was no date available for surgery till 30.03.2007. We cannot hold AIIMS for failure of duty of care for the non-availability of date for operation.
Based on the discussion above we do not find any negligence of treating doctors at ESI Hospital either in diagnosis or the treatment of left hand fracture of the patient. The doctors adopted the standard method of treatment. There was no breach in the duty of care. We allow the instant revision petition and set aside the Order of State Commission. Consequently the Consumer Complaint is dismissed.
(Paras 2, 3, 4, 10, 11 & 12)
Result: Revision petition allowed; Order of the State Commission, Delhi set aside.
ORDER
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member.—The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioners – ESI Hospital and ESI Dispensary (hereinafter referred to as the Opposite Parties Nos. 1 & 2 respectively) under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order dated 27.08.2013, wherein the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission ) dismissed the Appeal and confirmed the Order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum – III, Janakpuri (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum ) in Consumer Complaint No. 890/06
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant’s daughter Ms. Neelam (hereinafter referred to as the patient) suffered injury to her left hand and approached ESI Dispensary at Jwalapuri (hereinafter referred to as the Opposite Party No.-1) on 26.04.2006. On the next day she was further referred to ESI Hospital, Basaidarapur (hereinafter referred to as the Opposite Party No. 2). It was alleged that the doctors applied plaster to her left hand despite no fracture being seen in the X-ray. Thereafter, she developed pus discharge and complications in her left hand for which she underwent several operations at the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital. On 08.11.2006 she was referred to AIIMS, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Opposite Party No. 3’) however she did not get completely cured and became handicapped.
3. Being aggrieved by the negligent treatment, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint against both the Opposite Parties before the District Forum, Janakpuri, New Delhi claiming compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/-.
4. The District Forum partly allowed the claim and ordered the Opposite Party No. 2 to pay Rs. 3 lakh to the Complainant. The Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The Appeal was dismissed and the Order passed by the District Forum was affirmed.
5. Being aggrieved by the Order of State Commission, the Hospital- Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 filed the instant Revision Petition.
6. We have heard the arguments from the learned Counsel for the Parties. During arguments the learned Counsel for the Complainant was accompanied with the Complainant and his daughter (patient). The learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 was accompanied with Dr. Rajesh Lal Chandani from ESI Hospital.
7. We have perused the entire Medical Record of the ESI Hospital and AIIMS and given our thoughtful consideration.
8. We note from the Medical Record of ESI Hospital that the patient approached Ortho OPD on 28.04.2006 with history of fall from stairs. X-ray AP and lateral of left upper arm was advised and the patient was given Tablet Brufen 200 mg. There was swelling and tenderness of left arm up to shoulder. The doctors at ESI Hospital made a provisional diagnosis of fracture of surgical neck of left humerus (arm) and clavicle (collar bone) with rib fracture and osteomyelitis. The treatment advised was U slab, limb elevation, active finger movements, watch for swelling and colour changes. On 30.04.2006, the patient was referred to Pediatrics for abdominal pain but there were no significant findings, so she was advised to continue the medicines prescribed by the Orthopedics. On 01.05.2006, Dr. A. K. Dawar examined the patient. He further advised incision and drainage [I&D] and preparation of OT for emergency I&D. The emergency blood investigations like HB, TC, DC, RBS, Routine Urine, X-ray chest were done and asked to arrange the blood also. After pre-anesthetic check-up, at 8.00 pm under General Anesthesia the emergency I & D surgery with debridement of dead tissue was performed by Dr. Kailash, Dr. Aditya and Dr. Asad. Post operatively, limb elevation and active finger movements were advised. The patient was given injections of higher antibiotics and pain killers. One unit of blood was transfused. The incision drainage steps written by the treating doctor are reproduced as below:
“Steps:
patient laid
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
