IMPORTANT POINT
(1) Evidence of Negligence – A mere deviation from normal professional practice is not necessarily evidence of negligence also a mere accident is not evidence of negligence. So also an error of judgment on the part of a professional is not negligence per se. Higher the acuteness in emergency and higher the complication, more are the chances of error of judgment.

ORDER

Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member.—The issue relates to whether non-referral of the patient to the Specialist or higher centre amounts to deficiency in service or medical negligence of the treating doctor/hospital.

2. The case of the Complainants is that their son Rahul (since deceased, hereinafter referred to as the “patient”) about 17 years of age hit by the train while crossing the railway track on 21.01.2011. Immediately at 2.50 pm, he was taken to Jeevan Jyoti Hospital (Respondent / Opposite Party No. 1). It was alleged that the doctors therein did not carefully attend the fatal head injuries. The Neurosurgeon was not available in the hospital and the patient was not referred to the higher centre. Ultimately, the patient died at 7.00 pm.

3. The Opposite Parties denied negligence during treatment and they have treated the patient with all precautions.

4. Being aggrieved by the alleged carelessness, deficiency in service and the medical negligence causing death of Rahul, the Complainants filed the Consumer Complaint before the District Forum, Jhajjar.

5. The District Forum allowed the Complaint and awarded a sum of Rs. 12 lakh to the Complainants, whereas the State Commission allowed the Appeal and dismissed the Complaint.

6. Being aggrieved by the Order passed by the State Commission, the instant Revision Petition has been filed by the Complainants.

7. We have heard the learned Counsel from both the sides, perused the material on record, inter-alia, the medical record, the Post-Mortem Report and the opinion of CMO.

8. It is apparent from the Record that the deceased sustained grievous injuries due to hit by the train. Immediately, he was taken to the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital at 2.50 p.m. The patient was attended by three doctors – one Surgeon, one Orthopaedician and an Anesthetist. The patient was in the state of haemorrhagic shock and sustained multiple fractures and head injury. Immediately, after conducting relevant investigations and X-rays, he was shifted to ICU and was kept under observation. The patient was initially managed in casualty, the casualty findings are reproduced as below:

“Oxygen was given by mask 5 liter/Min.

- IV-fluid Hemaxil started

- Inj. T.T. given

- Inj. Monocef

- Inj. Epsolin

Advice for surgical / Neurosurgical opinion asked.

Dressing done and Pt. shifted to I.C.U. for further treatment and advised to patient relative to bring 2 unit of compatible blood.”

9. The deceased Post-Mortem was conducted at General Hospital Bahadurgarh and confirmed the cause of death as fatal head injury and hemorrhagic shock. It was further stated that such ante mortem injuries are sufficient to cause death of the person and moreover, those injuries were sustained due to railway accident.

10. We have perused the Medical Board’s inquiry report. It was stated that as per the treatment record injured Rahul was in critical state with having hypotension (BP 70 systolic) and altered sensorium. He received first aid in casualty of the hospital. Within half an hour his X-rays and other investigations were carried out and as per the investigations there was skull # and multiple rib # and he was transferred to ICU but died at 7.25 PM on 21.01.2011.

The Committee concluded as below:

1. The specialist (Orthopaedic Surgeon, General Surgeon, Anaesthetist) the Doctors of the JJRH treated the patient as per their available facilities and their acumen.

2. The inured Rahul suffered massive multiple organ Trauma in rail accident and died because of it.

3. Such type of injured patient needs tertiary care facility treatment like CT Scan, blood transfusion and evaluation by Neurosurgeon. So, this patient should have been referred to higher institute after the initial management.

11. From the facts and circumstances of this case, in our considered view, the patient was evaluated by specialist doctors (Dr. Deepak Kumar Orthopaedic Surgeon, Dr. Ritesh Kumar Rao General Surgeon and Dr. Manishpal Anaesthetist) of the Jeevan J