Back
CHANDIGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Raj Shekhar Attri, President, Padma Pandey, Member and Rajesh K. Arya, Member
Present through Video Conferencing
Bedi Hospital and Anr. – Appellants
versus
Gurmeet Singh and Ors. – Respondents
Appeal No.344 of 2018
Decided on 4.2.2022
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.15 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.41] – Services – Medical Negligence – Appeal Against order of District Commission whereby Complaint was allowed – Whether it was only for routine vaccination that the baby was brought to the appellants or that any other problem with regard to congestion/stiffness/breathing etc. also came to the knowledge of the appellants or not – Whether Medical Negligence can be attributed on OP’s – The appellants also cannot wriggle out of the situation by saying that the parents of the baby did not apprise any fast breathing, especially in the face of the fact that the appellants themselves have noted that the baby was suffering from nasal stiffness – It is very strange that the doctor from the PGIMER on examination of the baby, diagnosed the disease as congenital cyanotic heart disease, whereas, on the other hand, appellant no.2, who had charged the amount towards fees from respondents no.1 and 2 and is also an experienced Child and Newborn Specialist), failed to diagnose this disease and even did not think it proper to conduct any tests/x-rays – Thus, it shows that medical negligence on the part of appellants is writ large. It is a case, wherein, the appellants though possessed of the requisite skill which he professed, but failed to exercise the same, with reasonable competence. The District Commission was also right in holding so – Therefore, there is no error on the part of the District Commission, in deciding other issues raised by the parties, as such, the findings given in the order impugned did not need any interference of this Commission. Thus, the order impugned stands upheld. Resultantly, this appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. [Paras 11 to 13].
Held: The appellants, either before the District Commission or before this Commission have failed to clarify as to why, when the baby was brought only for routine vaccination, what forced them, also to prescribe emosome ointment (3 times a day) and also nasoclear drops (sline nasal drops) – It is significant to mention here that appellant no.2 is a well reputed doctor and once, he had received huge amount of fees from the appellants, he was duty bound to conduct the medical tests etc. to diagnose with what disease baby A – A very young baby like the baby of respondents no.1 and 2 is not able to tell either his parents or the doctors as to what sort of health problems relating to nasal stiffness, constipation and abdomen pain, he is suffering – Had any test been conducted by the appellants, they would have easily diagnosed, as to why the baby was suffering from nasal stiffness and abdomen pain. The only means to get the same checked was the tests/x-ray of the relevant parts of the body of the baby but the appellants took that symptoms lightly and on the other hand, anti-gas medicine, drops and vitamins were prescribed. Even simple x-ray was not carried out by the appellants, of the baby, when they came to know that the baby was suffering from nasal stiffness, constipation and abdomen pain.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Padma Pandey, Member.—This appeal has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties no.1 and 2, as they are aggrieved of the order dated 25.10.2018 passed by the District Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the District Commission), whereby the consumer complaint bearing no.445 of 2016, filed by respondents no.1 and 2/complainants was allowed in the following manner:-
25. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs 1 & 2 are directed as under:-
(i) To immediately pay lump sum amount of Rs.7,00,000/- to the complainants for indulgence in medical negligence leading to the death of the baby boy;
(ii) To pay Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainants as compensation for pain and suffering and loss of love and affection due to the untimely death of their only child.
(iii) To pay to the complainants Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.
26. This order be complied with by OPs 1 & 2 within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr. No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
27. Since OP-2 was insured with OP-4/insurance company, OP-4 is at liberty to pay the aforesaid amounts and indemnify the complainants as per terms and condition of the insurance policy. The consumer complaint qua it is disposed of accordingly.
28. The consumer compliant qua OP-3 stands dismissed with no order as to costs..”
2. The facts necessary for disposal of the appeal, as narrated in the impugned order, are given hereunder:-
“….complainant Nos.1 & 2 are husband and wife respectively and were blessed with their first child i.e. a son on 2.3.2016 who was named as Ashmeet Singh. It is the allegation, complainants took baby Ashmeet Singh to OP-1/hospital owned by OP-2 on 12.3.2016 for routine check-up of newly born kids. On this OP-2 had suggested for post birth routine vaccination. Even on the said date, the abnormality which the complainants had noticed was fast breathing and baby was not feeling comfortable. OP-2 had suggested some nasal drops without carrying out any clinical or lab tests. The complainants had faith in the competence of OP-2 and again on 17.3.2016 baby Ashmeet was vaccinated for BCG without any test. The complainants had visited the OP-1 hospital on 12.3.2016, 17.3.2016, 5.4.2016, 24.4.2016, 16.5.2016, 21.5.2016 and 22.5.2016. Every time it was brought to the notice of OP-2 that breathing was fast. Per recommendation of OP-2, the child was taken for vaccination on 21.5.2016 on which date I.P. Imovax Polio was administered. Again the baby started breathing exceptionally fast. Payments for vaccination etc. were taken by OP-2. It is the case, on the intervening night of 21/22.5.2016, baby Ashmeet did not sleep and continued crying. He was taken to OP-2 on 22.5.2016 and all the facts were apprised. OP-2 prescribed Babygesic drops per prescription dated 22.5.2016. Subsequently, the condition of the baby worsened and he was vomiting. He was taken to OP-3 in APC emergency ward where the doctor had clinically suspected a case of congenital cyanotic heart disease. Baby Ashmeet remained admitted in the ICU of OP-3 w.e.f. 22.5.2016, but, his condition did not improve and he ultimately died on 26.5.2016. OP-3 were of the view to conduct corrective surgery, but, it was not done due to worse condition of the child. It is the case, had OPs 1 & 2 exercised reasonable skill of expertise, the said problem could have been detected and treated by way of corrective surgery. Hence, it is a case of medical negligence on the part of OPs 1 & 2. OP-4 has been arrayed as a party during the pendency of the consumer complaint being the insurer to indemnify the claim, if passed, against OPs 1 & 2 except for criminal medical negligence. On these averments, compensation of Rs
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
