NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R.K. Agrawal, President, Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member and Binoy Kumar, Member
Sq. Ldr. N.K. Arora Retd.
Through LRs. and Ors. – Complainants
versus
Army Hospital (R&R) and Ors. – Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.93 of 2008
Decided on 11.7.2022
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.21[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58] – Services – Medical Services - Epidural or Subdural haemorrhage or fracture – Improper Maintenance of Record – Tampering – Injection administered of expired date – Negligence - Compliant has been filed for alleged Medical Negligence - The crux of the case is that at what time the patient suffered hypoxia – The patient had suffered hypoxia due to extubation for more than 5-10 minutes and it subsequently progressed into coma and patient became vegetative. It is also evident about number of glaring discrepancies in the recording of vital parameters, SPO2 level. Improper and haphazard maintenance of medical record suggests about tampering. The patient kept under sedation and on ventilator support with regular suction – Thus if a doctor does not adopt proper procedure in treating his patient and does not exhibit the reasonable skill, he can be held liable for medical negligence. The complainant is required to prove that the doctor did something or failed to do something which is the given facts and circumstances, no medical professional in his ordinary senses and prudence – On facts, few allegations of the Complainant are vague - like Inj. IV Astymin beyond expiry date was administered, the physiotherapist was non-qualified, non-provision of 24 hours attendant and wrong blood transfusion, etc – Thus there is no negligence on the part of the Orthopaedic and Neuro Department at AIIMS. Such vague allegations have no bearing on this instant Complaint – Further, in the ends of justice a lump sum compensation of Rs. 25 lakh is just and fair in the instant case. Accordingly, the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party No. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 25 lakh with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of this Complaint till its realisation to the Complainants. [Paras 24 to 31]
Result: Compliant Partly allowed.
ORDER
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member—The present Consumer Complaint has been filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (in short “the Act”) by the legal heirs of the deceased – Sq. Ldr. N. K. Arora against the Opposite Parties namely Army Hospital (R&R) (AHRR), Air Force Hospital, Hindon and All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) for alleged medical negligence and deficiency in service.
2. Initially the Complaint was filed by Sq. Ldr. N. K. Arora, working as a Commissioned Officer in the Air Force (since deceased, hereinafter referred to as the ‘patient’). He, while commanding an Air Force ‘Convoy’ from Jaisalmer to Gwalior in Rajasthan, on 13.05.2004, on way to Gwalior near Dausa, met with major road accident at about 8 p.m. His Maruti Gypsy rammed into the Camel-Cart with full of wooden-logs. He suffered injuries on face and chest and was taken to Civil Hospital at Dousa and thereafter referred to SMS Hospital, Jaipur. The doctors at SMS hospital informed that he suffered fracture mandible and ribs, but there was no head injury. The patient was accompanied with his Air Force officers including SMO 795 SU and SMO AF Station Hindon. After first-aid, for better treatment on the next day i.e. on 14.05.2005, he was airlifted to AHRR at Delhi Cantt and was admitted at 11.00p.m. in ICU under Dangerously Ill List (DIL) and was put on ventilator. The doctors therein instructed for “Care of ET tube (endortrachial tube) connecting ventilator. Regular Suction of ET” (for clearing airways). The CT Skull was performed at SMS Hospital and as per the report, there was no evidence of Epidural or Subdural haemorrhage or fracture (EDH, SDH), thus there was no bleeding inside the brain.
3. On 15.05.2004, throughout the day, the patient was conscious, well oriented and was talking to doctors and his parents. The Complainant narrated the events on 15.05.2004 as below:—
At 6.30 a.m., Dr. P.S. Bedi recorded in clinical notes as:—
“Fracture mandible, Chest injury, minor head injury
Hypoxicencepxiopathy
Case reviewed. Fully conscious. On ventilatory support,
ET Tube in SITU.”
Thereafter, at 8.00 a.m., Dr. Bhatoe and Dr. S. K. Roy Chowdhury, a Specialist in Oral and Maxillo Facial Surgery, examined the patient and recorded the clinical notes as:—
“Case of RTA with fracture mandible with fracture 3,4,5 ribs (right)
O/E. Gcs - E-4 VT M 6
Patient on ventilatory support CPAP Mode”
The diagnosis made was Maxillo Facial Injury, multiple rib fracture and undisplaced fracture C-2. The plan for ORIF on stabilisation and asked clearance from Neuro Surgery. Thereafter, Dr. Barar examined the patient at 8.30 a.m.
At 11.00 a.m., the patient was examined by Dr. Chaturvedi and made clinical notes as:—
“Since this morning the patient was weaned off;, from ventilator and endotrachial tube was removed at 1000 hrs. (Extubation trial as red rubber tube required change). He has been maintaining ventilation and saturation.-. Respiratory system - Normal vascular sounds”
He advised to maintain SPO2 and watched for respiratory distress. In the night at 9.00 pm, Dr. Barar was called to see the case. He found the patient was in distress and restless, not obeying commands and SPO2 decreased to 60% and then to 40%. He found difficulty in Laryngoscopy and fixing the ETT. Patient was immediately intubated with 7’.5 mm PVC, ETT. He discussed the findings with Dr. Chaturvedi, who came to examine the patient at 10.00 p.m.
4. On 16.04.2004, Dr. Rohit Kumar, the resident Surgeon examined the patient between 9.30 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. Thereafter, at 11.00 a.m., Dr. Chaturvedi examined the patient. It was alleged that at 9.30 a.m., Dr. Chaturvedi met the patient’s parents and told about the improvement and also informed that the patient shall be off the ventilator soon. He recorded the findings in the case sheet, at 11.00 a.m., as:—
“Patient pull
Dr. Laxman Balakrishna Joshi vs. Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godbole and Anr.
Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences vs. Parasnath S. Dhananka & Ors.
SupremeToday
(1) Failure of duty of care - It was the duty of treating doctors to rule out the cause of Subarachnoid hemorrhage due to aneurysm. But in the instant case, the patient was discharged within short pe....
Standard care - It should be borne in mind that the type of medical service offered, the practitioner’s expertise, training, and experience, and even the location where the treatment took place may a....
“Since doctors made all efforts to resuscitate the patient from the cardiac arrest but could not revive the patient and since treating doctors performed their duty with reasonable standard of care, t....
Medical negligence – Principle of Res Ipsa Loquitur get attracted where circumstances strongly suggest partaking in negligent behaviour by person against whom accusation of negligence is made.
Negligence - The patient was given the best possible treatment in accordance with accepted medical standards. It is indeed unfortunate that the patient could not be saved and the death was not on acc....
(1) Non Supply of Medical Records – deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties is glaringly apparent with regard to non-supply of copies of the medical records, as sought for by the complainants.
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.