Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

CHHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PANDRI, RAIPUR
Gautam Chourdiya, President, Ruchi Goel, Member, Gopal Chandra Shil, Member and Pramod Kumar Varma, Member
Smt. Manisha Chakole —Appellant
versus
Gayatri Hospital and Anr. —Respondents
Appeal No.FA/19/512
Decided on 9.11.2022

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Shri R. K. Bhawnani, Advocate
For the Respondents:Shri Shishir Bhandarkar, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Medical Board Report - Looking to the Medical Board Report, entire record, Bed Head Ticket of the patient, Commission was of the view that, the patient was given proper care, timely and possible treatment, surgical operation was also conducted as early as possible, there was neither any delay nor any negligence committed by the respondent Hospital.
(2) Report of Medical Board - It is not a compulsion to State Commission to blindly accept the opinion given by the Medical Board, Commission has its independent jurisdiction to apply our mind as per the nature and merits of the case.
(3) Wrong Treatment - There is nothing on record to show that any wrong treatment was given nor any negligence was committed by the respondent/Ops.

Headnote:
A. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.15[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.41] – Appeal Against order of District Commission – Services – Medical Negligence - Delay in starting treatment – if can be attributed - Whether there was a delay in starting treatment - On 22/08/2011, the patient was admitted then immediately shifted to ICU, many necessary tests and examinations were conducted as advised by the Doctors in reports of which the patient was found to have excess free fluid, enlarged spleen, widal test was positive with high blood sugar and abdomen pain, therefore first the MD (Medicine) examined and started treatment immediately. Thereafter, looking to the continuous abdomen pain, X-ray and other tests were also conducted and the patient was diagnosed as suffering from Peritonitis, then the surgery was advised - Therefore, the arguments advance by learned counsel for the complainant / appellant regarding the delay in starting treatment has no force and is not found correct. [Para 10]
B. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.15[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.41] – Appeal Against order of District Commission – Services – Medical Negligence - Blood Transfusion - wrong procedure adopted and preparation for blood transfusion - proper care, timely and possible treatment – Bed Head ticket given – Report of Medical board unchallenged - Whether wrong procedure adopted and preparation for blood transfusion - In medical negligence cases, to consider the entire evidence, the expert opinion given by the Medical Board has also its weightage - The Medical Board Report, submitted by a panel of three expert Doctors is uncontroverted and is not under challenge in any manner. Looking to the Medical Board Report, entire record, Bed Head Ticket of the patient, Commission was of the view that, the patient was given proper care, timely and possible treatment, surgical operation was also conducted as early as possible, there was neither any delay nor any negligence committed by the respondent Hospital - Patient was also suffering from typhoid, he was diabetic and in serious condition he was admitted in the Hospital. There is nothing on record to prove that the patient was treated in unprofessional way. As per Certificate, marked as Annexure A-4, the death of the patient was due to Cardio Respiratory Arrest and he was suffering from Enteric Perforation Peritonitis and also suffering from high blood sugar, widal test was found positive. Looking to the entire Bed Head Ticket, which is not under challenge, the treatment was given timely. [Para 11].
C. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.15[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.41] – Appeal Against order of District Commission – Services – Medical Negligence - Consent Certificate – “Consent to Surgical Operations and Other Procedures/Anaesthesia” - Whether signatures have been obtained on blank papers - Proper consent was taken on printed form on 25/08/2011 prior to the operation and condition of the patient was also explained in Hindi by the respondent Hospital. There is no reason to doubt both the consent i.e. Hindi written Sahmati Patra dated 25/08/2011 and English written “Consent to Surgical Operations and Other Procedures/Anaesthesia” dated 25/08/2011. [Para 14].
D. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.15[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.41] – Appeal Against order of District Commission – Services – Medical Negligence - Opinion of Medical Board – If binding on State Commission - It is not a compulsion to State Commission to blindly accept the opinion given by the Medical Board, Commission has its independent jurisdiction to apply our mind as per the nature and merits of the case -Thus, the entire opinion of the Medical Board is based on the document submitted by the District Commission and we are also satisfied with the entries made in the Bed Head Ticket about the treatment given to the deceased and the affidavit filed by both the Doctors categorically. There is nothing on record to show that any wrong treatment was given nor any negligence was committed by the respondent/Ops – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 17, 18]
Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Gautam Chourdiya, President—This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short) is directed against order dated 29/06/2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (hereinafter called “District Commission” for short) in Complaint Case No.53/2012 filed by the complainant/appellant herein, claiming Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service, Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost of the complaint. The District Commission has dismissed the complaint, hence this appeal.

2. In nutshell the facts of the case as per the record of the District Commission are that the husband of the appellant/complainant Madhukar Chakole, aged 48 years was admitted in ICU of the Hospital of Dr. Arun Madharia opposite party No.1/respondent No.1 on 22/08/2011 suffering the problem of stomach ache, stoppage of urine and feces. After doing necessary tests and examinations the patient Madhukar Chakole was taken for operation on 25/08/2011. Signatures of the complainant /appellant and her relatives were taken on printed consent form by the OPs and then operation was started around 7 a.m. After operation the patient did not gain consciousness and it was informed by the OPs that the patient died next day 26/08/2011 at 5:00 a.m. Signature of the appellant / complainant was taken on blank paper also, stating that a report is needed to be prepared. It is alleged that during treatment pre and post operation care was not taken properly and there was delay in treatment of the patient by the respondent. Grave negligence was committed by the respondents in treatment of the patient Madhukar Chakole, therefore the patient died. The complainant/ appellant herein filed complaint before the District Commission seeking relief as stated hereinabove.

3. In their joint reply, the OPs/respondents have taken plea that the patient Madhukar Chakole was brought by his wife Smt. Manisha Chakole on 22/08/2011 complaining fever, abdomen ache, vomiting and loose motion. Thereafter, the patient was immediately admitted on 22/08/2011 at 12.15 p.m. in ICU and tests were conducted. The sugar level of the patient was very high, Widal test was found positive which indicated the symptom of typhoid. Dr. R. K. Chandravanshi, MD (Medicine) was called to examine the patient and as per his advice the treatment was started. The abdomen pain remained continue. Sonography was conducted and as per its report excess quantity of free fluid was found, size of the spleen was found enlarged. Thereafter Dr. Shirish Yadu, Surgeon was called and further necessary tests were conducted and on the basis of such test reports it was found that the patient was suffering Peritonitis. After complete examination by Dr. Shirish Yadu, Surgeon, surgical operation was advised and after taking consent of wife and relatives of the patient, on 25/08/2011 the operation of the patient was started at 7.15 a.m. and before which the entire situation and condition of the patient was explained to the family members along with wife of the patient. The operation was successful, it was completed at 10.00 a.m., thereafter the patient was shifted to the ICU. Post operative care of the patient and continuous monitoring was being done, but on 26/08/2011 in the morning at 4.00 a.m. the patient Madhukar Chakole suffered cardiac arrest and he died. The OPs/respondent contended that no negligence in treatment of the patient was done by them. Proper treatment with pre and post operative care as per their skill, experience and specialty was done. Written consent of wife and family members of the patient was taken in Hindi and English both languages then the operation was conducted. The OPs/ respondents have not committed any negligence in treatment of the deceased Madhukar Chakole and prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4. The District Forum by the impugned order came to the conclusion that it is not proved by the d