Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member and Binoy Kumar, Member
Dr. Ramesh Iyer and Anr. – Appellants
versus
Uma S. Bhat – Respondent
First Appeal No.229 of 2017
(Against the Order dated 19/09/2016 in Complaint No. 188/2003 of the State Commission Maharashtra)
Decided on 31.3.2023

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. G. N. Shenoy, Advocate
For the Respondents:Ms. Kokila Kalra, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Medical record - It should be borne in mind that “good medical record is good defense, poor medical record is poor defense”.
(2) Medical negligence - The child was deprived of proper treatment at OP’s hospital. Thus it was the act of omission, accordingly, Negligence is attributed.

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.19 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.51] – Appeal - Services – Medical Negligence – Non insertion of ICD – by Specialist – Amounts to deficiency of Service - It is evident that the baby became serious and was taken suddenly to Nanavati Hospital – Also, OP was casual in his approach – On facts, it was not bonafide mistake of OP-1, but was a casual approach towards the patient. The OP doctor failed in his duty of care despite the advice of the Specialist did not insert ICD. The medical record is not consistent with the treatment given and it was not maintained properly. It should be borne in mind that “good medical record is good defense, poor medical record is poor defense”. The child was deprived of proper treatment at OP’s hospital. Thus it was the act of omission, accordingly, Negligence is attributed – Appeal is dismissed. [Paras 10 to 16].
Result: Appeal dismissed.

ORDER

Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member—The Appellants have filed the instant Appeal under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short “the Act”), against the Order dated 19.09.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No. 188 of 2003, wherein the State Commission, allowed the Complaint filed by the Complainant (Respondent herein) and awarded compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

2. Brief facts are that on 23.03.2003, the Complainant’s daughter Shalvi Bhat, 2½ years of age suddenly developed body rashes and then suffered high grade fever on the next day night. Their family doctor, Dr. Ganesh Godiyar examined the baby on 25.03.2003 and referred her to Dr. Ramesh Iyer’s Hospital - the OPs for treatment. On 25.03.2003 the baby Salvi (for short, ‘the patient’) was admitted to the OP-2 Hospital and treated for 5 days till 29.03.2003. It was alleged that the patient’s condition deteriorated further and due to lack of ICU and emergency treatment facilities, the Complainant was compelled to take the child to Nanavati Hospital. On 30.03.2003, the child was taken immediately to the Nanavati Hospital, but unfortunately the child expired at 01.45 pm.

3. The Complainant Uma Bhat lodged a Police complaint on 11.04.2003 for the medical negligence causing death of her baby. The police referred the matter for opinion to Directorate of Health services, Govt. of Maharashtra. The Committee of Doctors found that Dr. Iyer had not properly recorded the medical treatment given to the child and the Committee held that the case paper prepared might be an afterthought and Dr. Iyer did not follow the normal procedure.

4. The OPs in their replies denied the allegation of negligence. The OPs denied their negligence during the treatment and the baby was treated as per the accepted norms. It was submitted that the Complaint was barred by limitation.

5. After hearing averments from both sides, the State Commission partly allowed the complaint and awarded compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- together with interest of @6% p.a. along with litigation cost of Rs.25,000. The State Commission observed as under:-

There was negligence in medical treatment constituting deficiency in service due to casualness of approach by Opposite party, want of necessary care and precautions on the part of Dr. Ramesh Iyer while he was treating the child patient who was unable to disclose her ailment. Despite renovation of the hospital work going on, Dr. Ramesh Iyer ventured to treat Baby Shaivi Bhat aged 2½ years, a pneumonia patient at his own Hospital despite dust and allergens present there due to renovation work in progress as admitted. In addition, Dr. Iyer is blameworthy for professional medical negligence based on sound observations made by the Committee of Government Doctors in the facts and circumstances of the case. Dr. Iyer is answerable to the Mother and close relatives of patient Baby Shaivi Bhat aged only 2½ years for causing her serious medical condition to develop which led to her untimely death and Dr. Ramesh Iyer, must therefore compensate for loss the complainant justly and reasonably.

6. Being aggrieved by the Order of the State Commission, the OPs filed the instant First Appeal.

7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel on both the sides have reiterated their respective evidence.

8. The learned Counsel for the Complainant argued that the medical record in several places are blank, certain entries of clinical findings were missing. There were discrepancies in the recordings of clinical notes and nursing notes like Temperature, Pulse and the medication. Moreover, the nursing home has no mandatory basic treatment facilities.

9. The learned Counsel for the Complainant relied upon the opinion dated 02.12.2003 from J.J. Hospital to prove that death of daughter Shalvi was on account of the medical negligence of Dr. Iyer, who did not act

Click Here to Read the rest of this document