IMPORTANT POINT
Critical condition - If the patient was in a critical condition and he could not survive even after surgery, keeping that in mind the blame cannot be passed on to the Hospital and the Doctor who had provided all possible treatment within their means and capacity to diagnose the patient of this illness.

ORDER

This Order shall decide both the Appeals arising from the Order dated 09.05.2019 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No. 68/2016, wherein the State Commission allowed the Complaint.

2. For the convenience, the parties are being referred to as mentioned in the Complaint before the State Commission. The facts are drawn from First Appeal No. 1036 OF 2019.

3. Brief facts relevant to dispose of both the appeal are that the Complainant’s husband Jai Singh (since deceased, hereinafter referred to as the ‘patient’) was hospitalized to the general ward of the Pink City Heart & General Hospital (OP-1) on 14.02.2016 for the complaints of severe chest pain and excessive perspiration. Dr. B.B. Lath started the treatment. It was alleged that an ECG and Sonography test were performed. The patient was administered antibiotics and anti-allergic medicines under presumption of lung infection up to 16.02.2016. In the evening of 16.02.2016, the patient was sent to Heart & General Hospital (OP-3) for ‘Doppler ECHO study’ as that facility was not available in OP-1 Hospital, but the condition of patient deteriorated because of delayed report from OP-3.

4. It was alleged that on 17.02.2016, the OP-1 performed an ECG, which revealed “Myocardial Infraction / Heart Attack” and in haste, the OP-1 referred the patient to Dana Shivam Heart & Super Specialty Hospital (OP-2) without ambulance. After lapse of 24 hours, in the evening of 18.02.2016, Angiography was performed, which revealed two blockages, therefore, Angioplasty was performed. Post-Angioplasty, infection was noted at canulla site in the patient’s left leg. Thereafter, on 01.03.2016, the patient was taken to Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital (SDMH) in critical condition and admitted in ICU, but he expired on 15.03.2016. Being aggrieved by the death of the patient due to negligence of OPs - 1 to 3, the Complainants filed Consumer Complaint before the State Commission.

5. The OPs- 1 & 3 filed their respective written versions, denied their negligence during treatment of the patient. The OP-2 was proceeded against ex-parte.

6. The OP-1 raised the preliminary objection on maintainability of Complaint for non-joinder of the parties as the SDMH and the Insurance co. were the necessary party (ies). After admission, Dr. B. B. Lath examined the patient and immediately treatment was started, he was admitted in General Ward having cardiac monitors and essential equipments. The relevant investigations were performed and proper medicines were administered. The OP-1 further submitted that the basic facilities for preliminary tests were available with OP-1. However, to avoid misdiagnosis, ECHO- Doppler study was performed at OP-3 Hospital by an expert Dr. Prakash Chandwani. The patient remained in OP-1 from 14.02.2016 to 17.02.2016. It further submitted that the patient died in SDMH on 15.03.2016 i.e. 28 days after discharge from the OP-1 Hospital. The complaint against OP-1 was filed on baseless ground.

7. The OP-3 submitted that in the evening on 16.2.2016 at 6.45 pm, the patient was brought to their hospital for ECHO-Color Doppler test. The report was issued to the complainant (Annx.1 &2). It was submitted that the patient was brought to the OP-3 only for the aforesaid test because said test facility was not available with OP-1.

8. The State Commission, upon hearing the parties and considering the facts and the circumstances, of the case, ordered as below:—

“As such if we see the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble National Commission it was a case of heart attack. Jai Singh has come in the OP No. 1 Hospital on 14.2.2016 and lungs’ treatment has been given to him and he was not admitted in ICU and hospitalized in OP No. 3 for test which indicates that either test facilities were not available with OP No. 1 or doctor of OP No. 1 was incompetent. Whatever was the situation the