Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member and
Binoy Kumar, Member
Om Parkash Sikka and Anr. – Complainants
versus
Ivy Hospital and Ors. – Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.195 of 2010
Decided on 1.12.2022
For the Complainants:Ms. Tanya Agarwal, Advocate with Complainants in person
For the Opp. Parties: Nemo for OP-1
(Mr. Pradeep Sharma, Advocate already concluded his arguments on 02.03.2022)
Mr. Uttam Datt, Advocate with Ms. Sonakshi Singh and Mr. Nitnem Singh, Advocates for OP-2 to 5 alongwith Opposite Parties 3 & 5 in person
IMPORTANT POINT
Medical knowledge - The complainant raised vague allegations on conjuncture only without having medical knowledge. He has not filed any expert opinion to prove the negligence of OPs.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58] - Services – Medical Negligence – Vague allegations – no expert opinion - Competent treating doctors - not negligence - the complainant raised vague allegations about the ICU services being outsourced to a third party, the OP-2 attends on call, visits once or twice a day for 5 minutes, “RT feed” i.e. he instructed for one more catheter from Nose through Food Pipe into Stomach, without any Informed Written Consent- It is pertinent to note that the complainant has to prove his case of medical negligence with cogent evidences. In the instant case, the complainant raised vague allegations on conjuncture only without having medical knowledge. He has not filed any expert opinion to prove the negligence of OPs. As per medical record, the Intensivists and Neurosurgeon decide about the application of ventilator and its removal or keeping ETT - thus, the treating doctors were competent and had treated the patient as per the accepted standards – On facts, the doctors treated the patient with reasonable standard of care and there was no deficiency or negligence on their part. The Complainants failed to prove any negligence or any deficiency during treatment on the part of the doctors or the hospital – Complaints dismissed. [Pars 13 to 21].
Result: Complaint dismissed.
ORDER
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member—The present Complaint has been filed under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) by (1) Sh. Om Prakash Sikka & (2) Smt. Madhu Sikka against IVY Hospital, Sector-70, Mohali, Punjab & its 4 Doctors, seeking compensation of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- for act of medical negligence on the part of Opposite Parties, which resulted in the death of the Complainants son, Rajat Sikka (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’ or ‘patient’).
Facts:
2. Brief facts leading to the present Complaint are that on 11.10.2008, Mr. Rajat Sikka, the son of the Complainants (hereinafter referred to as the ‘patient’), about 26 years, got injured in a car accident. He sustained serious head injury - Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). He was immediately taken to PGI Chandigarh by the local Police. Emergency CT scan and X-Ray were done. The doctors labeled it as GSC score 9. There was no history of seizures (convulsions) and the patient was moving all limbs and was reacting to light, the bilateral lung air entry was equal, oxygen saturation was 100% and BP was 120/80mm of Hg. Thereafter, for further treatment, the Complainants shifted their son to IVY Hospital (OP-1). There, he was treated by the OPs-2 to 5 doctors, but unfortunately, he expired on 21.10.2008.
3. The Complainants alleged that in PGI, one person approached the patient’s mother and allured her to shift her son to the IVY Hospital under the care of Neurosurgeon, Dr. Deepak Tyagi (OP-2). The OP-2 assured the patient’s mother that under his care, more personal treatment shall be given. Therefore, on 11.10.2008, she shifted her injured son to the ICU of OP-1 Hospital at 00.45 A.M. The GCS score was E1, V3, M5. The pupils were equally reacting to light, pulse 60/min and B.P. was 210/110. The respiration was spontaneous and Oxygen saturation was 99%. It was alleged that without any clinical or neurological assessment, the OP-2 ordered for ‘electively ventilate’ and within 7-8 minutes, he left the ICU. He gave assurance to the family about good condition of the patient. It was alleged that intubation was done without consent from the patient’s mother. The hospital had no regular Neuro-Surgeon. The OP-2, General Surgeon, as per his own convenience, used to visit the hospital. As per standards, if the GCS score is above 7, the patient should not be put on ventilator. It was further alleged that the ICU Services were outsourced by the hospital to a third party (OP-5).
4. Later, the OP-2 visited the patient and suggested to the ICU doctor that as the patient was struggling on the ventilator, the same should be removed. However, OP-3 ignored the advice and did not remove the ventilator and left the patient struggling. It was alleged that the CT scan was done after a delay of 40 hours. It showed damage to brain hemorrhage due to increased intracranial pressure (ICP) and the patient was not properly sedated. Therefore, OP-2 confirmed about the need for surgery. As there was no option to seek second opinion, the complainant gave the consent for surgery and the surgery was performed. After the surgery at 5:00 PM, the OP-2 told that it was a minor surgery to remove the skull cap and the blood automatically squirts out. It was told that the surgery was successful and the patient would be fully recovered soon. It was further alleged that the ventilator was removed on 13.10.2008 but the tube remained in the mouth and it was connected to oxygen bag. The patient was kept under sedation. The Neurosurgeon, OP-2, after assessing the neurological condition again advised for extubation but the ICU doctors did not care and delayed it unnecessarily despite good GCS score. There was a conflict between OP-2 and other doctors. Later, on 18.10.2008, the complainants came to know that brain death of the patient occurred immediately after cardiac arrest which was concealed by the ICU in charge. The patient was put on life support system and ultimately the patient
