NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member and
Binoy Kumar, Member
Dr. Manik Chandra Khan and Ors. – Complainants
versus
Dr. Amit Saha and Ors. – Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.1941 of 2017
Decided on 6.4.2023
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58] - Services – Medical Negligence – Consent obtained over phone - When not attributable - The Complainant was informed and consent for intubation and mechanical ventilation was obtained over phone. After the death of patient, the OP-1 was confronted by the hostile family members of the patient. The entire medical record was handed over along with X-ray and ECG along with the death certificate to the Complainant No.1 on the same day - The Complainant No. 1, being an ENT specialist practicing in that area for decades, can’t plead his ignorance on the facilities available at OP-6 hospital, the qualification and competence of OP-1. His allegations are vague, unsustainable for use of Levosulpiride and Neumol. The patient was investigated, diagnosed and treated as per the reasonable standard of practice, thus no negligence is attributable to the OPs – Therefore complaint is dismissed. [Paras 10 to 26].
Result: Complaint dismissed.
ORDER
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member “Every death in an institutionalized environment of a hospital does not necessarily amount to medical negligence on a hypothetical assumption of lack of due medical care.”[ IV (2022) CPJ 7 (SC)]
The Present Complaint has been filed under Section 21 (Read with Section 24-A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) by Dr. Manik Chandra Khan & Gouranga Maji (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Complainants’) against M/s. Extent Medical and Surgical Centre & its 5 Doctors (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Opposite Parties’) for alleged medical negligence causing death of daughter of the Complainant No.1.
The Complaint:
2. Ms. Sanchita Khan (since deceased herein referred to as a “Patient”) was suffering from fever and on 26.10.2015 her father took her to Dr. Amit Saha (OP-1) at Extent Medical & Surgical Centre (OP-6) at Chandannagar. The OP-1 prescribed medicines and few lab investigations. The next day (27.10.2015), at 11 am, the patient’s fever spiked to 1050 F and it decreased around 2 pm. She had loose motion also which, stated by OP-1, was due to side effect of Moxclav (Amoxicillin). He admitted her in OP-6 hospital on 28.10.2015. It was alleged that the OP-1 visited the patient on the same day, but the time of visit was not specified. On 29.10.2015, the patient developed urticarial rash due to side effect of medicines and doctors changed the medicines, the Inj. Pause was stopped, and Inj. Corts was started. At 10.25 am, the OP-1 visited the patient, he did not discontinue Inj. Levosulpiride, as it was Sulphur-containing drug, and the patient had a known allergy to Sulpha drugs as recorded in the medical history. In the evening at 7.40 pm, OP-1 visited again but he did not inform the family of the patient’s about her serious condition. Thereafter, on next day 30.10.2015, in the evening, the Complainant No.1 found that his daughter suffered respiratory distress, therefore he started examining the patient, but the nurse came and rashly snatched stethoscope from his hand and called OP-1. The patient’s condition further deteriorated with shortness of breath and alleged that she was shifted to High Dependency Unit (HDU) instead of ICU and put on Oxygen by CPAP machine. On next day 31.10.2015, the OP-1 visited at 9.30 am, there was no improvement, but the serious condition was not informed to her relatives. On next day i.e. 01.11.2015, the patient’s condition worsened, and she was shifted to the High Dependency Unit (HDU) and placed on Oxygen by CPAP machine. The OP-1 did not visit the patient for more than 24 hours until the patient’s death at 8.30 am. It was alleged that if ICU/ITU facility was not available at OP-6 hospital, the OP-1 should have referred the patient to another hospital. Thus, entirely it amounts to gross and willful negligence of OP-1 towards the serious patient.
3. The Complainants raised several other allegations like lack of informed consent, false qualification of the OP-1, manipulation of medical records, and mismanagement of the patient’s care, not done proper investigations, failure to correct anemia and wrong medication etc. The quality of the chest X-ray was poor, and the ECG was conducted just before the patient’s death, thus there was lack of proper monitoring and care. The Complainant No. 1 was not aware of that the OP-1 was not ‘Physician’. He came to know from IMA, Chandannagar that OP-1 was MD in Preventive & Social medicine (P& SM) and not a MD General medicine, but to mislead the patients, his prescription was printed as ‘MD (Cal)’. In that case OP-1 should not have treated the patient under his care, but should have referred her to the Physician. The cause of death, was recorded as respiratory failure, community-acquired pneumonia, and bronchial asthma. Being aggrieved the Complainants filed this complaint and prayed Compensation amounting to Rs.4,69,81,448/- under different heads.
4. The Opposite Parties filed their written versions and
Chanda Rani Akhouri vs. M.S. Methusethupathi Mithupathi (2021) 10 SCC 291.(Para 24)
Malay Kumar Ganguly vs. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee and Ors.
Arun Kumar Manglik vs. Chirayu Health and Medicare Private Limited and Anr.
C.P. Sreekumar (Dr.), MS (Ortho) vs. S. Ramanujam
Kusum Sharma and Ors. vs. Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre and Ors.
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....
(1) Negligence - Mere allegation of negligence will be of no help to the Complainant.(2) Cogent evidence - Complainant to prove the negligence or deficiency in service by adducing cogent evidence. (3....
To prove medical negligence, the claimant must show a breach of duty causing harm, supported by cogent evidence. The standard of care equates to the competency expected from an ordinary practitioner.
(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 ....
(1) Definition of Negligence – Following the Jacob Mathew and Kusum Sharma precedents, negligence is defined as a breach of duty through omission or commission that a “reasonably competent” professio....
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.
(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 ....
Medical negligence accusations must be substantiated by clear evidence; mere allegations, without expert consensus on negligence, are insufficient for criminal liability.
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.