IMPORTANT POINT
“Medical Negligence” - The omission on the part of the Hospital therefore to have the patient tested for H1N1 promptly would certainly be contrary to the requirements under the aforesaid Guidelines, and therefore does constitute actionable “medical negligence”.

ORDER

Sudip Ahluwalia, Member—This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioners/ Complainants against Respondents/ Opposite Parties challenging the impugned Order dated 14.08.2015 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow, U.P., in Appeal bearing No.2462 of 2011. Vide such Order, the State Commission allowed the Appeal while setting aside the Order dated 05.09.2011 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, G.B. Nagar (U.P.) in Complaint No.413 of 2010.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant No.1’s father and Complainant No.2’s husband, Lt. Sh. Ramvir Singh was a patient of kidney disease, and had gotten his first kidney transplanted on 10.06.2002 and the second one on 12.12.2003 after which he was leading a healthy life. The deceased was the Principal of Janta Adarsh Inter College, Meerut, till 01.12.2009 whereas the Opposite Party No.2 was a Nephrologist at the Opposite Party No.1/Hospital. It was the case of the Complainants that the deceased had experienced cough and fever on 07.12.2009 and was consequently, admitted to Opposite Party No.1/Hospital under the supervision of the Opposite Party No.2. Later, the deceased was discharged on 13.12.2009 but was again admitted in the Opposite Party No.1/Hospital on 18.12.2009 on facing problem in breathing and was again under the treatment of Opposite Party No. 2. All the tests and check-ups were conducted again, the deceased remained on oxygen and Dr. Mrinal disclosed a problem in his lungs whereafter, X-ray, ABG and CT-Scan were conducted. It was contended that neither the Opposite Party No.2 went through the reports nor treated the deceased accordingly. Thereafter, on 20.12.2009, blood started flowing from deceased’s nose and consequently, the deceased was admitted in the I.C.U. by Dr. Manoj when Dr. Vohra advised Dr. Manoj to conduct a test for H1N1. Thereafter, on 22.12.2009, the Complainant was informed by the Opposite Parties that the deceased was suffering from Swine Flu and further stated that the Opposite Parties would not be treating the deceased for Swine Flu due to which the deceased was shifted to Moolchand Hospital and then to Ram Manohar Lohiya Hospital due to lack of arrangements at Moolchand Hospital, despite receiving the report on 21.12.2009. It was submitted that although the Opposite Parties took steps to transfer the deceased to another Hospital, however, they failed to examine and treat the patient properly, thoroughly and on time.

3. It was further the case of the Complainants that the deceased was shifted to Apollo Hospital on 23.12.2009 and had subsequently, expired on 28.12.2009. It was contended by the Complainants that if the H1N1 tests had been conducted in time along with other necessary examinations then the life of the deceased could have been saved. It was further contended that the Opposite Parties were negligent and careless, and had not treated the deceased seriously. It was further averred that the Opposite Party No.2 had stopped the medicines for kidneys essential for the transplanted kidneys due to which those kidneys had totally failed and the deceased had fallen back on dialysis due to which the Blood Pressure had fallen resulting in his death. Consequently, the Complainants sent a Legal Notice dated 08.07.2010. However, no reply was received. Therefore, the Complaint was filed before the Ld. District Forum being aggrieved by such acts of the Opposite Parties and alleging deficiency in services on their part, and seeking compensation of Rs.16,30,000/- for negligence and Rs.3,14,075/- for expenses incurred on the treatment, totalling to Rs.19,44,075/-.

4. The Opposite Parties appeared before the Ld. District Forum and resisted the Complaint and denied all the allegations thereby denying deficiency in service on their part. It was contended that the patient was provided the best medical treatment and rather the Complainants were guilty of suppression of material facts including