Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. Inder Jit Singh, Presiding Member
Maya Sharma and Ors. – Petitioners
versus
Raj Hospital and Ors. – Respondents
Revision Petition No.2390 of 2018
(Against the Order dated 22/05/2018 in Appeal No. 82/2017 of the State Commission Jharkhand)
Decided on 15.11.2023

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Ms. Jhuma Bose and Mohd. Anis Ur Rehman, Advocates
For the Respondents:Mr. Sunil Verma, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Pancreatitis – Pancreatitis could be detected only much later but OPs cannot be held responsible.
(2) Negligence – The patient’s treatment was based on from OP No.3, which further underscores negligence in care.

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58(1)(b)] – Services – Medical Negligence – Telephonic Advise – Negligence attributable – State Commission went wrong in concluding that there was no fault on the part of doctors, treatments given were all in good faith, was neither deficient nor there was any negligence on the part of OPs, there was no negligence or discrepancy in the treatment of the patient at least till 07.03.2003 (3:30 pm); since all other vital parameters of the patient were normal, there was no occasion to suspect the onset of pancreatitis. Pancreatitis could be detected only much later but OPs cannot be held responsible – On facts, The patient’s treatment was based on telephonic advice from OP No.3, which further underscores negligence in care. The OPs’ claim that Dr. J. was competent doesn’t absolve them from the responsibility, as he simply followed OP No.3’s telephonic directions. Had OP No.3 personally examined the patient on March 6, 2003, early detection of pancreatitis might have been possible – Therefore, petition allowed, impugned order modified to the extent of compensation. [Paras 21 to 25].
Result: Petition allowed.

ORDER

The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner(s) against Respondent(s) as detailed above, under section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 22.05.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jharkhand, Ranchi, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 82/2017 in which order dated 28.11.2016 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no185/2003 was challenged, inter alia praying to set aside the order passed by the State Commission.

2. While the Revision Petitioner(s) (hereinafter also referred to as complainants) were Respondents and the Respondent(s) (hereinafter also referred to as OPs) were Appellants in the said FA/82/2017 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner(s) were complainants and Respondent(s) were OPs before the District Forum in the CC no.185/2003

3. Notice was issued to the Respondent(s). Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 13.03.2020 (Respondents/OPs) and 19.10.2020 (Petitioners/complainants) respectively.

4. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that: -

On 06.03.2003, the son of the complainant-1/petitioner-1 was admitted to the hospital of the respondent-1/OP-1 due to abdominal pain and vomiting. The patient was initially treated by Dr. J. Nath on the advice of Dr. D. Mohan, who prescribed medications over the phone. Despite taking the prescribed medicines, the patient’s condition did not improve. Requests were made to the hospital staff to call Dr. D. Mohan to examine the patient, but he did not visit. The following day, a junior doctor examined the patient during a routine check at about 9:30 am. Dr. D. Mohan, for the first time, examined the patient at 11:30 am and advised an ultrasound test and x-ray. However, Dr. D. Mohan seemingly ignored a crucial part of the ultrasound report indicating “Ascites minimal plural effusion is present (Right),” which confirmed that the patient had Pancreatitis. Despite this diagnosis, no treatment for Pancreatitis was administered. At 9:25 pm, the patient was shifted to the ICCU due to acute pain, but life-saving medication was still not provided. The patient passed away at 9:45 pm, with the death certificate citing Acute Pancreatitis as the cause.

5. Vide Order dated 28.11.2016, in the CC no. 185/2003 the District Forum has allowed the complaint.

6. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 28.11.2016 of District Commission, Respondent(s) appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 22.05.2018 in FA No. 82/2017 has set aside the order passed by the District Forum and allowed the appeal.

7. Petitioner(s) have challenged the said Order dated 22.05.2018 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

(i) The State Commission failed to fully appreciate the pleadings, documents, and evidence presented by the Complainants before the District Forum and issued an erroneous order. The State Commission did not acknowledge that the OPs admitted in their written statement that the patient/deceased was admitted to their hospital on 06.03.2003 at 10:45 pm with complaints of acute abdominal pain and vomiting, and he remained admitted until 9:45 pm on 07.03.2003 when he passed away. The patient was experiencing acute abdominal pain, and medical reports indicated the presence of multiple

large stones in the urinary bladder and one large stone at the lower end of the left ureter. The ultrasound report also suggested that the patient had acute Pancreatitis, yet no treatment or medication was provided by the OPs to address this ailment.

(ii) That Dr. D. Mohan, the attending doctor, did not visit the patient at the time of admission or in the morning hours. It was only at 11:30 am on 07.03.2003 that he first examined the patient and advised an ultrasound test and x-ray