Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Binoy Kumar, Presiding Member
Dr. Mukesh Joshi Ors. – Appellants
versus
Manu Sharma and Ors. – Respondent
First Appeal Nos.417 and 912 of 2021
Decided on 4.3.2024

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
In F.A. No. 417/2021
For the Appellants:Mr. K. G. Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2:Ms. Suchi Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent No.3: Ex-parte vide Order dated 20.02.2023
For the Respondent Nos.4 to 8:Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate
In F.A. No. 912/2021
For the Appellant:Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2:Ms. Suchi Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents No.3 to 5 and 7:Mr. K. G. Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent No.6: Ex-parte vide Order dated 20.02.2023

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) MRI – Not ordering an MRI after a reasonable time of treatment is a clear case of deficiency of service and medical negligence on the part of the four Appellants.
(2) Medical Negligence – Conducting the MRI earlier may not have saved the patient. But it could be a possibility and definitely it would have absolved the Appellants from imputation of not taking due care and from medical negligence.

Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 51] – Services – Medical Negligence – Attributable – MRI cannot be recommended right at the beginning and instead a conventional method of treatment was resorted to, which cannot be faulted. However, in the situation, when the condition of the patient was keeping on deteriorating, these Appellant doctors should have thought of conducting an MRI, particularly of the knee when they also saw that the blood reports were becoming more and more adverse and indicative of the fact that the inflammation was on the increase abnormally instead of being under control, if not, reduced. Therefore, not ordering an MRI after a reasonable time of treatment is a clear case of deficiency of service and medical negligence on the part of the four Appellants. Conducting the MRI earlier may not have saved the patient. But it could be a possibility and definitely it would have absolved the Appellants from imputation of not taking due care and from medical negligence – Negligence attributed, Appeal dismissed. [Paras 10 to 25].
Result: Appeal disposed off.

ORDER

These two Appeals have been filed by four Doctors – Dr. Mukesh Joshi & Ors. (hereinafter referred to as, the ‘Opposite Parties Nos. 2 to 5’) and the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as, the ‘Opposite Parties Nos. 6 to 10’) respectively against the same impugned Order dated 16.04.2021 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in MA No. 2072 & 2073 of 2020 in CC No. 886 of 2018, whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainants was partly allowed with a total compensation of Rs. 33 lakh and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation costs to be paid by the Appellants to the Complainants.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, on the complaint of pain in left knee of their daughter - Ms. Jiya Sharma (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the patient’), her parents / Respondents Nos. 1 & 2 (hereinafter referred to as, the ‘Complainants’), on 10.05.2017, took her to Dr. Kulwant Singh (hereinafter referred to as, the ‘Opposite Party No. 1’) on 12.05.2017, who, after getting some tests conducted, advised the Complainants to visit ‘Joshi Super Specialty and Multispecialty Hospital’ at Jalandhar. On 16.05.2017, at Joshi Hospital, the patient was being treated under Dr. Mukesh Joshi – Opposite Party No. 2, who, after diagnosing the disease as Arthritis, treated the patient from 16.05.2017 to 08.07.2017. It was alleged that during the visits to the Opposite Party No. 2, the patient had unbearable pain and swelling increasing day by day in her knee with difficulty while walking, which condition, the Doctor referred to it as normal for that age with the assurance of cure with time.

3. When the pain persisted, on 10.07.2017, the Complainants took the patient for second opinion to Dr. Rajesh Saggar – Opposite Party No. 4 at Vedanta Multispecialty Hospital, Jalandhar, who, after diagnosing the disease as Arthritis and getting some tests conducted, treated the patient for the same, but the condition of the patient deteriorated to the extent that she had to use a wheelchair. On 12.08.2017, on the advice of the Opposite Party No. 4, the patient was taken to Dr. Parshant Aggarwal – Opposite Party No. 5 at his clinic at Ludhiana, who, after examining the patient, detected the disease as ‘steroid dependent inflammatory oligoarthritis’ and prescribed certain tests. It was alleged that the Complainants followed all the directions of the Opposite Party No. 5, but the condition of the patient kept deteriorating which resulted in reduced blood count, eyes bulging out and even lymphnodes appearing on her neck and head. On 02.09.2017, the Complainants revisited the clinic of Opposite Party No. 5, who again advised various blood tests of complete haemogram, etc. It was alleged that upon query about the serious condition of the patient, the Opposite Party No. 5 behaved rudely with the Complainants and asked them to shift the patient to another doctor.

4. On 03.09.2017, the patient was taken to Dr., Sandeep Goel, M.D. (Doctorate of Medicine), D.M. (Neurology) at Goel Hospital, Jalandhar, who advised MRI and after examining the MRI reports, detected the disease as ‘metastatic tumor’ and blamed the Opposite Parties Nos.1 to 5 for wrong treatment and advised for immediate admission to a proper hospital. On 04.09.2017, the patient was admitted in ICU, Oncology at DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana. The doctors and nurses informed that the patient was suffering from severe disease (cancer) and the chances of survival was very less. On 26.9.2017, the patient died, due to metastasis. Being aggrieved by the negligence resulting in death of the patient and the unprofessional conduct of the Opposite Parties, the Complainants filed a Complaint before the State Commission and sought a compensation to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- alongwith Rs.8,06,300/- for expense incurred with 12% interest and Rs.2,00,000/- as litigation cost.

5. The Opposite Parties rejected the averments made in the Complai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document