Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member and Bharatkumar Pandya, Member
Premdatt Chopra – Complainant
versus
Fortis Flt. Lt. Rajan Dhall Hospital and Ors. – Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.1014 of 2015
Decided on 26.6.2024
Medical Negligence – Compensation – Non-entitlement – Complainant alleged that patient was admitted with complaint of dinginess, fell two times while walking & pain & swelling in left lower leg since morning – None of these complaints were related to pulmonologist but hospital admitted patient in the care of Pulmonologist – In X-ray report, fracture was revealed , it was decided to manage fracture through operation – Since her left knee was also causing trouble, patient & her husband were advised to go through total knee replacement surgery so that if operation of left knee is done, it may remain safe – After total knee replacement & ankle surgery patient was discharged in stable condition – Although patient was admitted under Pulmonologist but she was given treatment by Orthopedician – Knee replacement was advised by doctor & complainant & patient agreed for it – After giving informed consent now complainant is raising issue – It is incorrect to say that opinion of Anaesthesist was ignored – In view of opinion of Anaesthesist, instead of general anaesthesia, local anaesthesia was given – Patient had history of lung disease, diabetes mellitus & hypertension – It cannot be said that it was due to post-operation complication – Said diseases are her medical history & not a new disease – She remained at her home for 40 days – These complications developed from last 4 days – There was no reason for pulmonologist to commit any mal-practice or mistreatment – Allegation in this respect is vague – Various allegations levelled against hospital & doctors not proved – Refusal of admission of patient on 14.3.2015 has been explained by written reply – O Ps have discharged their burden by adducing discharge summary, which is not controverted – Delhi Medical Council did not find medical negligence on the part of opposite parties. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, to 19)
Result: Complaint dismissed.
ORDER
Heard Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate, for the complainant, Mr. Sanjeev Puri, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Aditya Awasthi, Advocate, for opposite parties-1, 3, 4 & 6, Mr. Manoj Kumar Sahu, Advocate, for opposite party-2 and Mr. Manu Prabhakar, Advocate, for opposite party-5.
2. Premdatt Chopra has filed above complaint for directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay (i) Rs.28117444/- with interest @18% per annum, as compensation; (ii) Rs.125000/- as litigation costs; and (iii) any other relief which is deemed fit and proper in the facts of the case.
3. The complainant stated as follows:-
(a) Mrs. Ish Chopra (the patient), aged 74 years, was the wife of the complainant. The patient suffered from cough and cold in April, 2014 and approached to Fortis FLT. LT. Rajan Dhall Hospital (OP-1). The patient was directed to consult with Dr. Hemant Tiwari (OP-5), who was a Pulmonary and Thoracic Surgery Consultant. The patient was admitted in the hospital on 02.04.2014 and discharged on 04.04.2014. Thereafter, the patient suffered with fracture in her left leg ankle on 08.04.2014 and was taken to Fortis FLT. LT. Rajan Dhall Hospital (OP-1), where she was attended by Dr. Gurvinder Bedi, Orthopaedic Surgeon (OP-6) but was admitted in supervision of Pulmonary Surgeon. OP-6 also advised to undergo right knee replacement. OP-6 again examined the patient on 09.04.2014 and informed that due to swelling in ankle area, knee replacement surgery had to be postponed for 5 days. The Anaesthetist evaluated the patient as a ‘high risk case’. However, the doctors of OP-1 conducted ‘right knee replacement surgery’ and ‘surgery of the ankle’ within two days. After surgery, the doctors obtained ‘blood test report’ dated 15.04.2014, which showed low calcium. But the doctor overlooked this report and did not take any remedial measure to improve the calcium. As a result the patient developed abnormal movement after 17 hours. Then the doctor administered a dose of calcium intravenously. The hospital discharged the patient on 22.04.2014 and charged total Rs.709920/-.
(b) In spite of the assurances of the hospital, the patient could not walk properly due to severe pain and developed infections and complications after discharge. On the advice of Dr. Hemant Tiwari (OP-5), the patient was again admitted to Fortis Hospital (OP-1) on 02.06.2014 and discharged on 14.07.2014. During this period the complainant found that Dr. Hemant Tiwari (OP-5) was indulged in malpractices and actions. The complainant made a complaint to the hospital authorities. Hospital authorities found Dr. Hemant Tiwari (OP-5) as guilty, then he submitted his resignation. Despite 42 days of stay in the hospital, the patient went on batting with infections and complications, which was due to direct result of unnecessary right knee replacement surgery. The complainant filed a complaint with Mr. Shivender Singh, who worried due to the complaint and asked Mr. Udyan Dravin (OP-1) to get rid of from the patient and discharge her. Although the condition of the patient was very weak and she was not in position to walk but the hospital started to say that the patient would get more infection in the hospital and discharged her on 14.07.2014.
(c) Mr. Udyan Dravin (OP-1) admitted the faults in treatment of the patient by the team of its doctor and assured to give a discount in the bill. He also promised to provide all the required medical equipment at the home to sustain the patient, the doctor would attend the patient at home and two nurses of the hospital would be deputed round the clock free of charges. But after discharge neither required medical equipment was provided nor the nurses attended the patient at home. The doctor visited the home only to throw a cursory glance on the patient. The complainant had to purchase the medical equipment and hire the services of the nurse incurring Rs.800000/-. The complainant sent bills of medical equipment and the nurses, for reimbursement, then
(1) Negligence : Essential components of negligence are three. “duty”, “breach” & “resulting damage” .(2) Medical Negligence : Simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident is not proof of....
Medical Negligence – Patients go to hospitals of Super Speciality on the names of specialist doctors & not on the names of junior doctors – Hospital charges for the specialist doctors.
1) Pertinent to mention here that complainant never claimed for any expert’s opinion in dealing with the negligence in his medical treatment.2) In Kusum Sharama and others Vs. Batra Hospital and Medi....
(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 requires evidence of a breach of duty by the medical professional, which was not established in this case.
Medical negligence is defined by a breach of duty. Mere errors in judgment by medical professionals don't equate to negligence if they act within acceptable standards.
(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) Medical negligence – Simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not a proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional.(2) Medical negligence – Doctors are expected to ....
(1) Non Supply of Medical Records – deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties is glaringly apparent with regard to non-supply of copies of the medical records, as sought for by the complainants.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
