M L SINGHAL Vs. PRADEEP MATHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is most unfortunate that the life of plaintiff's wife, Smt. Gayatri Devi had been snatched by the cruel hands, but the question for determinaion is whose hands were those? Were those of a doctor, attending upon her or of the Supernatural powner controlling this universe? If the answer is that those hands were of a doctor then we have to keep in mind that to err is human though all errors are not pardonable nor all errors are deliberate and intentional. ft is only when the enror arose out of sheer negligence and carelessness or callous treatment of the patient by the doctor or because of the act of the hospital authority, the aggrieved party would be entitled to claim compensation/damage for having lost the near and dear one. It will thus be called causing death at the cruel hands of that human being the so called doctor.

(2.) Smt. Gayatri Devi wife .of the plaintiff Sh. M. L. Singhal, died on 21st August, 1978. Plaintiff filed the suit claiming damages against Dr. Pardeep Mathur defendant No. I as well as against Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, defendant No. 2 for causing death to his wife by not treating her properly and for poor nursing. According to plaintiff Smt. Gayatri Devi was admitted in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital because she was under the treatment of defendant No. 1. Because of the callous attitude and negligent mannen of treatment by Dr. Pradeep Mathur and of the Hospital staff it hasten the death of his wife. Bad nursing and treatment caused her death. Her death has caused great shock to the plaintiff. He underwent physical and mental torture when his wife was treated casually at the hands of the defendants. By not providing her proper care and treatment it made platiff suffer physical and mental agony. Due to her death plaintiff has been deprived of the company of his wife. Her death was due to mismanagement in treatment and due to poor nursing.

(3.) To appreciate the grievances of the plaintiff the facts are' very relevant. Those are that Smt. Gayatri Devi started having general weakness in the last week of .Tune, 1978. On 1st. July. 1978. plaintiff on the recommendation of a common friend took her for treatment to Dr. Pradeep Mathur at defendant No. 2 hospital. It is further the case of the plaintiff that patient's previous history rcgarding Hood pressure and kidnev involvement and the treatment taken by her at Safdariung Hospital were explained to Dr. Pradeep Mathur. It was also made clear to Dr. Pradeep Mathur that by observing due precautions and care as prescribed earlier by Dr. Chug of Sufdarjung Hospital this ailment had been kept under control. It was only due to general weekness and not passing urine that. he brought her to him. According to plaintiff Dr. Pradeep Mathur after examining his wife admilted her as an indoor patient on 1st July, 1978. She remained under Dr. Piadeep Mathur's treatment till 21st July, 1978. On 21st July, 1978 Dr. Pradeep Matur discharged her. He assured that he would be attending upon her at her residence. Hence after being discharged she still remained under the treatment of Dr. Pradeep Mathur at her residence. He attended upon her at her residence from 21st July, 1978 to 9th August, 1978. On the advise of Dr. Pradeep Mathur, she was again admitted in the hospital on 9th August, 1978 where she remained till 17th August, 1978. On which date doctor discharged her without plaintiff's consent. At the time of her first admission on 1st July, 1978 Dr. Mathur had been informed that Smt. Gayatri Devi was a patient of kidney disease. Even on examination Dr. Mathur assessed her to be a patient of kidney disease. After conducting the test on her it was found that she was not all that serious and her general condition would improve. However. Dr. Mathur inspite of being aware of her kidney ailment neglected in discharging his duties because during the entire period from 1st July, 1978 to 21st July, 1978, he neither consulted nor availed the services of a nephrologist nor treated for her kidney ailment. He thus acted in a very negligent and callous manner. He did not care to have the blood, urine and creatine tests performed at regular intervals to ensure proper management in carrying: out her treatment for full 38 days. Per plaintiff, Dr. Mathur was guilty of giving her blood transfusion which was not necessary in her case because she was a patient of kidney ailment. In the process of correcting her anaemia she was given blood transfusion which beyond a certain level is harmful and undesirable. But Dr. Mathur never cared to look into the same. He gave her over dose of medicines without any valid clinical grounds. Moreover, she was not put on dialysis to preserve or prolong her life nor Dr. Mathur suggested the same. Instead of safeguarding her from infection she was unnecessarily catheterised while she was unconcious. Even the catheterisation was not proper urine continued to leak as a result she developed bedsores and severe infection. Defendants were negligent in conducting the necessary test nor cared to consult Nephrologist at the appropriate time. Because of these gross acts of negligence and callousness on the part of Dr. Mathur and hospital authorities the life of Smt. Gnvatri Devi has been lost. Had proper care and treatment been administered her life would have been saved for a fairly long time. She suffered agony at the hand of Dr. Mathur because of his rash and negligrent manner of providing treatment and of bad nursing by defendant No. 2. Plaintiff being the husband besides suffering loss of company of his wife also underwent agonising moments seeing his wife undereging physical and mental torture at the hands of defendants. This torture suffered by plaintiff cannot be compensated hence he rostricted his claim only to a nominal amount in this suit.