SURJIT SINGH Vs. MUKAT HOSPITAL AND HEART INSTITUTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 20.8.2008, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II, U.T., Chandigarh (herein after to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant).

(2.) THE complainant, being a retired Master Warrant Officer and an ex -serviceman, was competent, to avail of all the facilities, being provided by ECHS, Mukat Hospital and Heart Institute (OP -1), was an empanelled hospital of ECHS. Joginder Kaur, wife of the complainant, was suffering from fever, in the month of May 2007. The complainant got her admitted for treatment, in OP -1 hospital, through ECHS, on 17.6.2007. Dr. G.S. Bhatia (OP -2), started the treatment of Joginder Kaur. On 17.6.2007, the said doctor, got conducted certain tests, such as Haematology, RFT and LFT, to diagnose the problem, on the basis whereof, it was found that, the patient was suffering from infection problem, as test report for LFT revealed that, S.G.O.T. and S.G.P.T. were on the higher side, than the normal values. On 18.6.2007 another test for RFT, Haematology and urine was conducted and the problem of infection, was again detected, as blood urea and TLC, had gone on the higher side, than the normal value and the figure/value, which test report dated 17.6.2007, depicted. The HB of the patient had decreased to 8.5, which as per the report dated 17.6.2007, was 11.4. On 19.6.2007, another test for urine was conducted and report of the test was found to be normal, which showed puss cells on the higher side, than the normal values. On 19.6.2007, test of USG Abdomen, was also got conducted from Dr. Sodhi's MRI and CT Scan Centre, Sector 33, Chandigarh and the test report was found normal. Thereafter, on 24.6.2007, blood test was conducted and the report was also found normal On 26.6.2007, another test was conducted, to rule out the possibility of 'Widal' and the report revealed the same to be negative. The attending doctor again got conducted the scan of whole abdomen and chest, from Mercury Imaging Centre, Sector 8, Chandigarh and the report revealed no problem. However, chest report revealed that the patient had Mediastinal Lymphadenopathy, with minimal B/L pleural thickening, meaning thereby that there was chest infection. The report also suggested, that it be co -related clinically, with other relevant investigations. The attending doctor, also got conducted test for anti tuberculosis (TB), from Thyrocare, (thyroid testing laboratory). The report was found to be normal. The report further suggested that it be co -related with the clinical conditions. Thereafter, Anti Nuclear Antibodies test was gotconducted, from the above named Thyrocare Laboratory, and the test report was normal. On 27.6.2007, the attending doctor got echo done and the report revealed mild pericardial effusion, which means that there was accumulation of fluid in the pericardial sack, Concentric LVH and Diastolic dysfunction of the left ventricle. On 29.6.2007, the attending doctor got Endoscopy of UGI (Upper Gastrointestinal) from Dr. Dhawan's Laboratory, and the report revealed Esophageal Motility disorder and fungal erosion, which means that the patient was having problem in swallowing. On 30.6.2007 biopsy of left cervical lymphnode from Dr. Jain's Cancer Screening cum Research Centre, Chandigarh, was got conducted, and the said report was submitted on 4.7.2007 after the death of Joginder Kaur, patient. That report revealed that the patient was having problem of Paracortical Hyperplasia (reactive lymphoid hyperplasia). It was on 1.7.2007, that the patient Joginder Kaur was declared dead and the cause of death, as revealed, in the death summary, issued by OP -1, was cardiac respiratory arrest. It was stated by the complainant that, OP -1 had issued two death summaries, one on the occasion of delivery of the dead body, and another, after some days. The death summaries, so issued, were contradictory to each other, inasmuch as, one showed that, the patient developed cardiac pulmonary arrest at 7:30 a.m. and the other showed that the patient developed cardiac respiratory arrest at 8:30 a.m. It was further stated that, the test reports and the treatment given to the patient, referred to above, were sufficient to establish the medical negligence, on the part of the OPs. It was further stated that the patient was required to be attended by a heart specialist, to regularly treat her, but the OPs did not bother to provide her the services of a heart specialist. It was further stated that the Doctor had given 'Lasix' 2ML injection, on the first day of admission of the patient, which was not needed. It was further stated that on 29.6.2007, the patient was given Propofol injection, which is short acting general anaesthetic, which actually was not necessary, to be given to the patient, and when without necessity, it was given to the patient, it reacted and caused pain. It was further stated that, with a view tosubside the pain, a Ketamine injection was given to the patient. It was further stated that on 1.7.2007, when the patient was declared dead, no Doctor attended on her, nor any medicine was given to her, before that. It was further stated that, since the death of the patient, occurred due to the medical negligence of the OPs, on account of the aforesaid reasons, they were deficient in rendering proper service, and, as such, were liable to compensate the complainant. They were many a time asked, to pay compensation but to no avail. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no other alternative, he filed a Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after to be called as the Act only).

(3.) THE OPs (now respondents) were duly served, but despite service, neither they nor any duly authorized representative, on their behalf appeared. Accordingly, the OPs were proceeded against exparte, by the District Forum.