RAJINDER SINGH NANDAL Vs. ANMOL HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This complaint has been filed by the complainants - Rajinder Singh Nandal and others being the husband and surviving children of the deceased Smt. Sushila Nandal, alleging medical negligence on the part of the opposite party hospital being opposite party No. 1 and the Doctor-in-charge being opposite party No. 2.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the deceased, Smt. Sushila Nandal suffered from excessive bleeding some time in June-July, 1991 and in this context approached opposite party No. 2 who is also the proprietor of opposite party No. 1 hospital. The deceased was advised by the opposite party No. 2 for surgery, i.e. removal of uterus which was carried out on 10.12.1991 in respondent hospital and was discharged on 20.12.1991. On developing stomach pains the deceased was again admitted in the opposite party hospital on 5.4.1992 where the deceased was diagnosed as having diarrhoea and vomiting. The allegation is that knowing fully well that the deceased Smt. Sushila Nandal is a patient of sugar/diabetes and without controlling the same, she was administered 15/20 bottles of glucose till 10.4.1992 on account of which the condition of Smt. Nandal deteriorated and became so serious that the opposite parties, apprehending that the deceased will not survive, got her admitted in Sir Tirath Ram Hospital on 10.4.1992 where she died on the same day. The cause of the death was opined to be 'Diabetes Ketoacidosis and peripheral circulatory failure'. The allegation is that the deceased died on account of negligence solely attributable to the opposite party No. 2 and misadministration of opposite party No. 1 by administering glucose while knowing fully well that the deceased was patient of sugar/diabetes. The complainant prays for an award of Rs. 11,33,676/- under different heads to the complainants 1 to 3 along with interest @ 24% p.a. and any other relief as deemed fit by this Commission.

(3.) The respondent in their reply states that opposite party No. 2 was aware of the fact of the deceased suffering from diabetes. Since the main allegation is that the deceased was administered with glucose which led to deterioration to such an extent that she had to be shifted to Tirath Ram Hospital, it was stated by the respondent No. 2 that it is a well established fact that there is no absolute bar on administration of glucose to a diabetic patient. The sole precaution which need to be taken is that the dosage of glucose has to be neutralized with a corresponding dosage of insulin. In the instant case this, precisely, was done both at the time of surgery in December, 1991 and again in August, 1992. It is not the case of the complainant's that glucose can never be given. In December, 1991 she was operated upon for histratomy which was done successfully and the deceased was discharged on 20.12.1991. She was readmitted in April, 1992 with Gasroentertics for which she was administered medicine as per medical norms and practice. There is no nexus between the glucose given during the hystractomy and glucose given for the gastroenteritis five months later. According to the respondent No. 2 the deceased was fit to be discharged on 8.4.1992 and hence was discharged as per records but could not go home as her husband did not came to pick up her. Since they know each other well for some time, deceased was allowed to stay in the hospital. Next day morning she started complaining of breathlessness for which respondent No. 2 called Dr. Bhargava who examined the deceased at about 9.30 a.m. and found her condition to be fair and advised continuation of the same treatment. The following morning on 10.4.1992, she again complained of breathlessness and difficulty in breathing for which she called Dr. Mathur, a Cardiologist, who saw the deceased at about 11 a.m. and advised her shifting to Tirath Ram Hospital in ICCU where Dr. Mathur is Consultant and she was shifted there at about 12.15 in the company of her neighbours. The deceased patient suffered from two cardiac arrrest which were beyond respondent Nos. 2's care and control in Tirath Ram Hospital where she unfortunately died. A wrong impression is being attempted to be created that she died on account of diabetic Ketoacidoses, whereas a plain reading of death certificate issued by Tirath Ram Hospital clearly states that cause of death as peripheral circulatory failure. The latter is synonymous with heart failure. Any negligence on the part of respondents was denied. Allegations of negligence and irresponsibility alleged in the complaint was also denied. What was done for the deceased was as per medical practice hence no case of negligence is made out against the respondents, and in these circumstances, the complainant need to be dismissed. The respondent No. 2 also enclosed photocopy of the hospital record in support of her above averments.