ARUNA TRIKHA Vs. SEHRA MEDICAL CENTRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a complaint filed by Mrs. Aruna Trikha against M/s. Sehra Medical Centre, respondent-1 and Dr. Devender Sehra, respondent-2 claiming total compensation of Rs. 46,29,006/- from respondents for gross negligence in the treatment of ailment suffered by the complainant between 21st November, 1989 to 30th November, 1989, while the complainant was admitted as an indoor patient at the respondent No. 1-centre. The complainant has alleged that due to delay in the appropriate treatment, the complainant is permanently afflicted by sickness and inability to perform office duties. In the result, the complainant has been retrenched from her service with Phillips India Ltd. She was drawing the handsome salary of Rs. 5,521/- per month and was aged only 42 years. Due to premature retirement, she has suffered on all fronts vis-a-vis in salary promotions in the service, other perks etc., for the remaining period of her service and hence the above compensation is claimed.

(2.) FACTS of the case are, in the evening of 21st November, 1989 the complainant all of a sudden developed acute pain in her temples, associated with fever, vomiting and nausea. Her husband took her to respondent No. 1 Hospital (Centre) at 11 p.m. on that day and respondent No. 2 attended on her. On tests being carried, complainant was identified for urine infection. She was administered 'Ciplox' capsules and this treatment terminated urine infection but the temperature persisted. Respondent No. 1 on trial and error basis treated the complainant for Malaria with 'Lariago'. However, the fever persisted on 23rd November, 1989. Since the headache and the temperature did not abate, the husband of the complainant requested complainant No. 2 to consult Neuro-Surgeon Dr. Rana. It is further contended that respondent No. 2 treated complainant for Malaria for first four days and then switched on to the treatment of Typhoid, as symptoms appeared to be of Typhoid. Tab Chloromycitin was prescribed but the response was poor and the complainant deteriorated in health. On further request for advice of Neuro-Surgeon, respondent No. 2 stated that he was a qualified Neuro-Physician and that the husband should not worry about the complainant.

(3.) IT is complainant's case that on 30th November, 1989, the complainant developed double vision and the complainant's husband asked for relief from respondent No. 1 Centre and only then, respondent No. 2 advised removal to Gangaram Hospital instead of AIIMS (All India Institute of Medical Sciences). However, complainant was admitted to AIIMS on 30th November, 1989 at 1 p.m. While in AIIMS, complainant developed 'Paralysis' of left side followed by 'Hamicoria - violent Movements' of right Arm and leg. She also suffered jaundice and was in AIIMS from 30th November, 1989 to 23rd March, 1990. Complainant lost weight, suffered loss of memory, and the doctors at AIIMS lost hope about the survival of the complainant.