MEERA DEVI Vs. ARUN KUMAR CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by one Meera Devi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioner') being aggrieved by an order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') by which the State Commission had set aside the order of the District Forum and allowed the appeal in favour of Dr. Arun Kumar Chaudhary, Respondent No. 1 and two other doctors.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the late husband of the Petitioner who was the original complainant before the District forum had been admitted to Sadar Hospital, Katihar on 03.09.2003 because of a septic boil on his right thigh. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent No. 1 demanded Rs. 4,000/- for getting him operated and after settling the amount at Rs. 1,000/-, he conducted a surgery on the right thigh near the femoral vein. After 4 to 5 hours of the operation the condition of the patient became serious and when this was brought to the notice of the Respondent, Petitioner was asked to buy one Traxol 1000 injection for immediate administration. Petitioner, therefore, purchased the injection which was injected in the vein of the deceased. However, instead of improving, the condition of the patient deteriorated because he was given a wrong injection in the vein without due precaution and he died on 04.09.2003 due to pulmonary embolism leading to cardio respiratory failure. Also, despite the fact that an operation of this nature has a high risk of occurrence of pulmonary embolism the operation was conducted in a hospital which had no Intensive Cardiac Care Unit. Petitioner, therefore, filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of medical negligence and deficiency in service with the request that a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs may be given to her. Respondents have challenged these contentions and stated that the operation was the right line of medical treatment and was done with the consent of family members and with the help of an Anesthetist, Dr. N.P. Saha and other doctors. The patient was advised to take full rest post-operation and was prescribed the required antibiotics and attended to by the medical staff. His condition was satisfactory after the operation and after 6 to 7 hours, he started moving around against medical advice. He thereafter developed some complications including breathlessness and he was immediately prescribed emergency medicine including treatment for breathlessness. At 6.00 pm the doctor on duty found that his condition was not satisfactory and he was rightly administered an injection of Traxol 1000 which is invariably used in cases of this nature and have no side effects. Despite best efforts the patient died due to pulmonary embolism following femoral vein thrombosis leading to cardio respiratory failure. The post-mortem also confirmed that the cause of death was pulmonary embolism which does not co-relate with the administration of the injection. Thus, there was no medical negligence in the case. The allegation that money was demanded for treatment was also totally incorrect.

(3.) The District Forum after hearing the parties accepted the complaint and blamed mainly Respondent No. 1 of medical negligence and deficiency in service in conducting a minor operation which led to the patient's death. The main reason for reaching this conclusion was that the operation was done in haste; consent of the relatives was not taken and in addition to the operation on the right thigh, a family planning operation was also done on the patient without consent. When his condition deteriorated, he was injected Traxol 1000 injection in a negligent manner without checking his blood pressure etc. The District Forum also cast some doubt on the post-mortem report. District Forum directed Respondent No. 1 to pay a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs to the Petitioner, and the other two Respondents were directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- respectively to the Petitioner within one month of the date of passing the order.