FAKIR CHAND Vs. PRINCIPAL MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition has been filed by one Fakir Chand husband of Late Swaran Lata against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in Appeal No. A-1174/2006 dated 14.11.2006. Respondent in this case is the Principal Medical Superintendent, Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi. The facts of the case leading to the present Revision Petition according to the Petitioner who is a Central Government employee and a member of the Central Government Health Scheme is that he took his wife Smt. Swaran Lata to Safdarjang Hospital on 04.11.2002 following complaints of severe headache and vomiting. According to the Petitioner she was conscious at the time of entering the hospital but soon after became unconscious and started frothing from her mouth. She was admitted in the casualty after which she was shifted to a ward. In spite of several requests by the Petitioner that she be taken to the Intensive Care Unit and necessary tests be conducted and treatment be started no action was taken and even her oxygen cylinder which got exhausted in a few minutes was not replaced. Initially, the ward doctor started the process to treat her as a case of poisoning because of which valuable time was lost and it was only following the intervention of a lady doctor who suspected the case to be a brain haemorrhage and recommended a CT scan that the patient was sent to ICU in preparation for the CT scan. However, the ICU doctor did not allow the patient to be admitted in the ICU and the doctor in-charge CT scan stated that this procedure could not be done while the patient was on oxygen. The Petitioner thereafter sought help from the Chief Medical Officer but despite all this no treatment was given to the patient and she remained lying in a trolley in a ward for over five hours. Therefore, the Petitioner removed her from Hospital at 11.30 P.M. and rushed her to Apollo Hospital where an MRI Head and CT scan confirmed that she had a brain haemorrhage and she was provided immediate medical attention. Despite best efforts by the doctors at Apollo hospital Petitioners wife expired on 07.11.2002. Petitioner contended that as per standard medical literature on the subject if his wife had been given correct proper treatment within the first hour which is crucial for the survival of such patients she would have been alive but because of the negligence and callous attitude of the doctors at Safdarjang hospital and the hospital itself he lost his wife and his three children lost their mother.

(2.) THE Respondent denied the above contentions of the Petitioner and stated that the patient was provided relevant relief, intensive care and life support system in the ward itself due to non-availability of bed/ventilator in the ICU on that date. Further, as per established procedure it was necessary to rule out that it was not a case of poisoning. It was also a fact that the CT scan was advised for the patient but the Petitioner did not take her for the CT scan. Furthermore, the Petitioner took away the patient without her being officially discharged by the hospital and, therefore, the hospital had to file a medico-legal complaint before the police. Thus, there was no medical negligence or deficiency in service since patient was properly managed for brain haemorrhage which was one of the two diagnoses at the time of admission.

(3.) IN our view in cases of medical negligence one cannot be oblivious of the fact that whenever the patient lands in the hospital the doctors are not aware about his condition, how many children, the patient has and what are his/her liabilities and have no knowledge as to the family background or the family conditions or other conditions of a patient and therefore, it is overall view of negligence and the cause related therewith as the death or other complications suffered by the patient which is a determining criteria for assessing the damages or the compensation. While determining such compensation, Court cannot be swayed by sentiments.