ST STEPHENS HOSPITAL Vs. JOHRI MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) St.Stephens Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner ) have filed the present revision petition against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to the as the State Commission ) which rejected its appeal in favour of Johri Mal(hereinafter referred to the as the Respondent ) and three others (i.e. his son and two daughters) who were the original complainants before the District Forum.

(2.) The facts of the case according to the Respondent are that his wife, Smt.Vimla Devi was admitted to the Petitioner/Hospital on 03.01.1997 for the treatment of arthritis upto 14.01.1997 during which period her spinal chord was broken on account of the negligence of the Petitioner s doctors and staff. The Respondent, therefore, got his wife discharged from the hospital on 14.01.1997 and lodged a claim for damages/compensation on account of the above negligence. However, the Petitioner assured him of better treatment and, therefore, he agreed to continue her treatment upto 27.05.1997 when she was discharged by the Petitioner on the grounds that her condition had improved. Petitioner prescribed visits to the outpatient department and Respondent, therefore, continued to take his wife to the outpatient department till 08.07.1999 when she was re-admitted in the hospital. On 10.07.1999 she fell down and the knee joint of her right leg was broken because of the negligence of the staff of the Petitioner. She was finally discharged on 17.07.1999 in a critical condition and she expired on 18.01.2001 because of the consequences of the medical negligence. Prior to her death, on 29.08.2000, Smt. Vimla Devi had sent a legal notice to the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4,41,000/- on various grounds but there was no response to this notice. After her death, the Respondent along with his three children filed a complaint on 21.04.2001 before the District Forum claiming damages from the Petitioner to the tune of Rs.4,91,000/- with interest @ 18% from the date of filing the complaint till realization on grounds of medical negligence and deficiency in service. The Petitioner in its reply denied these allegations and stated that the facts about the medical condition of the Respondent s wife have been totally misrepresented by Respondents. According to the Petitioner, Smt. Vimla Devi was admitted to the hospital on 03.01.1997 complaining of severe back pain with difficulty in passing urine and stool. She was diagnosed to be suffering from Ankylosing Spondylitis with chronic fracture of the second and third vertebra of the lumbar spine as well as weakness of both lower limbs. Her condition was further compromised because of high blood pressure and derangement of liver functions. Thus, the allegation that her spine was fractured on account of the negligence of the Petitioner is totally incorrect. It was already fractured at the time of admission because of Ankylosing Spondylitis and Osteoporosis. Her serious condition was explained to the Respondents. A plaster jacket was given to her on 21.01.1997 and later a spinal brace was installed on 20.04.1997 because of which she could sit up with support and by 07.05.1997 she was able to stand on a tilt table and also sit in a wheelchair. In view of the progress made by her she was discharged from the hospital on 26.05.1997. Thereafter on 08.07.1999, she was again admitted with a complaint of backache and on 10.07.1999 she fell from the bed and sustained a fracture on the lower portion of the femur. The fall took place despite the fact that an attendant (Respondent) was present with her. This was a freak accident which even her attendant could not prevent. The Petitioner cannot be blamed for this. The District Forum after hearing both parties and considering the evidence on record which included voluminous medical documents produced by the Petitioner-hospital in respect of the condition and treatment of the Respondent s wife concluded that the Respondent had not been able to make out a case of deficiency in service or negligence in respect of the treatment of his wife and, therefore, dismissed it with no order as to costs. The relevant part of the order is reproduced below:

(3.) So far as deficiency of service by respondent when wife of the complainant was in the respondent s hospital from 03.01.1997 to 27.05.1997 is concerned, said claim is barred by provision of Section 24 A of Consumer Protection Act as complaint is filed more than two years after cause of action arose. There is also no evidence that in that period there was any negligence of respondent in the treatment of wife of complainant. Wife of the complainant remained in the hospital of the respondent again from 08.07.1999 to 17.07.1999 and there is no evidence of deficiency of service in her treatment in any way. It is, however, admitted to respondent that on 10.07.1999 when wife of the complainant was in Physical Medicine ward she fell down from the bed and sustained a fracture in her leg. According to respondent where wife of complainant was being kept every person was allowed to meet with patient and this fact is admitted by complainant in his additional affidavit dated 22.08.2001 on filed. Respondent has explained that on date of fall from the bed there were 13 patients in the said ward and 3 staff Nurses and one nurse-air meson duty. Respondent has filed a copy of the report of High Powered Committee on Nursing and Nursing Profession constituted by Government of India and in the report certain norms for Hospital Nursing services for urban areas have been prescribed and according to the said report ratio of Staff Nurses and patient is 1:9 beds and thus according to respondent recommendation of above High Powered Committee were fully followed by respondent. Fall from the bed of wife of complainant could be because of the negligence of the patient or could be accidental. We accept the contention of the respondent that since wife of the complainant was having her husband complainant as her attendant at her bed side, fall could be freak accident. It can not be said that it was due to lack of care on the part of respondent hospital. We, therefore, hold that fall of wife of the complainant from her bed on 10.07.99 when she was in the respondent s hospital can not be said to be the result of deficiency of service or negligence of respondent hospital or its staff or doctors as stated above.