VINUBHAI J PATEL Vs. THAKKAR KALPESH KUMAR G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by Dr. Vinubhai J. Patel and another (here in after referred to as the 'Petitioners') being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat (here in after referred to as the 'State Commission') in favour of Thakkar Kalpesh Kumar G. (Respondent No. 1)and others who were the original complainants before the District Forum. In the complaint before the District Forum, Respondent No. 1 has stated that his wife, Mallikaben K. Thakkar (here in after referred to as the 'Patient'), was taken to the Petitioner/doctor's hospital on 21.3.1994 for treatment of loose motions and nausea and after examining her, Petitioner/doctor put her on an IV drip. She was thereafter discharged at 8.00 p.m. and was asked to come back next day for follow-up check up. Respondent accordingly brought the patient back when she was given an injection and later also "bottle treatment". However, after 15 minutes the patient started foaming from the mouth and fainted, so the intravenous bottle was changed and a new bottle was applied by the Compounder since the Petitioner/doctor was not present. Thereafter, Petitioner called for an ambulance and the patient was shifted to Karnavati Hospital as per the Petitioner/doctor's advice but there was no improvement in her condition and she died within an hour of admission in that hospital. The medical authorities at Karnavati Hospital informed the Police Station regarding the patient's death and requested for post-mortem, etc. According to the Respondent, his wife's death occurred due to a severe adverse reaction to the injection given to her by the Petitioner/doctor without conducting necessary tests and also because during the critical period of the treatment Petitioner/doctor went away leaving his Compounder in charge. Respondent, therefore, served a legal notice to the Petitioner and since there was no response, he filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of medical negligence and deficiency in service seeking compensation of Rs. 4,95,000 since the death of his wife had deprived him of his spouse and his two young children had become motherless.

(2.) The allegations of medical negligence and deficiency in service were denied by Petitioner /doctor who stated that on the first day i.e. on 21.3.1994 Respondent had brought his wife for treatment with a history of diarrhea and vomiting and after examining her she was given intravenous fluids as a part of the treatment. She was also advised to give a stool sample and remain in the hospital but against medical advice, Respondent took her home and brought her back next day with complaints of high fever, rigors and headache. Since these were symptoms of cerebral malaria which can be fatal if not treated immediately she was given a quinine injection and when her condition did not improve and she began losing consciousness, all steps were taken to revive her under the supervision of two experienced doctors and the Petitioner who is himself an MD. Unfortunately, despite immediate medical attention and vigorous cardiac pulmonary resuscitation, the patient could not be saved and passed away in Karnavati Hospital. Petitioner denied that the death occurred because of adverse reaction to the quinine injection through the intravenous route. The post-mortem report has also confirmed that the death occurred because of appendicitis and not because of an adverse reaction to the quinine injection.

(3.) The District Forum after hearing both parties dismissed the complaint by concluding that even if it is accepted that due to misdiagnosis that the patient had cerebral malarial and was therefore, given a quinine injection, this does not amount to medical negligence as ruled by the National Commission in a number of cases including in Dr. Subramaniam & Ors. v. B. Krishna Rao,1976 CPJ 233 (NC). The District Forum also did not accept the Respondent's contention that the Petitioner/doctor had left the patient by giving the responsibility for her treatment to the Compounder in the absence of any evidence to support this contention including not cross-examining the Compounder. Further, the Head of the Department of Medicine of V.S. Hospital, Ahmedabad who was cross-examined in this case has confirmed that no adverse effect of any injection or fluid was noted during the postmortem/viscera examination of the patient. Apart from this, as per Modi's Jurisprudence an adverse effect of quinine which is sufficient to cause death if the administered dosage is 8 grams or more whereas in the instant case Respondent was given only 2 ml. of quinine. The post-mortem report also indicated that the death occurred due to the diseases in the stomach cavity and appendicitis and not because of adverse effect of quinine infection.