LAWS(NCD)-2022-8-21

FORTIS HEALTH MANAGEMENT (NORTH) LTD Vs. SANTOSH MODI

Decided On August 26, 2022
Fortis Health Management (North) Ltd Appellant
V/S
Santosh Modi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition has been filed under sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Petitioner i.e. Fortis Health Management (North) Limited Escorts Heart Institute Research Centre, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Opposite Party No.1') against the Impugned Order dtd. 9/2/2011 passed by State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Haryana (for short 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 1304/2003 wherein the Appeal was dismissed and the Order of the District Forum was confirmed.

(2.) The issue relates to alleged medical negligence with respect to dosage of Acitrom.

(3.) The Case of the Complainant is that, on 3/2/1997 Santosh Modi (since deceased- referred to as 'the patient') for her respiratory problems was admitted under care of Dr. S.S. Bansal (OP-2) in Fortis (Escorts) Hospital and Research Centre (OP-1 Hospital). Prior to admission, the patient was taking tablet Acitrom 2 mg for her heart ailment as prescribed by Batra Hospital and it was informed by the patient's husband to OP-2 but the OP-2 did not pay any heed to it. It was alleged that on 7/2/1997, the treating doctor OP-2 doubled the dose of tablet Acitrom from 2 mg to 4 mg. Thereafter, from the same day the condition of patient started deteriorating with some feeling of lower abdomen lump, Constipation and breathing problem. The treating doctors diagnosed it as twisting of intestine and advised immediate operation. She became critical further on 10/2/2007 and got discharged from the Hospital. Her husband immediately shifted her to the Apollo Hospital, New Delhi. The doctors at Apollo Hospital diagnosed it abdominal bleeding, but not twisted intestine or extension of flesh as diagnosed by the OP-2. The doctors at Apollo Hospital told due to the double dose of Acitrom (4 mg) was the reason for abdominal bleeding. Being aggrieved the Consumer Complaint was filed by the patient herself with her husband and other legal heirs. During the pendency of this case she expired and her legal heirs were brought on record.