RAMESH KUMAR Vs. JAI KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula, Haryana (in short as "State Commission") in First Appeal No. 200/2012 on 12.9.2012. That the petitioner a Pediatrician having a Ramesh Nursing Home at Jagadhari, Yamunanagar was the opposite party/respondent in the original complaint. Brief facts of case are that on 22.8.2007 Himanshi daughter of the complainant who was about 9 months age taken by complainant to the petitioner's nursing home for the complaint of vomiting and loose motion, the petitioner admitted her and treated by administering IV Fluid for the signs of dehydration on OPD basis. It was alleged that condition of patient was not improved and swelling in the inguinal region appeared which was shown to OP who assured that it will subside in due course of the treatment. OP performed few laboratory tests also. On 23.8.2007 the condition of the patient was not improved and he requested to relieve the patient and the OP unwillingly discharged the patient. Thereafter the complainant visited Madan Memorial Children Hospital, Yamunanagar who strongly advised the complainant to consult surgical specialist immediately for the swelling portion (strangulated hernia) in inguinal region. Thereafter, complainant approached Dr. Aggarwal Hospital a Surgical Centre at Jagadhri where an emergency operation of strangulated inguinal hernia was conducted on 23.8.2007 and discharged on 29.8.2007 from Aggarwal Hospital. The patient remained in Hospital upto 4.9.2007 after discharged. It was further alleged that the OP did not provide the proper treatment and failed to diagnose the disease of the patient for curing vomiting and loose motion and wrongly wasted valuable 24 Hours of the patient due to which the condition of patient became critical. Thus, alleging it a case of medical negligence and deficiency of service on the part of OP the Complaint No. 1083/2007 was filed before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamunanagar (in short "District Forum") The District Forum observed that OP refused to receive the summons and failed to appear before it wherefore the District Forum decided the case ex parte and awarded Rs. 25,000/ - as for a compensation and costs. Against the order of District Forum the OP filed First Appeal No. 200/2012 in State Commission. The State Commission heard both the parties and considered the documentary evidence and referred few authorities of Hon'ble Apex Court held the OP liable for negligence and deficiency in medical service by making following observations:

(2.) THEREFORE , the petitioner had challenged the order of State Commission through this revision petition before us. We have heard the learned Counsel for petitioner who argued vehemently to prove his case that petitioner has not committed any negligence. As per his submission the OP i.e., Dr. Ramesh Kumar initially diagnosed the patient Himanshu as a case of strangulated hernia and issued a referral slip to consult a Surgeon for operation. But due to persistent request and pressure from the complainant the OP admitted the child and gave a treatment by IV fluids for c/o vomiting and diarrhea. Subsequently on the next day i.e., 23.8.2007 patient was discharged. Also the OP is not liable because there is no expert evidence produce by the complainant. Hence there was no negligence by OP.

(3.) EVEN otherwise it is pertinent to note here that according to the medical literature strangulation hernia also presents with vomiting and diarrhea along with pain etc. But, the OP has continued the treatment at his nursing home with the pressure of patient's attendees for the gastroenteritis instead of going for a surgery. Hence conservative treatment was given by OP in such emergency. Therefore, it a matter of surprise that the said doctor treated the patient as per directions of patient's attendees. It is not an acceptable Doctor -Patient relationship. When doctor examines the patient arrives with a certain diagnosis and decides the line of treatment; thereafter it is not a prudent approach of the doctor to deviate from the standard of practice on the words of patient attendees. To prove his contention that he treated the child for gastroenteritis on the say of patient's attendee, the petitioner doctor has not produced any evidence. Hence, this amounts to deficiency in service.