MANAGER PARMARTH MISSION HOSPITAL Vs. YUDH VIR CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in Complaint No. C-375 of 1998, two cross appeals have been filed. While First Appeal No. 744 of 2007 has been filed by Manager, Parmarth Mission Hospital, Opposite Party, First Appeal No. 16 of 2008 has been filed by Shri Yudh Vir Singh Chauhan, Original Complainant before the State Commission seeking enhanced compensation. Since the facts and the parties in both appeals are common/similar arising out of the same consumer complaint, it is proposed to dispose of these appeals by one common order by taking the facts from First Appeal No. 744 of 2007. The parties will be referred to in the manner in which they were referred to in the complaint i.e. Shri Yudh Vir Singh Chauhan as Complainant and Parmarth Mission Hospital as Opposite Party.

(2.) In the complaint against Opposite Party-Hospital, Complainant had stated that his wife (hereinafter referred to as the Patient), who had earlier been admitted in the Opposite Party-Hospital and delivered two children in the same Hospital, was admitted for delivery in the Opposite Party-Hospital on 22.05.1997 and gave birth to a male child through cesarean section. Since there was infection in the uterus, this was also removed. While performing the surgery Doctors of the Opposite Party-Hospital negligently left a sponge like specimen of 17 x 17 Cm. and a tag of 11 Cm. in the abdomen of the Patient. Since the Opposite Party-Hospital did not have basic requirements of a nursery and other facilities, Complainant was asked to take his wife and new born child to Jaipur Golden Hospital, which was 20 Kms. away and due to this reason the infant expired after three days. After 10 days of the surgery, Patient experienced acute stomach pain and she visited the Opposite Party-Hospital number of times and also paid fees for the same but the problems persisted. On 25.02.1998 when the pain became unbearable, Patient was admitted to the Opposite Party-Hospital where Doctors asked her to undergo ultrasound and x-rays at Apollo X-Ray Centre, Roop Nagar, Delhi and also at Anant Imaging Centre at Ashok, Vihar, Delhi. However, the disease could not be diagnosed and, therefore, Patient was advised to undergo a surgery in the Opposite Party-Hospital. Although she was prepared for the same, the concerned Doctor declined the surgery on the ground that his mother was unwell. Patient continued her treatment as advised by the OP-Hospital and spent approximately Rs.2.00 Lakhs, which she paid to Opposite Party-Hospital, and also Rs.50,000/- on the x-rays and other diagnostic tests as per the advice of the Doctors in the Opposite Party-Hospital. On 09.05.1998 Complainant was told that his wife had Australia Antigen and he was advised by Opposite Party-Hospital to get his wife admitted in some other hospital for treatment. She was, accordingly, admitted in Bara Hindu Rao Hospital where after undergoing tests Doctors conducted a surgery during which a sponge like specimen and a tag in the stomach of the Patient were removed. Patient died on 26.05.1998. Complainant made a complaint to the Lt. Governor as also to the Police Authorities but because of the influence of the Opposite Party-Hospital, satisfactory action on the same was not taken. Complainant, therefore, issued a legal notice to the Opposite Party-Hospital, to which there was no response. Complainant, therefore, filed a complaint before the State Commission on grounds of medical negligence and deficiency in service against the Opposite Party-Hospital and requested that the Opposite Party-Hospital be directed to pay him (i) Rs.10.00 Lakhs as compensation for the loss caused to him and his two minor children; (ii) Rs.2.50 Lakhs spent on medical treatment; (iii) Rs.2.50 Lakhs for deficiency in service and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. Thus, a total amount of Rs.15.11 Lakhs was sought as compensation.

(3.) Opposite Party on being served filed a written rejoinder denying that there was any medical negligence or deficiency in service on their part. Patient had come to the Hospital on 22.05.1997 in a serious condition and though this was a high risk pregnancy, all attempts were made to save the child and the mother. A cesarean section was conducted and a premature child was delivered, who unfortunately passed away in another hospital where he had been transferred because he required special nursery care which was not available in the Opposite Party-Hospital. Further, since relatives of the Patient were on the staff of Opposite Party-Hospital, special medical attention and care was given to the Patient. Since there was profuse bleeding which could not be controlled, after taking opinion from other professional colleagues, the uterus was also removed in the interest of Patient's health. She was discharged in perfect condition with no complaints for approximately nine months, whereafter Patient visited the Opposite Party-Hospital with complaint of abdominal pain for which she was advised investigations. She was diagnosed as sub acute intestinal obstruction cause?, adhesion?, tuberculosis. A surgery was planned on 09.05.1998 but was deferred since Patient tested positive for Australia Antigen, which is a very dreaded disease and which affects the liver and can cause death. There was also high risk of transmission of this disease to the persons conducting the surgery. Patient was, therefore, put on anti-tuberculosis and other supportive medicines and after she showed improvement, she was discharged in a satisfactory condition on 18.05.1998. It was contended that in fact Patient died at Bara Hindu Rao Hospital because during the surgery conducted there the ileum got perforated. There was no medical negligence or deficiency in service in the treatment of the Patient at Opposite Party-Hospital and, therefore, the complaint being without any basis may be dismissed.