JAGAT NARAIN CHOUBE Vs. ACHAL SEPAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal has been filed by Jagat Narain Choube (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellant') and two others being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') which dismissed his complaint against Dr. Achal Sepaha and Choithram Hospital & Research Centre, Indore (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent Nos. 1 and 2" respectively). In his complaint before the State Commission, Appellant had contended that his wife late Smt. Vimal Chaube (hereinafter referred to as the 'patient') who was undergoing dialysis at Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal had been advised kidney transplantation to be done at Chennai but prior to this procedure, he was told that several tests were required such as HLA typing, tissue cross matching etc. for which he was referred to Respondent No. 2/Hospital which had these facilities. Respondent No. 1. who was a consultant at Respondent No. 2/ Hospital had, after examining various medical reports advised that the kidney transplantation could be done at Respondent No. 2/Hospital itself and patient was not required to go to Chennai for the same. However, as per the statutory provisions pertaining to organ transplants only a relative could donate the kidney. Since the blood group of the patient matched only to that of her son who was too young to donate his kidney, Respondent No. 1 advised that the patient could be cured through regular treatment and may not require either dialysis or kidney transplantation. She was accordingly admitted to Respondent No. 2/ hospital. According to Appellant, gross deficiency and negligence in the treatment of the patient by Respondents led to her premature and avoidable death. It was specifically stated that she was given blood transfusion with stale blood when actually it was not required since her hemoglobin count was over 11. There was also negligence in conducting the dialysis on several occasions as it was done without checking her blood pressure either before or during dialysis and on at least two occasions her condition seriously deteriorated with the blood pressure plummeting. On one occasion an important medicine Hepril which was advised to be withheld was in fact administered. On 5.9.1996, it was found that the patient had contracted Hepatitis B infection obviously because of tainted blood. Patient's leucocytes count also indicated her having contracted an infection because of poor hygiene particularly in the dialysis room. On 7.9.1996, during the course of another dialysis session which was undertaken even though the patient was underweight with low blood pressure where dialysis is contra-indicated, she suffered a cardiac arrest and had to be shifted to ICU where she was attended to only by paramedical staff. Respondent No. 1 did not turn-up despite telephonic requests to examine the patient. The Intensive Cardiac Care Unit did not have the provision for uninterrupted electric supply because of which the ventilator often had to shut down. The patient died on 11.9.1996 because of these deficiencies and medical negligence. According to the death certificate three reasons were given for her death (i) Fluid overload; (ii) Cardio Respiratory Arrest and (iii) DM. On the other hand, as per the medical history sheet of the patient, Respondent had recorded that her chest was clear just two hours before her death and the cause of cardio respiratory arrest was also not given. There was apparent medical negligence and deficiency in service in the treatment of the patient and Respondents failed to control either her diabetes or her hypertension and her kidney ailment actually got aggravated during her stay in Respondent No. 2/Hospital. Following her death, Appellant filed an FIR under Section 304A of IPC against the Respondents and during the course of the investigation the Joint Director/ Professor Medico Legal Institute, MP clearly indicated that the Respondents were guilty of medical negligence and deficiency in service. Appellant also filed a complaint before the State Commission on grounds of medical negligence and deficiency in service which resulted in the patient's death thus prematurely depriving the Appellant of a companion in his old age and his children the love and affection of their mother. Due to the shock of patient's death, Appellant himself suffered severe cardiac problems and was advised immediate heart surgery. It was, therefore, requested that the State Commission may direct the Respondents to pay Appellant, Rs. 16,02,599 towards expenditure, medical expenses incurred as also compensation for mental agony and tension including litigation costs.

(2.) Respondents on being served filed written submissions in which they denied the allegations made in the complaint. The dialysis which was necessary to save patient's life since she was a case of chronic renal failure as also other ailments was conducted with utmost care and responsibility and this is confirmed by the hospital records which clearly indicated that the treatment given to her was as per standard procedure by highly qualified medical specialists and paramedical staff. It was specifically denied that there was any negligence during the dialysis. Further, it was denied that tainted blood was transfused in the patient. The plasma was given only after it was tested. Also the incubation period for Hepatitis B was much longer than the stay of the patient in the Respondent No. 2/Hospital. Therefore, it may have been contracted in some other institution prior to her admission in Respondent No. 2/ Hospital. Further, as per the statutory provisions pertaining to blood transfusion, plasma can be stored for one year. Following the blood transfusion in fact the patient's condition improved.

(3.) When the case came up for hearing before the State Commission while citing various instances of medical negligence, Appellant also stated that Respondent No. 1 was not competent to treat serious medical cases relating to the kidneys because he did not have the necessary qualifications in Nephrology since he had an MD in Medicine. The State Commission after hearing both parties and on the basis of evidence produced before it dismissed the complaint by inter alia observing as under: