MATA CHANAN DEVI HOSPITAL Vs. SAJJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed under Sec. 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in challenge to the Order dtd. 26/2/2021 of the State Commission in complaint no. 243 of 2013 whereby the complaint was partly allowed.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'hospital') and the learned counsel for the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant') and perused the record, including inter alia the impugned order dtd. 26/2/2021 and the memorandum of appeal.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that on 16/1/2011, the complainant met with railway accident at about 0435 hours within the jurisdiction of Police Station Sarai Rohilla and since it was a case of an emergency and accident, at around 0515 hrs, the complainant was taken to the Base Hospital, Delhi Cantonment, New Delhi. At 0530 hours after few checks and queries, the medical officer on duty informed the complainant's wife, relatives and neighbors that the complainant being an ex service man cannot be treated in Base Hospital and that the specialist doctors were not available in Hospital but first aid was provided to the complainant by medical officers on repeated requests of Police Personnel and the complainant's relatives and the complainant was referred to the hospital at about 0725 hours. It is also alleged that the Base Hospital had refused to provide Ambulance Service for taking the complainant to the hospital on the ground that the ambulance service cannot be provided to Ex-service men. It is alleged that the statements made by the medical officer on duty of the Base Hospital that an ex-service man cannot be treated in Base Hospital and the specialist doctors were not available and that an ex-service man cannot be provided ambulance service were completely contrary to the guidelines provided in Ex-servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS) Guidelines. It is alleged that the Scheme clearly provides that ambulance of ECHS will be provided within municipal limits of the city, if medical condition of the patient requires so. It is further alleged that one of the police staff called 102 and requested for ambulance and finally the complainant reached the hospital at about 0800 hrs. in emergency ward where the complainant was attended by Dr. A. K. Jain of the hospital, who confirmed that amputation is required for both legs (maximum by one or one and half inches for artificial limbs). The grievance of the complainant is that the complainant was admitted on 16/1/2011 at about 0800 hrs. but doctors of the hospital did not start the treatment immediately and the treatment could only started the next day i.e. 17/1/2011 at about 1600 hrs. and the delay in treatment resulted in amputation of both the legs of the complainant. It is alleged that on 17/1/2011 at 1500 hrs. the doctors of the hospital shifted the complainant to operation theatre for operation/surgery. After the operation, the complainant's relatives came to know that the doctors had actually amputated the complainant's left leg with around 08 inches and right leg by 11 inches below the knee joint, which was contrary to what was informed earlier and the same could have been avoided by providing timely treatment to the complainant, but the negligence approach of the doctors of Base Hospital and the hospital towards the complainant resulted into amputation of the legs of the complainant by more length than it was assured by the doctors earlier. It is further alleged that on 18/1/2011 at about 1800 hrs. the doctor of the hospital shifted the complainant from post operative to general ward although he was recuperating then. However, on 19/1/2011 onwards the complainant suffered high fever. The further allegation of the complainant is that even after the complainant having fever, the complainant was discharged by the doctor on 20/1/2011 without any investigation. The further allegation is that since the complainant was suffering from fever, the doctors of the hospital could have extended the complainant's stay and treatment in the hospital, which led to inconvenience and unnecessary expenditure due to the negligence on the part of the doctors of the hospital. Further, the complainant visited the hospital on 22/1/2011 when the doctors told the complainant to first get fresh approval from ECHS Polyclinic for further treatment. This caused further suffering to the complainant and all due to the negligence act of the hospital and the Base Hospital, the complainant's both legs had been amputated. As the complainant did not get relief from the pain nor he was able to walk, the complainant approached Dr. B.P. Yadav, when he came to know that the doctors of the hospital had not performed the operation following the required protocol. As per the X-ray report, the fibula was found longer than Tibia of left leg. It is further alleged that to confirm the opinion expressed by Dr. B.P. Yadav, the complainant approached Rockland Hospital, Delhi where the negligence on the part of the hospital was confirmed. In these circumstances, the complainant had to again undergo revision of surgery on 19/7/2012 under Dr. (Prof.) PK. Dave for which he had to spend further Rs.5,59,000.00 causing financial hardship apart from mental agony.