LAWS(NCD)-2005-10-184

SHEWAKRAM IDANDAS KISHNANI Vs. PARESH SHAH

Decided On October 25, 2005
SHEWAKRAM IDANDAS KISHNANI Appellant
V/S
PARESH SHAH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this complaint, the complainant has prayed for compensation in the sum of Rs.7,33,128 on account of death of Binduben, aged about 49 years and complainant's wife on the ground that the opponent displayed deficiency in service and also was guilty of unfair trade practice. The complainant has also prayed for expenses in the sum of Rs.25,000 and cost of the complaint in the sum of Rs.10,000. Brief allegations of facts as contained in the complaint are as under : the complainant happened to be Deputy Manager in the Ahmedabad Eelctricity Company Limited. His wife Bindu, since deceased, aged about 49 years was serving as Sr. Typist in the Gujarat Electrictity Board and drawing salary in the sum of Rs.8,331 per month. She had heart trouble for the first time on or around 10.8.1996 and opponent was required to attend to her. On that occasion she was given treatment for nine days. She was admitted to Laxmi Heart and Medicare Hospital, Nava Vadej, Ahmedabad where she was under continuous care of the opponent doctor. According to the complainant, the opponent doctor was running a consultation clinic for heart diseases, yet, the complainant's wife was admitted to Laxmi Heart and Medicare Hospital. On inquiry from the opponent, the opponent admitted that he was not having facilities of ICU and other required equipments in his hospital. Accordingly, complainant's wife was admitted to Laxmi Heart and Medicare Hospital from where she was discharged on 18.8.1996 with advice to take rest for a month. She was under continuous treatment and regular check up of the opponent who gave certificate on 14.9.1996 to the effect that she was then fit for job and could join duty from 16.9.1996. Once again, on 19.9.1996 she sustained chest pain at around 6.45 a. m. The complainant contacted the opponent at around 7.15 a. m. at his residence on telephone. The opponent reached the complainant's residence and examined the patient. He had also taken ECG. The opponent advised the complainant to get his wife admitted to hospital. It has been alleged that no emergency medicines were given by the opponent though he was present for about 45 minutes at the residence of the complainant. Under the circumstances, the complainant wanted to admit his wife to the opponent's hospital but as the opponent had shown his helplessness of having no proper equipments and facility in his hospital, efforts were made to contact Laxmi Heart and Medicare Hospital authorities for treatment of complainant's wife. At that time no bed was available in that hospital. The opponent contacted the authorities of Rajasthan Hospital and he accordingly informed the complainant that his wife might be admitted to that hospital and informed that his wife was required to be admitted only for 24 hours for routine check-up and there is nothing serious about her condition and she would come back on the next date. The complainant was reluctant to go to Rajasthan Hospital as he felt that his wife's condition was critical and she would not be able to stand. According to him she was not conscious. From the expressions she gave out, complainant felt that she was under lot of pain. She was not able to walk the distance up to the ambulance. The complainant, therefore, requested the opponent for allowing her to take rest for minimum four hours at his residence and thereafter she might be admitted to Rajasthan hospital. The opponent informed that if delay was caused and patient was not shifted to Rajasthan Hospital, she would be in difficulty. The complainant, therefore, agreed with the advice of the opponent doctor and ambulance was called for from the employer of the complainant. The opponent asked the patient to get ready. She had walked down the distance from her room to the ambulance with the opponent doctor. The distance was around 60 feet. She climbed up two steps of the ambulance which were on higher side. The complainant observed his wife to be in lot of chest pain and uneasiness. According to him it was the primary duty of the opponent to see that the patient did not walk down the distance to the ambulance and to see that stretcher was called for. Even though stretcher was available in the ambulance, it was not called for. He has also alleged that although the opponent was standing beside the ambulance, he did not care to enter the ambulance to monitor the condition of the patient. Upon calling the opponent, he started artificial respiration by pumping the heart. Ambulance was then taken to the complainant's employer's clinic namely Ahmedabad Electricity Company Clinic which was in the colony itself. The compounder and the doctor of the clinic gave emergency treatment to the patient. He has also alleged that it was the duty of the opponent to keep all equipments with him and to give injection to the complainant's wife. But, this duty was discharged by doctor of clinic of the AEC Limited. The compounder of the said clinic started giving artificial respiration to the complainant's wife. It has been allged that the opponent informed the complainant that he was tired as he had already given artifical respiration. The compounder continued to do that job. It has been alleged that till the complainant and the patient reached Rajasthan Hospital, pumping was done by the compounder of the clinic of AEC Limited and not by the opponent. According to him precious time of 20 to 25 minutes was wasted and chances of survival of the patient stood reduced considerably. That proved fatal to the patient. Thus, the opponent failed to discharge his duty as an expert in the aforesaid branch of medicine. The moment the patient was shifted to Rajasthan Hospital, the doctors of that hospital saw to the revival of the heart of the patient. It was thereafter that the opponent reached the hospital and patient was given treatment in the Rajasthan Hospital. Ultimately, on the same day at around 6.30 p. m. the patient was declared dead in Rajasthan Hospital. She left behind two children, son aged 24 years and daughter aged 19 years. Complainant has, therefore, claimed compensation as stated above.

(2.) The opponent doctor has resisted the complaint as per the Affidavit in reply Exh.4. While denying the allegations contained in the complaint, he has asserted that the complaint suffers from the vice of misjoinder and non-joinder of parties, that the complaint is based on hypothesis and surmises and devoid of presentation of correct facts, that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and that he had taken sufficient care to attend to the patient when required. According to the opponent, he graduated in medical science in the year 1983 and had his M. D. thereafter in the year 1986. He had an occasion to work for four years in Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad and attend to thousands of emergency cases. From 1987-91 he attended a charitable hospital at Sabarmati as a full time RMO. There also he attended to number of patients and in 1991 he started his nursing home in the name and style of Amruta Hospital and Health Centre in Sabarmati. The patient was attended to by him on 10.8.1996 for acute Myocardial infarction. She had complaint of multiple drug allergies and heavy menstrual bleeding. On account of all these adverse problems her condition was very critical and was advised to get admitted to ICCU where close observation and intensive management would be possible. She was accordingly admitted to Laxmi Heart Hospital, Nava Vadej for her treatment from 10.8.1996 to 19.8.1996. During this period, the opponent had occasions to visit the patient regularly till she was discharged from the hospital. She was then regularly attended to for follow up treatment and after improvement in her health, he had an occasion to issue fitness certificate dated 14.9.1996 with advice to undergo coronary angiography in Rajasthan Hospital to find out the condition of the coronary arteries. At his Hospital and Heart Centre, he has been attending to preliminary examinations and for indepth and further investigations and treatment he has been referring the patients to other hospitals where he is attached and where facilities of better nursing care are available. He received a telephonic message on 19.9.1996 at about 7.15 a. m. that the patient had acute chest pain and he reached the residence of the patient where the complainant informed him that the patient had chest pain half an hour back and she had taken tablet Sorbitrate. Opponent immediately measured the blood pressure and took ECG of the patient. Although the blood pressure was normal, ECG was same as previous ones. As the patient had persistent chest pain and as she had no relief by treatment of Sorbitrate and she had previous history of heart trouble, she was advised again to be shifted to hospital at the earliest for further investigation and management. Yet, the complainant was reluctant to admit her to hospital. After persistent advice and recommendation, the complainant was ready to shift the patient to the hospital. The opponent himself telephoned to the concerned authority at Laxmi Heart Hospital for vacancy in ICCU but as there was no such vacancy, he enquired with Rajasthan Hospital. Since there was vacancy, he advised the complainant to shift the patient to that hospital with a view to see that the patient would get latest and best treatment and if she was stable she could have opportunity to undergo coronary angiography at the said hospital. The opponent himself called the AEC dispensary people and asked for ambulance to be brought at complainant's house to shift the patient to Rajasthan Hospital. The opponent advised the patient to be shifted to the ambulance in stretcher but her husband was reluctant to shift her in stretcher as he had apprehension that his neighbours would unnecessarily rush for enquiring the health of his wife. In spite of persistent advice from opponent, patient herself walked down the distance up to the ambulance and started climbing stairs of the ambulance. The opponent was standing near the steps of the ambulance. He observed the patient while she was standing on the stairs of the ambulance. After entering the ambulance, she sat for a while and the opponent immediately asked the driver to start the engine. At that very point of time he found the patient to be having some problem in chest. He recommended the driver to stop the ambulance at the dispensary of Ahmedabad Electricity Company. He advised the compounder who was available at the relevant point of time to give her injection Hydrocortizone, Tab. Sabitrate and oxygen. After injection was administered, oxygen was started and they proceeded to Rajasthan Hospital. The opponent felt that the condition of the patient was deteriorating. He, therefore, started giving her massage and artificial respiration so that precious time till they reached the hospital could be utilised. Upon reaching the hospital, the opponent immediately called for stretcher to shift the patient from the ambulance to ICCU and informed the doctor on duty at ICCU about arrival of the patient and instructions for initiating first aid and life saving management. He asked the relatives to complete the formalities of admission to the Rajasthan Hospital. When the opponent felt that the doctors at Rajasthan Hospital were providing all life saving management to the patient, he left the hospital and advised the complainant to contact him on telephone if and when necessary. The complainant even thanked him for doing his best possible and helping his wife to be shifted to the hospital. Opponent did not receive any massage about the health of the patient thereafter. However, he received a message of death of the patient on the next day when he visited Rajasthan Hospital in the morning. None from the side of the complainant was then present at the hospital. Under such circumstances, he has asserted that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on his part in the matter of attending the patient. He has denied all the allegations which have been made by the complainant in respect of attendance of the patient, while asserting the correctness of the facts as stated above.

(3.) The complainant has filed affidavit in rejoinder Exh.7. The complainant has not produced any papers either of Laxmi Hospital or of Rajasthan Hospital. The complainant has been cross-examined on 11.2.2004. The opponent has been cross-examined at Exh.21 on 23.7.2004. The complainant has submitted written arguments today. We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties. We have gone through the afroresaid oral evidence of the parties including affidavits. In our considered opinion, we do not find any merit worth the name in this complaint for following reasons. (a) It is an admitted position that when the patient sustained first heart attack, the opponent doctor had an occasion to attend to her properly and to give treatment which resulted into the patient becoming fit to resume job. This was in spite of the fact that she had number of problems of health prior to she having sustained first heart trouble. Unfortunately for her, she had chest pain once again on the 2nd occasion as stated above. It is an admitted fact that the opponent doctor had attended to the patient. Even on that occasion the manner of his attendance to the patient as alleged by the complainant is highly improbable and unnatural. No doctor would have attended to a heart patient in the manner in which the complainant has made allegations. If the doctor had any mind to display unfair trade practice or negligence in the matter of attendance to the patient he would never have bothered to accompany the patient till up to the hospital where she was required to be admitted for further and better management of her ailment. If the doctor had attended to the patient right from the time she sustained the 2nd heart trouble and right from the time she was informed about the same, he would be the last person to allow the patient to walk down to the ambulance particularly when stretcher was available in the ambulance. It is highly improbable and unnatural for any physician to express that the patient might walk down the distance from her room up to the ambulance and climb up the steps of the ambulance to occupy the ambulance. We have no hesitation to believe the version of the opponent doctor about how he attended to the patient right from inception till the patient was admitted to Rajasthan Hospital. It is in the background of such a prima facie shape of the present case that we would like to refer to the cross examination of the complainant. (b) The complainant has admitted that when he retired from AEC he was performing his duties as Deputy Manager thereof and that he did not have any knowledge of medical science. He admitted that the opponent did not demand any visiting fees when he immediately reached his home upon his telephonic message regarding chest pain sustained by his wife. He admitted that the opponent rendered assitance in seeing that his wife was admitted to Rajasthan Hospital. He also admitted that opponent accompanied him and the patient till up to Rajasthan Hospital. These admissions would further go to fortify the version of the opponent doctor about how he attended to the patient. The opponent doctor has adhered to the facts stated by him in the affidavit in reply and nothing could be brought out from his cross-examination appearing at Exh.21.