AMIT SARKAR Vs. PGIMER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ABOVE appeals are being disposed of by this common order, as these appeals arise from common impugned order dated 1.4.2013, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (for short, 'State Commission') in C.C. No.43 of 2012.

(2.) BRIEF facts are, that only daughter of Complainants -Ms. Anupama, aged about 16 years, studying in Class XI was travelling in a CTU bus on 17.07.2012 from her school to her residence. The bus was being driven rashly and negligently by the bus driver. It is stated, that in the absence of the conductor, she fell down from the bus and her left leg was crushed under the rear tyre of the same. She was taken to Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (for short, 'PGI') where she died on 24.07.2012, due to medical negligence. It is stated that injured Ms. Anupama was taken to Advance Trauma Centre of PGI (for short, 'ATC') by the police, where her left leg was bandaged by Dr. Jujhar, Junior Resident (OP No.3). It is alleged that bandaging was done in a most incompetent manner, as blood kept on oozing out. It is further stated, that complainants were told that injured girl required an emergency operation which was being arranged by the Doctors concerned, whereas X -rays and other tests were carried out. It is alleged, that the required operation was never arranged and injured continued to suffer in excruciating pain, both mentally and physically. The condition of injured started deteriorating day by day, but no medical attention was given to her by PGI doctors, after the initial bandaging. So much so, even the bandage was not changed nor the wounds washed for days together, by ATC doctors. The attitude of doctors on duty was most insensitive and opposed to the medical norms. Ultimately, it resulted in development of gangrene and septicemia and Opposite Party No.1 -Hospital amputated the left lower limb of Ms.Anupama, in a projected attempt to prevent the gangrene from spreading to other parts of the body. The doctors of Opposite Party No.1 failed to check or control the spread of gangrene, leading finally to the untimely death of Ms.Anupama on 24th July, 2012 at O.P. No.1 -Hospital. It is further stated, that O.P. No.1 -Hospital itself conducted the post -mortem vide PMR No. 16969 dated 24.7.2012. The perusal of PMR clearly showed, that Ms.Anupama was duly admitted to O.P. No.1 -Hospital on 17.7.2012. Thus, there was medical negligence on the part of O.P. No.1 -Hospital and its concerned doctors.

(3.) IT is further stated that O.P. No.1 -Hospital was taking the plea of over -crowding in its OTs. However, the precious life could have been saved even without operation, had adequate medical care and treatment been provided. The cause of infection and gangrene was because the dressings and bandages of the patient were never changed. The deep wounds were never washed hygienically and medical treatment prior to operation was not adequately provided. In case, O.P. No.1 -Hospital was unable to provide adequate and proper medical care to the patient, it should have referred her to some other Hospital, which also it failed to do. It is further alleged, that O.P. No.1 Hospital was deliberately keeping the treatment history and medical papers of the deceased under wraps, so that the same could be manipulated to their advantage and help them escape the charge of medical negligence and apathy. It is further stated that Opposite Party No.5, Chandigarh Transport Undertaking (for short, 'CTU'), was also guilty of deficiency in service, because the bus which caused the accident, was not insured. In fact, none of the buses of CTU were insured. They are being plied in violation of the Motor Vehicle Act, which mandates that a vehicle can neither be registered nor be plied on road without a valid insurance cover. It is further stated that present case is a case of "Res Ipsa Loquitor". It is further stated that family of complainants is poor and indigent. Their only daughter Ms.Anupama, was their future hope and bread -earner for the family. Ms.Anupama was a bright student who had just cleared her Xth Class with over 70% marks in First Division and had a promising future ahead. But her life and prospects were cut short, on account of negligence of the Opposite Parties. It is further stated, that aforesaid acts of the doctors of O.P.No.1 Hospital amounted to medical negligence and deficiency in rendering service. Therefore, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, 'Act') was filed seeking the following reliefs.