GEETU SAPRA Vs. B L KAPOOR MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is the contention of the complainant that Rajiv Sapra was a young man of 32 years and was a graduate in Commerce and that he was an exporter of repute and was partner of Vikrant Exports, New Delhi. He was driving his car on 1.11.1992 at about 4.30 PM which was hit by a Tempo due to which Shri Sapra sustained injuries. At about 5.30 PM, he was first taken to Safdarjung Hospital and given emergency treatment. In Safdarjung Hospital, it was found that the deceased had become unconscious. X-rays and tests were carried out; fracture of mid shaft of right femur was detected. Thereafter, he was shifted to Dr. B.L. Kapur Memorial Hospital [hereinafter referred to as Respondent No.1 hospital] under the care of Dr.K.P. Mishra [hereinafter referred to as Respondent No.2] who was the Orthopaedic Surgeon, for better and personal care. At the time of admission in the hospital, Shri Sapra was found to be conscious and his pulse was 100 per minute. Then, Respondent No.2 decided for open reduction of fracture and internal fixation under anaesthesia. Thereafter, on 3.11.1992, Shri Sapra was taken to the Operation Theatre by Dr.Mishra for open reduction with Dr. (Mrs.) J.Sethi, Sr.Consultant (Anaesthetist) and Dr. Lamba, Jr. Consultant (Anaesthetist) [hereinafter referred to as Respondents No.3 and 4 respectively]. It is alleged that there was gross negligence in performing the operation and in administration of anaesthesia, and, therefore, the deceased suffered. It is also pointed out that the deceased was shifted to Ashok Hospital, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi, on the night of 3.11.1992 on the ground that respirator was not functioning in the Respondent No.1 hospital. It is contended that there was total negligence on the part of Respondent No.1 hospital as there was inordinate delay in surgical procedure. It is also contended that if the Respondent No.1 hospital was not having a respirator, Respondent No.2 ought not to have admitted Shri Sapra in the said hospital. Various grounds are mentioned and, thereafter, it is prayed that respondents be directed to pay a sum of Rs.54,04,000/- with costs.

(2.) THE first point that requires our decision is:

(3.) FURTHER , in the present case, the accident resulted in death. Therefore, the complaint before MACT is maintainable. Before the Consumer Fora it is maintainable as it is alleged that there was deficiency in service by the hospital in not giving proper treatment at appropriate time. It is to be made clear that in case of accident, even if proper treatment is given, patient may or may not survive. In the present complaint, we are concerned only with deficiency in rendering proper treatment to the deceased Mr.Sapra, who might or might not have survived despite proper treatment. The claim is to be limited only with regard to the deficiency in service in not giving proper treatment at proper time. Hence, the complaint for such deficiency in service is maintainable. II. Deficiency in service by the Hospital & Doctors;