JOGINDER KUMAR GUPTA Vs. UNIT TRUST OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THESE two First Appeal Nos. 312 and 337 of 2002 have arisen against the order dated 21. 6. 2002 in Complaint No. 3 of 1999 of the State Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh whereby the complaint was allowed in a complaint of medical negligence by the complainant -Harnam Singh and Another v. Tagore Hospital and Another. The State Commission directed the opposite party, Tagore Hospital to pay Rs. one lakh as compensation to the complainant and refund Rs. 4,600 towards medical expenses incurred by the complainants along with Rs. 5,000 as costs. Aggrieved by the said order opposite parties have filed the First Appeal No. 312 of 2002 in this Commission and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The complainants have filed First Appeal No. 337 of 2002 for enhancement of the compensation.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are: son of the complainants, Harnam Singh and Kamlesh Rani, was Inderjit, aged 25 years, was admitted in Tagore Hospital on 13. 9. 1998 as he was suffering from fever for 20 days. After some treatment for few days the patient was discharged on 17. 9. 1998 around 9. 00 p. m. and the complainants were advised to take him to Dayanand Medical College at Ludhiana. The patient was taken to Pruti Hospital and then to DMCH, Ludhiana where the patient died on 17. 9. 1998. But the patient died near Gauraya on the way to Ludhiana. The State Commission held the opposite parties deficient in service on the following reasons:

(3.) IT is contended that due to haphazard management for four days by the opposite parties their son's condition became critical when he was discharged on 17. 9. 1998 around 9. 00 p. m. At the critical condition of the patient he was referred mischievously to DMCH, Ludhiana though the hospital is itself a heart specialty hospital. At 7. 25 p. m. although the condition of the patient was deteriorating and he was advised to be put on artificial ventilator by their own Doctors but it was not done. On the contrary he was discharged in a critical condition and referred to DMCH. It is contended that opposite parties were negligent on the following grounds: