ANOOP KUMAR Vs. CHAITANYA HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -BRIEFLY stated the facts are that complainant who belonged to a respectable family was blessed with a female child which was later on named as Arshia. After delivery, the child had developed jaundice and was treated in Mamta Hospital, Sector 18-C, Chandigarh where she was fully cured. The said hospital recommended that the child should be got checked for heart problem. Accordingly she was got checked from Pediatrician Cardiologist of Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, New Delhi. After examination by the said hospital, the child was found to be suffering from following ailments:

(2.) DUE to aforesaid ailments, the physical growth of the child was slow but her condition was regularly monitored by Dr. Vikas Kohli, Pediatrician Cardiologist of Apollo Hospital, New Delhi and the child was growing smoothly and was very active and playful.

(3.) IT was next averred that abruptly on 21. 9. 2006, the child developed cold and was examined by a local doctor who prescribed certain medicines but her condition became serious and the doctor recommended her to be taken to hospital and as such she was taken to Government Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh where she was admitted for pneumonia and treatment was started after due investigation. The child showed immediate reaction to the treatment and started showing signs of improvement, but for pneumonia no other problem was found in the child. The condition of the child improved day-by-day and fever subsided because the infection of pneumonia was reduced. After watching for about six days and finding no new complaint, the child was shifted to private ward of the hospital and was kept in special ward only to watch stability of the child. However, on 29. 9. 2006 the child was x-rayed and was taken to emergency ward for re-checkup. During this process, it was found that pneumonia had reoccurred slightly and the child had picked up fever but her condition was controlled till 2. 10. 2006 by 6. 00 p. m. Thereafter, her condition became somewhat alarming and the child was shifted to emergency ward at about 8. 30 p. m. OP No. 4 Dr. Pankaj instead of examining the child for the problem, immediately asked for taking liquid from the backbone of the child (CSF) in order to see whether the fever had travelled to the brain of the child which was objected by the complainant as the child was admitted for pneumonia and there were no other symptoms but OP No. 4 did not take it lightly and got signed from the mother of child refusal for CSF. OP No. 4 did not attend the child, although she was crying and he pretended to be busy in other patients and his attitude showed that he was not interested to attend the child and as such they had no other alternative but to request OP No. 4 to relieve the child, so that she could be taken to some other hospital. Accordingly OP No. 4 gave discharge certificate Annexure C-3 and took about 45 minutes to do so and also wrote on it that the patient had been taken against medical advice. Certainly there was dereliction of duty and negligence on the part of OP No. 4 which resulted in deteriorating condition of the child and failed to exercise a standard care to the patient and ultimately she was taken to Chaitanya hospital where Annexures C-1 and C-2 were also shown. At that time she was suffering from slight pneumonia but was active and playful mood and the child was shifted at about 1. 00 a. m. on 2nd/3rd October, 2006 from the Medical College and Hospital, Chandigarh to the hospital of OP No. 1 and OP No. 3 was specifically told that the child should be attended and treated by OP No. 2 and he should not attempt or treat the child for any ailment and further he was informed that under no circumstances the child should be allowed to cry or to be in distress for more than 2-3 minutes because of her ailment. However, OP No. 3 did not call OP No. 2 and instead himself started examining the child and thereafter he removed the prick fixed by the Medical College and Hospital in the evening and wanted to fix the needle at some other place of the body of the child and this act of OP No. 3 was totally unwanted and the explanation given to the complainant was that the prick was not properly fixed. The child was constantly crying and he could not fix the needle at any other place for an hour and the child continued crying. The complainant asked OP No. 3 not to make the child cry but he did not listen and asked the complainant to take away the child or let him treat the child in the way he wanted. Thereafter cries of the child stopped and the complainant visited that room where OP No. 3 stated that the child was sinking and likely to suffer heart attack and then OP No. 3 took the child to intensive care unit and nobody was allowed to see the child till 2. 00 a. m and then a declaration was made that the child had died on account of heart attack. OP No. 3 concealed the fact of heart attack and he made the child to cry in room No. 105 and that too in the absence of OP No. 2, the senior child specialist.