ST. STEPHEN HOSPITAL Vs. DHANI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/St. Stephen Hospital has filed this appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 11.2.2013 passed in complaint Case No. 289 of 2001 by Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, ‘the State Commission’) wherein the State Commission has allowed the complaint of the complainant and directed the OP to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakhs, as a compensation to the complainant.

(2.) The brief facts relevant in this appeal are that the complainant, Dhani Ram (herein after referred as 'the patient') about 18 years of age, met with road accident on 23.4.1998 and suffered severe injuries to his left leg. He was admitted in emergency ward of the OP/Hospital. During the intervening night of 23/24.4.1998, he was hospitalized, remained under treatment till 11.6.1998 and discharged. After discharge, he was under regular follow up with the OP/hospital and under medication for relief of wounds sustained to his left leg. The treatment was continued till 5.7.1998 but the patient and his family members were not satisfied as the pain and bleeding in the wounds of left leg was continued. Therefore, he was taken to AIIMS on 6.7.1998, where he was immediately admitted and he was told by the doctors that he was not property treated at St. Stephen Hospital. Accordingly, his left leg was amputated on 6.7.1998 itself and he was discharged from AIIMS on 11.8.1998. Thereafter, he was under regular follow up treatment till July 2000 for which he had spent approximately Rs. 1.5 lakhs. The complainant alleged that due to negligence of OP/hospital, he lost his left leg, suffered mental agony and he became dependent on others. The complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission on 24.10.2001 for compensation.

(3.) The OP resisted the complaint by way of filing written version and denied the negligence. The OP submitted that the complaint is time barred. As, the patient was hospitalized from 24.4.1998 to 11.6.1998 and thereafter his left leg was amputated at AIIMS on 6.7.1998. The complaint was filed on 24.10.2001, it was filed after two years of cause of action, hence, time barred. The OP also took a ground that AIIMS was one of the necessary parties, therefore, the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of the necessary party. OP further submitted that due to road accident, the patient suffered vascular injury to Popliteal artery. The pheripheral pulses were absent, therefore, performed angiogram and exploration of Popliteal artery with embolectomy. On 15.5.1998, the patient underwent surgery and external fixator was applied for fracture and administered proper doses of Heparin. The development of gangrene in left foot, was a direct outcome of injuries sustained by the patient. Despite proper care, there was darkening of toes and the same was informed to the patient and his relatives and also cautioned about amputation at some stage might have to take place. It was a dry gangrene. It was advised to wait for salvage of the limb, and immediate surgery was not necessary. The patient was advised for daily follow up and dressing of wounds but the patient did not turn up for the best reasons known to him. Even the records of AIIMS also did not mention about any negligence in the treatment given by St. Stephen Hospital. The OP further submitted that father of complainant was informed about injury which he in his own handwriting wrote in the case-sheet of the patient. Thus, there was no negligence on behalf of the doctor or on the part of hospital. The patient was treated with the normal standard of practice.