DR. MISS HERAT PARMAR 4/34, RAMGIRI, OPP. SANYAS ASHRAM, 7TH ROAD, RAJAWADI, GHATKOPAR EAST, MUMBAI Vs. DR. VENILAL G. PANCHAL AND 4 OTHERS SUVIDHA HOSPITAL, BHAVESHWAR ROAD, GATKOPAR EAST, MUMBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The relevant facts to dispose this appeal are that on 24.3.1993, the appellant/complainant, Dr. Miss Herat Parmar's father suffered stroke during evening walk. He suddenly had weaknesses in both lower limbs, burning right eye, perspiration, difficulty in balancing himself and slurred speech. As complainant herself being a gynecologist, consulted family, doctor and called Dr. Venilal G. Panchal/OP 1-Neurologist. OP 1 opined that patient suffered from diminished blood supply to the part of brain, i.e. near the vital respiratory and vasomotor area (heart and circulation) and needs extensive care. Accordingly, OP 1 recommended for hospitalization in Ashirwad Hospital (OP-5) of Dr. Bhasker P. Shah/OP 2 with the advise for urgent CT scan of brain and prescribed Nimodip tablet. On the same day, OP 1 saw the patient in the night. CT Scan, ECG, Blood Sugar reports were normal. The BP was 150/90 mm. The complainant alleged that in order to control BP of the patient, there was no monitoring. Neither any doctor nor nurse was present in the ICU throughout the night. On 25.3.1993, the patient's BP was 150/90 mm, OP 2 examined the patient at 10.30 a.m. and informed the complainant that Nimodip could cause fall in blood pressure and IV Dextron could overload the heart. Despite being the patient in ICU, the patient was left unattended. At about 3.00 a.m. the complainant protested to OP 2 regarding this issue. OP 2 recommended Dr. K. C. Shah/OP 3 to examine the patient. Accordingly, the OP 3 examined the patient and made the diagnosis as diminished blood supply to the Base of Brain. He also recommended at least 72 hours hospitalization. He did not recommend for any test or any advise for cardiac monitoring. At about 10.30 on 25.3.1993, OP 2 arrived at the hospital and assured that the patient could recover and promised to visit the patient at 8.00 a.m. on the next day but in the night neither any doctor nor nurse attended the patient in ICU.

(2.) In the early morning of 26.3.1993, the patient felt uneasiness, no one was in the ICU, therefore, complainant being a doctor herself, recorded the blood pressure of patient. It was dropped to 140/80 mm. She called the duty doctor, but there was no response. At about 9.30 a.m., Dr. Deepak Patel recorded the BP as 140/80 mm. He also detected slight fluid in lungs and conveyed the same to OP At about 11.30 a.m., complainant called OP 1 on telephone and conveyed the condition of patient, upon which OP 1 asked to continue Nimodip despite fall in the blood pressure. Throughout, a day, OP 1 did not visit the patient despite of prior assurances. During the course of treatment, complainant's brother living in USA was also in touch with the OP doctors. The complainant alleged that, there was lack of duty of care and proper assessment, which constitutes gross medical negligence on the part of OP 1. At about 3.30 p.m., OP 2 examined the patient but failed to detect the cause of moist sounds in lungs and fall in urine output. Due to persistent hiccups, complainant made a call to OP 2 and informed that neither OP 3 nor OP 1 visited to look for hiccups or belching. OP 2 opined that it was due to hyperacidity and accordingly advised antacid. Thereafter, the resident doctor, Dr. Anil Mishra, an Ayurveda doctor, started IV drip of Lomodex with Trentral. It caused rigors, so the drip was immediately stopped. Thus, the said resident doctor deemed to have acted upon OP 2's instructions. At 8.30 p.m. on the same day, Dr. Ganesh Kini (OP 4) examined the patient and found that BP was 110/90 mm of Hg, but he did not take any step to investigate or to control the blood pressure of the patient. By 9.30 p.m. the patient's condition started deteriorating further, no proper investigation, analysis or treatment being meted out to the patient. As a result, the patient developed difficulty in breathing and it was diagnosed as due to heart failure. The resident doctors told that, the patient was suffering from pulmonary edema followed by ventricular fibrillation which is a fatal condition. The patient was kept unattended, it was a gross negligence on the part of OPs who failed to take basic steps to care and properly treat the patient being a high risk case and who was admitted for 72 hours under ICU for brain base and infarct. The patient died on the intervening night of 26-27.3.1993 at 100 a.m.

(3.) Thus, complainant filed a complaint (CC 65/1994) before State Commission, Maharashtra for alleged deficiency and negligence caused by OPs during treatment of her father and prayed for compensation of Rs., 8,50,000.00 from the OPs jointly and severally. The State Commission dismissed the complaint on 21.1996. Aggrieved by the impugned order the first Appeal No. 212 of 1998 was preferred by the complainant before this Commission, it was decided on 11.2.2004 whereby this Commission set aside the impugned order and remanded back the matter to the State Commission to be decided as afresh on merits. After re-hearing, the State Commission and dismissed the complaint on 15.12.2014.