PRAVEENBHAI KHUBCHANDBHAI SONI Vs. RAJENDRA R SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant Mr. Pravinbhai Soni is the father of an infant Chintu (3 months) and he has claimed Rs.5,00,000/- plus as compensation from Dr. Rajendra Shah, for alleged negligence and deficiency in treating the said infant who died during the treatment on 30.9.1991 at 05.30 hrs. (page 2 ). Complainant had also preferred criminal complaint against respondent Dr. Shah and this complaint was dismissed by Metropolitan Magistrate (page 14 ).

(2.) Mr. Pravinbhai K. Soni, the father of infant Chintu alleges (pages 1 to 9) that his infant son was taken to Dr. Shah's Hospital in Raipur on 27.9.1991 at about noon for symptoms of fever, respiratory difficulty, etc. Dr. Shah saw the patient at his hospital on 27.9.1991 in the afternoon and advised hospitalization. His diagnosis was Bronchiolitis. Patient was admitted and treatment was executed by non-qualified compounder, oxygen was not properly given. On 29.9.1991 during night round Dr. Rajendra Shah noted that the patient had deteriorated further. Doctor saw patient, advised treatment and left (page 67) leaving child under the care of unqualified person. Though condition of child was serious and drugs that were used including Lanoxin were capable of slowing pulse rate, etc. patient was not monitored. Though diagnosis of viral encephalitis was there, Neurologist was not called or consulted. The child remained without proper care, treatment and without the help of Neurologist and child died. Dr. Shah came only after the death of the child to issue death certificate (page 69a ). The complainant also alleges that no attempt was made to establish the diagnosis or cause of death. Child was admitted as a case of Broncholitis and died as presumed result of viral encephalitis a condition for which Dr. Shah is neither expert nor did he care to treat the child for encephalitis nor did he express his inability to treat the child. The complainant also states that case paper though asked much earlier were produced only very late (page 77) on 8.7.1996 Complainant further states that Dr. Rajendra Shah in investigation by police has not mentioned the treatment by Dr. Rajesh Shah whom he now say he had delegated his work (page 18 ). Though the opponents have claimed that they see patients three time a day each, the same has never happened (page 77 ). The Sunday that fell during the treatment of child the opponent did not see the child as required of him. The opponent has made differing statement regarding his availability at his hospital in written submission and in cross examination and record produced by opponent himself (pages 66, 77 ).

(3.) The opponent in his written statement states about his qualification, experience and his various attachments as Consulting Paediatrician and his availability at the different palaces and times of availability (page 58) Dr. Rajendra Shah also concurs that Dr. Rajesh Shah who is MBBS, D. Ped. Works as his Assistant and has his own nursing home. Dr. Rajendra Shah also states that he and Dr. Rajesh Shah see the patients six times a day (three times Dr. Rajendra Shah and three times Dr. Rajesh Shah [pages 70, 73] ). That his compounder Laxmanbhai is a qualified person to administer the directed treatment and that Said Laxmanbhai is well experienced. Laxmanbhai's certificate of his qualification is produced as evidence (pages 66, 68 ). The said Laxmanbhai died last year. It is further claimed that patient was seen often and necessary changes in treatment were made as reflected in case records (page 77 ). The oxygen cylinder and oxygen giving apparatus were proper and adequate (pages 29 ). Patient's relatives were explained the gravity of situation at the time of admission and subsequently also (page 25 ). That treatments given were scientific, adequate and correct (argued ). After diagnosis of encephalitis patient's condition was very serious and investigations were not possible. However, whatever investigations could be done safely were done. Dr. Rajendra Shah says he has given best possible treatment and child died in natural course of disease. He was never negligent and that complainant is not entitled to ask for any compensation (page 34 ).