Alchemist Hospital Consumer Complaint Case

Last Updated on October 1, 2021 by Satish Mishra

Alchemist Hospital Consumer Complaint Case wherein appeal was dismissed as no case of Medical Negligence made out.

ALCHEMIST HOSPITAL VS DHARMENDRA THAKUR

This post talks about a complaint filed before the State Dispute Consumer Redressal Forum, where the previously decided two appeals of this court was disposed of by the passing of the current order. The complainant, Dharmendra Thakur, filed a complaint against the opposite parties for alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service, and prayed for directions to be issued by the court for the compensation to be paid.

Also Read- Alchemist Hospital fined Rs 5 lakh for medical negligence

COMPLAINANT:

Dharmendra Thakur

RESPONDENTS/ OPPOSITE PARTIES:

Alchemist hospital
Consultant I/C of Alchemist hospital
Dr. Kamla Thukral
New India Assurance Company Limited

CORUM:

B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member

Also Read- Medical Negligence – National Consumer Helpline

FACTS:

B complain end and complaint under section 12 Consumer Protection Act of 1996 she was pregnant also. She contacted Dr. Kamla Thukral (Op no.3). Every time, the complainant was assured that everything was normal. On her check up on 23.04..2006 the complainant was advised ultrasound examination and was given the expected date of delivery is 11.06.2006. However, on 10.04.2006, the complainant started labour pain. She contacted Dr. Kamla who advised the complainant to take hot milk, etc, and in case of bleeding, she should contact her. The complainant contacted the consultant I/C of alchemist hospital (Op no.2) on telephone. However the consultant advised that she was having false labour pains an account of anxiety.

Also Read- MG Sharma v/s Alchemist Hospital & Another – LawyerServices

The complainant was, however, taken to the opposite party no. 1, whereafter a check-up, it was stated that nothing would happen till 11:00 AM on 12.06.2006. She was given an injection on 11.06.2006 where upon she stopped to feel the movement of the child in the womb. The complainant again started labour pains. She was admitted in the hospital and taken to delivery room on 13.06.2006 at 11.00 AM. She was taken to operation theatre at about 2.40PM when she delivered a child. however, it was told that the child had died because of infection, though in the death certificate it was mentioned that the child died because of distress due to the neck around cord. The complainant was discharged on 15.06.2006 and a bill of Rs. 10,000/- was paid to the opposite parties. It was further stated that the opposite parties obtained signature on blank papers. A complaint was also filed with the police. A case of medical negligence and deficiency in service on part of the hospital and treating doctors was filed along with seeking compensation.

Also Read- State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Alchemist Hospital Case

ARGUMENTS BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

The opposite parties appeared and filed written reply denying the allegations of the complainant. The opposite party no.1 in its reply stated that the hospital was well equipped with all advanced medical and paramedical facilities. The hospital had experience doctors. It was stated that the complainant was a case of early primigravida, as the complainant had first conception at the age of 36 and at that age, it was a high risk pregnancy. It was stated that the complainant was provided with best medical management and was given due care during her stay in the hospital. She was stated to be under best supervision of Dr. Kamla. Any negligence on part of the opposite parties was denied. It was stated that death of child was due to cord around neck which was rightly mentioned by the doctor in the death summary.

Also Read- Panchkula: Consumer Forum directs private hospital, insurance firm to pay Rs 1.10 lakh for wrong treatment

Dr. Thukral (Op no. 3) denied any kind of medical negligence and deficiency in service and prayed the complainant be dismissed.

Opposite party no. 4, New India Assurance Company Limited, stated that it was not liable to pay any compensation until and unless the professional doctors is found negligent. However, it was denied that the hospital was insured with it.

Also Read- P’kula’s Alchemist Hospital accused of cheating

JUDGEMENT:

Opposite party no.1 had moved an application dated 16.07.2013 for seeking medical expert opinion from Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, or All India Institute of Medical Sciences, new Delhi. However, the complainant objected to the same and the application of the opposite party no.1 was dismissed.

It has been admitted that the pregnancy of the complainant is early primigravida. There are two groups of patients in the case of elderly primigravida, 1. one with high fecundity and 2. with low fecundity. The complainant fell in the second category.

Undisputedly, it was a case of cord around the neck. Thus, it was case of cord abnormality. Therefore, the death of the child cannot be termed as medical negligence.

Also Read- Dinesh Kumar Dhanjan vs Alchemist Hospital

To determine medical negligence, following principles have been determined to constitute medical negligence –

Whether the treating doctor possessed the medical skills expected of an ordinary skilled practitioner in the field at the point of time;
Whether the doctor adopted the practice in the case that is accepted as proper by a responsible body of professional practitioners in the field.

Also Read- NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL Commission

On the basis of the evidence available on the record supported with the medical literature, the allegations of medical negligence stand falsified. The complaint cannot be allowed and the impugned order cannot sustain. The appeals were accepted and the impugned order was set aside and the complaint was dismissed.

The statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited at the time of filing these appeals be refunded to the respective appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal / revision.

Also Read- Consumer commission sets aside district forum order

CASES MENTIONED:

Bolam v. Friern ( Bolams test)

Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Medical Association v. V. P. Shantha and Ors.

Kusum Sharma & Ors. v. Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre & Ors.

This post is written by Gopika Thakur.

For case specific advice on Medical Negligence against Hospital please contact Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Lawyer Advocates in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Zirakpur.