CONSUMER COMPLAINT AGAINST ALCHEMIST HOSPITAL IN lieu OF MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE
Bringing you the case Digest on consumer complaint against Alchemist Hospital Panchkula through its Directors in State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula. Whereby complaint filed by him alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service. Then Complainant sought compensation of Rs. 17.00 Lacs.
Also Read- Alchemist charged with medical negligence – Indian Express
Now let’s have the Judgment –
Judgment digest
State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission
Shri B.K. Sood vs. Alchemist Hospital and others
First Appeal No. 563 of 2013
Date of Decision – 13th January 2014
Complainant:
Shri B.K. Sood – husband of Smt. Bala Sood (deceased) resident of H.No. 662, Sector-8, Panchkula.
Opposites:
- Alchemist Hospital, Sector-21, Panchkula through its Director/Administrator.
- Vinay Verma, MBBS, M.D. (Medicines), Alchemist Hospital, Sector-21, Panchkula.
- Rachit Duggal, M.D., Alchemist Hospital, Sector-21, Panchkula.
- United India Insurance Company Ltd., 54, Ganpat, Cannaught Place, New Delhi-110001.
Quoram:
Honble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.
Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.
Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.
For the Parties: Shri D.K. Jangra, Advocate for appellant. Shri G.D. Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Manav Anand, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4.
Also Read- Penalty on Panchkula hospital – Tribune India
Facts of the Case:
- Smt. Bala Sood (since deceased, hereinafter referred to as patient)-wife of appellant was under the treatment of Medical Specialist, General Hospital, Sector-6, Panchkula.
- On January 23rd, 2011 she fell in the bathroom and was admitted in Alchemist Hospital-respondent No.1 on 20.02.2011 at 5.30 A.M. The doctor on duty (EMO) in triage examined the patient and did ECG which was found normal.
- The ECG was shown to doctor on duty in Cardiac ICU who told that since there was no chest pain and the ECG was normal, a cardiac event looked unlikely. The RMO doctor on duty in triage then called Dr. Achint Narang (Intensivist), who was on duty in Medical ICU.
- Dr. Achint examined the patient and a working diagnosis of shock was made. Patients vital signs were recorded and noted, that is, Pulse-68/min, BP-68 min of hg, RR-20/min, sPO2 was 75% on room air. Immediately the patient was resuscitated with iv fluids and oxygen by mask after which the patients BP improved to 105/60 mm of hg and sPO increased to 100%.
- Dr. Vinay Verma was informed about the condition on phone and working diagnosis of syncope/gypovolemic shock was made as ECG showed no abnormal changes at that time. Blood samples were sent to laboratory.
- Portable X-Ray and RBS was done. Patients BP stabilized after iv fluid resuscitation.
- Patient was shifted to MICU where she had an episode of bradycardia and Hypotension. ECG on monitor showed changes suggestive of inferior wall myocardial infarction.
- Patient was resuscitated with injection. Atropine and inotropes started. The attendants of the patient were told about the condition of the patient. Consent for ventilatory support and central line insertion were taken. Dr. Vinay Verma examined the patient.
- The patient suffered sudden cardiac arrest at 9.30 A.M. She was immediately resuscitated as per ACLS protocols. Dr.Karun Behl (Cardiologist) was informed who advised to do a temporary pacemaker insertion (TPI) and then temporary pacemaker was inserted under strict aseptic precautions. Patient was resuscitated after 15 minutes with temporary pacemaker (TPI).
- Dr. Vinay Verma re-examined the patient and advised to continue the same treatment and informed Dr.Karun Behl, who also examined the patient and advised to continue same treatment and added few extra medications.
- Patient again suffered a cardiac arrest. CPCR was started as per ACLS Protocols. CPCR was continued for 45 minutes. Patient was given injection Atropine, Injection Adrenaline, Injection Vasopressin etcetera but despite efforts, could not be resuscitated and died.
Arguments:
- Appellant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the averments that the patient died due to deficiency in service and medical negligence of the treating doctors as she remained unattended till 12.30. It was further alleged that the patient resuscitated after 15 minutes of the injections given by Dr. Vinay Verma-respondent No.2 and was declared dead at 1.15 P.M. Complainant sought compensation of Rs.17.00 lacs.
Respondents appeared and contested complaint by filing written statement denying the averments made in the complaint taking plea inter alia that the patient was admitted in the hospital on 23.01.2011 at about 5.30 A.M.
The doctor on duty (Dr.Achint Narang), examined patient and conducted necessary tests. Dr.Rachit Duggal-respondent No.3 also attended the patient in consultation with Dr. Vinay Verma-respondent No.2. Patient suffered sudden cardiac arrest at about 9.30 A.M. while being on a high Intropic Support, immediately CPR started as per ACLS protocol and necessary injections were injected as per the advice of Dr.Karun Behl (Cardiologist).
Seeing the deteriorating condition of the patient, a temporary pacemaker was installed by Dr. Rachit Duggal, however, the patient was resuscitated after 15 minutes of CPR. The condition of the patient was being monitored by Dr. Vinay Verma.
The patient suffered second cardiac arrest at about 12.30 P.M. however even despite with best efforts of the doctors, the patient could not be revived and died at 1.15 P.M. Denying the averments made in the complaint, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Also Read- Alchemist Hospital v. Dharmendra Thakur
Respondent No.4 in its separate written statement admitted that the respondent No.3 was insured with it under Professional Indemnity policy from 18.02.2010 to 17.02.2011.
On evaluating the pleadings of the parties and the evidence brought on the record, District Forum finding no substance in appellants version dismissed the complaint.
Arguments heard. File perused.
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that despite three doctors (cardiologists) on the panel of the respondent No.1, no doctor having qualifications of cardiologist was summoned to examine the patient, besides that injection atropine was though prescribed, however, was not administered and had that been administered, it would have been mentioned in the bill. Another document referred was Progress-sheet to show that though it finds mention of shifting the patient to MICU monitoring at 6.00 A.M., however the patient was not attended till 8.15 A.M. and thus an inference of medical negligence on the part of the respondents arises.
Undisputedly, the patient Smt. Bala Sood was 78 years old lady and had suffered two successive heart attacks prior to her admission in the hospital. She was a highly diabetic patient as has been indicated in the test report dated 23.01.2011 showing RBS 335 mg at 5.50 A.M.
The progress sheet of the patient dated 23.01.2011 at 8.15 A.M. indicates that upon being subjected to ECG, the patient had inferior wall MI, she was in sense, hypotension and that patient had Brady Cardia. The further progress also finds that the patient was shifted to MICU where she had an episode of bradycardia and Hypotension.
The ECG on monitor showed changes suggestive of inferior wall myocardial infarction. The patient was resuscitated with injection atropine and inotropes started. The relatives of the patient were disclosed about the condition of the patient.
Also Read- Shri B.K. Sood-Husband Of Smt. … vs 1. Alchemist Hospital
It is own case of the appellant that patient upon being brought to the hospital in emergency, a temporary pacemaker was immediately installed by Dr. Rachit Duggal, M.D. (Medicines) and certain basic tests were carried out. The appellant has only tried to raise an inference that since in the bill issued by the respondent-hospital, payment for injection atropine was not charged, therefore, it was not administered.
Merely because the injection was not charged in the bill, does not raise an inference of negligence on the part of the respondents.
No expert witness has been examined by the appellant. Undisputedly, Dr. Rachit Duggal, had installed a temporary pacemaker seeing the deteriorating condition of the patient. The plea of the learned counsel for the appellant that Dr.Rachit Duggal, M.D. was not competent to install the same being not an expert, is not tenable.
He is a reputed and qualified doctor, who did M.B.B.S. in the year 2000 from Shivaji University, Kolhapur and was registered with Punjab Medical Council, Mohali. He is D.A. (Anesthesia) and also having credit for Advanced Cardiac Life Support from Indian Institute of Emergency Medical Services at Fortis Hospital, Mohali. Dr.Karun Behl is M.B.B.S., M.D. (Medicine) D.M. (Cardiology).
In the instant case the appellant has not been able to bring on the record any reliable evidence to prove the respondents negligent in treating the patient.
It is not the case of the appellant that he had insisted for post-mortem of the dead body of deceased. In view of the above noted circumstances, we do not find any merit in the plea of the appellant that his wife had died due to any negligence or medical negligence on the part of the respondents.
Also Read- Alchemist Hospital Consumer Complaint Case – Legalseva.net
Our aforesaid opinion gets strengthened from the fact that the deceased died on February 20th, 2011 whereas the appellant filed complaint before the District Forum on 22.07.2011, that is, after more than five months.
Meaning thereby, it is a concocted version of the appellant to extract money from the respondents.
Had the appellant been true, he must have filed complaint immediately without waiting for about five months. No expert evidence has been produced by the appellant.
Case Citation:
Indira Kartha and others versus Dr. Mathew Samuel Kalarickal and another
Mohd. Abrar versus Dr. Ashok Desai and others, 2011 CTJ 613 (CP) (NCDRC)
Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1
Bolam V. Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957) 1 WLR 582
Judgment:
The ratio of the above mentioned cases fully applies to the facts of the present case. From the record it is established that whatever best could be done by a medical practitioner, was done by the treating doctors-respondents from the very beginning in the present case by exercising their skill with reasonable competence and if the patient could not be survived, it is a misfortune of the appellant. Thus, it cannot be a case of any kind of medical negligence or deficiency of service.
As a sequel to our aforesaid discussion, there is hardly any merit in this case to interfere with the order of the District Forum.
Hence, finding no merit in this appeal, it is dismissed.
Also Read- Alchemist Hospital fined Rs 5 lakh for medical negligence
Thus, Court proves that the medical practitioners cannot be treated as magicians or demi-Gods. They are fallible human beings. The liability to pay compensation may arise only when the complainant proves that the causation was result of negligence committed by the medical practitioner and there was clear material available to foresee the injury.
Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The definition of negligence as given in Law of Torts, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal (decided by Justice G.P. Singh), referred to hereinabove, holds good Negligence becomes actionable on account of injury resulting from the act or omission amounting to negligence attributable to the person sued. The essential components of negligence are three: duty, breach and resulting damage.
For case specific advice please contact consumer forum advocates lawyers in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Zirakpur Derabassi .
More on 99888-17966.
