|
Facts in short :
1. The present appeal
has been filed from the order of Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission dated 16.05.2018, passed in CC/51/2007, partly allowing the
complaint and directing the appellant No.1 to pay to the complainant an
amount of Rs.11,05,000/- alongwith interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of the
complaint till the date of realization;
2. Mr. Sudhir Kumar Verma
the complainant filed consumer complaint No.51 of 2007 with the
State Commission for directing the opposite parties to pay (a) Rs.45 lakhs
as compensation and the main allegations in the complaint were that :
i. to address the problem of lack
of ICU beds and ventilators;
ii. to ensure that an adequate number of
doctors/specialists remain on duty irrespective of the fact that a
particular day is working day or a holiday;
iii. to ensure that all doctors
must be given training to record the investigations done in the
investigation chart;
iv. to ensure that laboratories in
emergency department should function effectively even on holidays and the
results of tests given by such labs should be reliable.
3.
On 22.04.2006 at about 9.30 pm, the deceased Smt. Kiran
Verma (wife of the complainant) was taken to the emergency ward of
Safdarjung Hospital. Her pulse rate was 110/70 and 72 respectively. She was
sent to the ward where pulse of the patient was 80 per minute and blood
pressure was 90/70. The nurse on duty gave an injection in the
muscles of the hand instead of vein. At about 11.00 pm the patient
started vomiting and hitting her hands and legs on the bed. She was also
feeling breathlessness.
The complainant informed the duty
nurse about the condition of his wife, who injected some medicine in the
drip at about 11.30 am even then the condition of the patient deteriorated.
At about 1.40 am duty Doctor came and advised the patient to be admitted.
No medical investigation was prescribed by any doctor uptil 9.00 am of
24.04.2006.
After a gap of 40 hours of
admission, some blood tests were prescribed. Unfortunately, the patient
died on 26.04.2006 at 8.15 am. Alleging medical negligence on
the part of the doctors of Safdarjung Hospital, the complainant filed
consumer complaint in the State Commission.
Defense :
4. The opposite
party Hospital contested the complaint and stated that they made every
effort well in time to provide best treatment to the patient. If the
attendants of the patient were not satisfied with their treatment, they
were at liberty to seek discharge of the patient. Blood count, blood sugar,
blood urea, serum electrolyte and CT scan tests were done in the emergency
in the night of 22/23.04.2006. Patient did not need ICU care on
22/23.04.2006. CT scan report was found normal. Patient could not be
shifted to ICU as no ventilator was available there. Some
complications like ARF with syptosymtic, CVA, DKA, Uranicm and syplopathy
were suspected. The complaint of the husband of the deceased was examined
by the Grievance Redressal Cell of Safdarjung Hospital, Delhi Medical
Council and Directorate General Health Services. The panel of
experts found that there was no medical negligence in the treatment of the
deceased.
State Commission held :
1.
The State Commission by the impugned order dated 16.05.2018
partly allowed the complaint. It was observed that the Doctors failed to
record the history of the patient, examination findings were inadequate and
the investigations were also not recorded in the investigation chart.
2. The deceased was a patient of
diabetes mellitus. The expert panel recorded that for a patient with
diabetes mellitus, a comprehensive treatment plan was required to be
laid made. It was also observed that shortage of Doctors on
Saturday and Sunday holidays was not a justification for not treating the
patient properly. The deceased could not be properly treated due to
non-availability of ventilator in the ICU. The experts further opined that
the Contrast Enhanced CT Fundoscopy could also have assisted in diagnosis.
Held by NCDRC :
1.
The NCDRC held that the State Commission passed the
impugned order on the basis of the expert reports on the treatment given to
the deceased. Medical Council of India found negligence of the Doctors and
vide letter dated 26.08.2010 opined that a letter of caution should be
issued to Dr. B. Gupta and Dr. Umesh Kansara, to be more careful in future
in maintaining the patients record and that they should have informed the
seriousness of the patient’s condition to the patient/attendant from time
to time.
2.
The Delhi Medical Council in its report dated
19.12.2006 found Safdarjung Hospital guilty of not explaining the
prognosis to the relatives of the patient and observed that the
hospital should improve the communication between the Doctors and the
patient’s relatives. Delhi Medical Council also observed that no Doctor
examined the patient on 23.04.2006 and the treatment was given by the nurse
only and no investigations were done until 24.04.2006.
3.
It was held that findings of fact recorded by State
Commission that there was medical negligence in providing treatment to the
wife of the complainant is based upon various expert of the expert
committee on record and do not suffer from any illegality. The NCDRC upheld
the State Commission’s order that
awarded compensation of Rs.11,05,000/- to the complainant alongwith 7@
interest p.a.
This judgment teaches important
lessons to the Hospital and the Doctors and same can be summarized as under
:
- 1. Have a comprehensive treatment plan for Diabetes
Patients.
- 2. Not explaining the prognosis to the relatives is
Negligence.
- 3.
The hospital should improve the communication between
the Doctors and the patient’s relatives.
- 4.
The shortage of Doctors on Saturday and Sunday
holidays cannot be a justification
for not treating the patient properly !
|
Comments
Post a Comment