Punjab

Rupnagar

RBT/CC/18/357

Rai Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

IVY Hospital - Opp.Party(s)

Manish Goel adv

27 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

ROPAR

Complaint No.	:	RBT/CC/357/2018
Date of Institution	:	31.05.2018
Date of Decision	:	27.12.2023

 

 

 

Rai Singh S/o Shri. Barbara Singh, aged 74years R/o House No.        B-5/42, Lalheri Road, Street No. R-4, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Ward No. 7, Khanna, District Ludhiana (Punjab).

                                                                               …..Complainant

                                        Versus

1. Chairman & Managing Director, IVY Hospital, Sector 71, Mohali, District Mohali i.e M/s IVY Health & Life Sciences P Ltd.
2. Chairperson, IVY Hospital, G.T. Road, Khanna, Distt.
   Ludhiana i.e M/s IVY Health & Life Sciences P Ltd.
3. Chairperson, United India Insurance Company Limited,
   Solan (HP), Registered Office: Feroze Gandhi Market,
   Ludhiana.

...Opposite party/ Respondent

Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (old)

QUORUM:

        Mr. S.K. Aggarwal, President

        Mr. Ramesh Kumar Gupta, Member

PRESENT:

        For the complainant : In Person

        For the OPs               : Sh. Arvind Kumar Rishi

                                                                        ….Opposite Parties

ORDER

 

The instant complaint has been filed by complainant against the opposite parties with the averments that the OP1 is a hospital chain, under the name and style of "IVY Hospital",  which owns and operates a network of hospitals, OP No.2 is the branch office of OP No.1 at Khanna and OP No.3 is the branch office of insurance company. Complainant is having one policy vide policy number 1116052716P115500469 w.e.f 12.02.-2017 to 11.02.2018 and further got renewed vide policy number 1116052718P114643718 for the period of 12.02.2019 to 11.02.2020. On 01.11.2017 complainant along' with his wife Joginder Kaur visited OP2’s OPD for her regular checkup and treated by Dr. P. Jothinath and few medicines were prescribed by him and sent back to home with a suggestion of no need to admit and patient condition is normal. On 02.11.2017 after taking the medicines prescribed by the doctor of OP2, Complainant's wife condition is not well and is not improving having pain in the stomach and also vomiting approached OP2 at around 7:00 P.M and complainant's wife was taken to ICU ward and few tests were done and it took around 2 hours and then she was shifted to General ward. Even on asking by complainant that he want special/separate room for his wife and regular attendant, OP2 suggested that we take care of the patient in general ward properly too, so special room was not allotted by OP2. After that OP2 suggested        to complainant for going home and leaves the patient alone in hospital under the hospital care i.e OP2. Complainant received a call at around 1:50AM in night that patient is not well and come soon to hospital. That the complainant is an old age person having no vehicle for transport, make calls on regular basis to the hospital for his wife’s wellbeing and no one picked the same and when complainant reached to hospital in the morning at Khanna, the doctors were not doing anything and they declared Complainant’s wife as dead. That OP2 was neither having an expert doctor for a heart patient at hospital at the time of hospitalizing on

2.11.2017. Neither OP2 has suggested/referred the patient to some other hospital, nor they declare this thing to the Complainant. Dr. Vijay Kumar, who diagnosis the patient was just an M.D. Medical doctor only not any specialist doctor. As it is the duty of OP2 to refer such patients, in case of, non-availability of Heart specialist doctors to some other Hospital. OPs Exploited Complainant by  not fulfilling the services for which Opposite Parties was paid by complainant for his wife's treatment and due to the deficiency of services rendered by opposite parties, he suffer a huge loss of monetary as well as mental agony too. So opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the misconduct, deficiency of services, negligence, harassment, mental agony and for
compensation to Complainant on account of death of his wife due to negligence and deficiency of services rendered by opposite parties and prayed for following directions to the OPs.

1. To pay back the amount of bills Rs. 12,802/- to the

complainant taken by Op no. 2.

2. Pay the Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation on account of   death' of complainant wife due to deficiency and   negligence in services of opposite parties.
3. Pay the Rs. 500,000/- as compensation on account of    humiliation, mental agony and harassment suffered by      the complainant.
4. To pay Rs. 22,000/- of litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, OP No.1 and 2 appeared and filed written reply by

raising preliminary objections on the ground that the complaint is

abuse of process of law and has been file to harass the answering Ops as complicated questions of law and facts are
involved in the present case which required detailed examination, cross examination and leading of voluminous evidence. The same cannot be decided summary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Forum. The complainant has concealed material facts that Smt. Joginder Kaur (Deceased) was suffering from Hypertension, CAD (Coronary Artery Disease) with Post PTCA (Percutaneous Transluminal coronary angioplasty) Echo cardiography) along with severe left ventricle dysfunction, RWMA prelent since the Year 2014 and the same is also mentioned in OPD Slip of wife of the complainant dated 01.11.2017, and a patient who is suffering from the above said medical problems there is more chances of Heart Attack and Cardiac Arrest of such patient. The wife of the complainant Joginder Kaur is old age lady about 75 years old, who was already undergoing treatment for her heart disease and other old-age ailments and in old age patient who is suffering from above said heart diseases the chances of Heart Failure become increased. The complainant has himself admitted that his wife Smt. Joginder Kaur (Deceased) was treated by Dr. P. Joythinath in OPD of respondent on 01.11.2017, but the complainant deliberately concealed that the said doctor of OPs is Cardiologist (Heart Specialist). It is admitted that  that complainant approached OP2 on 02.11.2017 at 7:59 PM vide Registration No.106868 with C/o pain abdomen, loose stools and vomiting(s), as such she was admitted under Medicine Department and the doctor of medicine

i.e. Dr. Vijay (MD Medicine) in consultancy with Cardiologist and other doctors of the OPs are taking care of her and the patient was under the supervision of specialized team of doctor(s) and staff (s) and was under treatment till 03.11.2017. On investigation patient serum sodium was 107 on 02.11.2017, so conservative treatment was started. The respondents have Specialize Team of Doctors available in the hospital in any situation who have done their best efforts while medically treated Smt. Joginder Kaur as per the established medical procedure, but unfortunately wife of the complainant could not survive despite of the best efforts done by the OPs and declared dead on 03.11.2017 at 7.10 AM. The wife of the complainant was a known patient of hypertension and cardiac disease and during her stay at the hospital, OPs have done their best efforts to save the life of wife of the complainant and was managed in the intensive Care Unit by a Multidisciplinary Team and requisite diagnostics and interventions were undertaken to arrive at possible diagnosis and due treatment was given and that every status of the treatment was informed to the complainant/attendant of patient. On Merits it is submitted that Dr.  Jyothinath Cardiologist examined wife of the complainant namely Smt. Joginder Kaur and further advised to take medication. It is wrong and denied that she was sent back home with a suggestion that the patient condition is normal. The patient was suffering from various heart disease as mentioned above and the patient after taking prescription on OPD card herself left the hospital after her regular check-up. The wife of complainant was

treated in ICU ward as per requirement. It is wrong that she was shifted to" general ward as alleged and that Dr. Vijay Kumar, who diagnosis the patient was just an M.D. Medical doctor only not any specialist doctor of heart. The Ops have Heart Specialist i.e. Dr. Jyothinath Cardiologist and Dr. Vijay Kumar MD (Medicine) was doing treatment in consultancy with Dr. Jyothinath and other doctors and specialized team of doctors including cardiologist Dr. Jyothinath of OPs were available at that time. That the OPs treated the wife of the complainant in the established medical procedure and nothing done out of the established procedure and there is no negligence of any kind on the part of any of the OP.  Lastly denying that Ops are jointly and severally liable for the misconduct, deficiency, of services, negligence, harassment, mental agony and for compensation to complainant on account of death of his wife due to negligence and deficiency of services rendered by opposite parties, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3. In support of his case, the complainant has tendered in evidence his own affidavit as Ex-C-A along with OPD receipts as Ex. Cl, Photocopy of bills by the Ops as Ex. C2, Photocopy of death certificate as Ex. C3, photocopy of death report as Ex. C4, copy of legal notices as Ex. C5 & C6, original postal receipts as Ex. C7 & C8, copy of reply of legal notice as Ex. C9, copy of the written complaint to hospital authorities as Ex. CIO.
4. In rebuttal, OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of their authorized person, Sh. Pawan Ramesh Waghaye, Ex-RA, along with

 

 

• Ex.R1 to Ex.R11.

5. We have considered the submissions of the complainant as well as the OPs. We have also carefully perused the materials on record.
6. Admittedly, the wife of complainant Smt. Joginder Kaur (Deceased) was treated by Dr. P. Jothinath in OPD of OPs on 01.11.2017     Ex-C1/P31, and admitted in the hospital on 02.11.2017 at 7:59 PM vide Registration No.106868 and declared dead on 03.11.2017 at 7.10 AM Ex-C2 & C3.
7. On 01.11.2017 when the patient i.e. Smt Joginder Kaur w/o of the complainant was brought to the Ops hospital she was suffering  from Hypertension, CAD (Coronary Artery Disease) with Post PTCA (Percutaneous Transluminal coronary angioplasty) Echo cardiography) along with severe left ventricle dysfunction, RWMA prevalent since the Year 2014, checked by Dr. Jothinath D.M. Cardiologist Ex-C1/P31 & Ex-R4 and the same is also mentioned in OPD Slip Ex-C1/P31.
8. On 02.11.2017 the patient i.e. Smt Joginder Kaur w/o of complainant admitted to Ops hospital, with C/o pain abdomen, loose stools and vomiting(s), as such she was admitted under
   Medicine Department and the doctor of medicine i.e. Dr. Vijay (MD Medicine) in consultation with Cardiologist and other doctors had taken care of her and the patient was under the supervision of specialized team of doctor(s) and staff (s). As per investigation report Dated 02.11.2017, Ex-R9, patient serum sodium was 107.7. Since wife of the complainant Joginder Kaur being an old

age lady about 75 years old, a known patient of hypertension and cardiac disease was taken to ICU and managed by Multidisciplinary Team and requisite diagnostic and interventions were undertaken to arrive at possible diagnosis as per established medical procedure but unfortunately she did not survive and declared dead on 03.11.2017 at 7.10 AM.

9. That As per investigation report Dated 02.11.2017, Ex-R9, patient

serum sodium was 107.7. It is observed that serum sodium 107.7 is a condition referred to as Hyponatremia and Patients with hyponatremia had an increased risk of death in hospital. Patient also has co-morbidity/Hypertension a known cardiac disease since 2014, Ex-C1/P31 implies that patient was already on high risk more complicated by age i.e. 75 years chances of Heart Failure increases.

10. As the main charge of negligence leveled by the complainant against Ops is the allegations of non-availability of heart specialist in the hospital of OPs, but this allegation is not correct as per the record produced by the Ops Ex-R3, R4. List of doctors available in the respondents hospital are attached herewith as Ex.R-1. The Hospital had specialized staff in all branches of medicine and the medical assistance as was required from time to time including cardiology, Medicine etc. was provided to the patient. Therefore, it is not found that there is any breach of duty of care. Complainant  has himself admitted in his complaint that his wife is treated by Dr. Jothinath on 01.11.2017 who is D.M. Cardiologist. It is alleged by the complainant that Dr. Vijay Kumar, who diagnosed the

 

patient, on 02.11.2017, was just an M.D. However the said doctor on 02.11.2017 treated complainant’s wife  with abdomen pain, loose stools and vomiting(s) and as such she was admitted under Medicine Department and the doctor of medicine i.e. Dr. Vijay     (MD Medicine) in consultation with Cardiologist and other doctors of the OPs has taken care of patient under the supervision of specialized team of doctor(s) and staff (s) and treated the wife of the complainant in the established medical procedure.

11. So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was also available or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or procedure which the doctor or hospital followed.
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kusum Sharma vs. Batra Hospital in CIVIL APPEAL NO.1385 OF 2001 laid down the following principles that are to be considered while determining the charge of medical negligence:
13.  

1. Negligence is the breach of a duty exercised 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. ...

3. The Medical Professional is expected to bring a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law requires.
4. A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field.
5. In the realm of diagnosis and treatment there is scope for genuine difference of opinion and one professional doctor is clearly not negligent merely because his conclusion differs from that of another professional doctor.
6. The medical professional is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which he honestly believes as providing greater chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances of failure. Just because a professional looking to the gravity of illness has taken higher element of risk to redeem the patient out of his/her suffering which did not yield the desired result may not amount to negligence.
7. Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill and competence. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession.

9. It is our bounden duty and obligation of the civil society to ensure that the medical professionals are not unnecessarily harassed or humiliated so that they can perform their professional duties without fear and apprehension. ..”
10.  

arise in different individual cases, coupled with the constant advancement in the medical field and its practices, it is natural that there shall always be different opinions, including contesting views regarding the chosen line of treatment, or the course of action to be undertaken. In such circumstances, just because a doctor opts for a particular line of treatment but does not achieve the desired result, they cannot be held liable for negligence, provided that the said course of action undertaken was recognized as sound and relevant medical practice. This may include a procedure entailing a higher risk element as well, which was opted for after due consideration and deliberation by the doctor. Therefore, a line of treatment undertaken should not be of a discarded or obsolete category in any circumstance.

1. To hold a medical practitioner liable for negligence, a higher threshold limit must be met. This is to ensure that these doctors are focused on deciding the best course of treatment as per their assessment rather than being concerned about possible persecution or harassment that they may be subjected to in high-risk medical situations. Therefore, to safeguard these medical practitioners and to ensure that they are able to freely discharge their medical duty, a higher proof of burden must be fulfilled by the complainant. The complainant should be able to prove a breach of duty and the subsequent injury being attributable to the aforesaid breach as well, in order to hold a doctor liable for medical negligence. On the other hand, doctors need to establish that they had followed reasonable standards of medical practice.”

13. It is further observed as “It is so easy to be wise after the event and to condemn as negligence which was only a misadventure. We ought to be on our guard against it, especially in cases against hospitals and doctors. Medical science has conferred great benefits on mankind but these benefits are attended by unavoidable risks. Every surgical operation is attended by risks. We cannot take the benefits without taking the risks. Every advance in technique is also attended by risks. Doctors, like the rest of us, have to learn by experience; and experience often teaches in a hard way."

Although complaints are made by the patient of its own kind, but is always attended and taken care off and all medical assistance possible at the command of the OPs was extended to Patient. It is unfortunate that the patient could not be saved despite the best medical assistance being extended to him by the experts of the field.

14. In the light of our aforesaid discussion as reasoned earlier, the burden of establishing negligence is on the complainant. In this case, however, complainant has failed to prove medical negligence by the doctors, on the other hand, the medical team at Hospital was able to successfully prove that due medical consideration was given. Therefore, complainant has failed to prove the allegation of misconduct, deficiency of services, negligence, harassment, mental agony against the Ops. Hence, Hence the instant complaint stood dismissed being devoid of any merit. No order to costs. The instant complaint could not be disposed off within stipulated period for want of Quorum and due to paucity of staff. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. File be indexed and concerned clerk is directed to consign the file and sent back the same to the District Commission, Ludhiana against the proper receipt.

Pronounced on : 27.12.2023.

                                                                             (Ramesh Kumar Gupta)                                       (S.K. Aggarwal)

                                                                                          Member                                                          President