Haryana

StateCommission

A/144/2017

CYGNUS MAHARAJA AGGARSAIN HOSPITAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHARWAN KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

G.D.GUPTA

24 May 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                      First Appeal No.144 of 2017

                                                Date of Institution: 06.02.2017

                                                          Date of order: 24.05.2023

 

1. Cygnus Maharaja Aggarsain Hospital, Opposite Devi Mandir, near Bus Stand Panipat through its Manager/Incharge/MD (Cygnus Super Speciality Centre)
2. Dr.J.P.Saluja Physician Department, Cygnus Maharaja Aggarsain Hospital, Opposite Devi Mandir, Near Bus Stand Panipat and others.

…..Appellants

Versus

1. Sharwan Kumar (since deceased) S/o Sh.Krishan Lal through his L.Rs:-

i) RishabVaid-son

2.  
3.  

all residents of House NO.226, Bhagat Nagar,Tehsil Camp, Panipat.

2. RishabVaid S/o Sh.Sharwan Kumar
3. Deepanshu minor S/o Sh.Sharwan Kumar  through his brother RishabVaid as his natural guardian and next friend,

All residents of house No.226, Bhagat Nagar,Tehsil Camp, Panipat.

4. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., G.T.Road Panipat through its Incharge/Manager (Indemnity Policy No.041200/46/12/35/00002440) &Ors.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                  

Present:-    Mr.Gaurav Gupta Advocate for Mr.G.D.Gupta, Advocate for the appellants.

                   Mr.A.S.Khara proxy counsel for Mr.DishantTuteja, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.

                   Mr.Satpal Dhamija proxy counsel for Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the respondent No.4.

 

First Appeal No.310 of 2017

Date of institution:16.03.2017

Date of order: 24.05.2023

 

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., through its authorized signatory, Shri Parveen Kumar Gupta, Deputy Manager, Regional Office, SCO 123-124, Sector 17 B Chandigarh..

…..Appellant

Versus

1. Sharwan Kumar (since deceased) S/o Sh.Krishan Lal through his L.Rs:-

i) RishabVaid-son

2.  

iii)        Smt.Shanti Rani-mother

all residents of House NO.226, Bhagat Nagar,Tehsil Camp, Panipat.

2. RishabVaid S/o Sh.Sharwan Kumar
3. Deepanshu minor S/o Sh.Sharwan Kumar  through his brother RishabVaid as his natural guardian and next friend,

All residents of house No.226, Bhagat Nagar,Tehsil Camp, Panipat.

4.      Cygnus Maharaja Aggarsain Hospital, Opposite Devi Mandir, near Bus Stand Panipat through its Manager/Incharge/MD (Cygnus Super Speciality Centre).

5.      Dr.J.P.Saluja Physician Department, Cygnus Maharaja Aggarsain Hospital, Opposite Devi Mandir, Near Bus Stand Panipat.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    S.P. Sood, Judicial  Member

                  

Present:-    Mr. Satpal Dhamija proxy counsel for Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for theappellant.

                   Mr.A.S.Kharaproxy counsel for Mr.DishantTuteja, Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.

                   Mr.Gaurav Gupta,  Advocate for Mr.G.D.Gupta, Advocate for the respondent No.4.

CORAM:    S.P. Sood, Judicial  Member

                  

                                                ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Vide this common order above mentioned two appeals bearing No.144 of 2017and F.A. No.310 of 2017will be disposed of as both the appeals have been preferred against the common order dated 29.11.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat (in short ‘District Commission).

2.      Delay of 40 days in filing the appeal bearing No.310 of 2018 is condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.

3.      The facts of the case  as per the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Faridabad,  (Now in short “District Commission”) record are:

          On 24.08.2013, Smt. Ekta mother of complainants No.2 and 3 and wife of complainant No.1 was suffering from severe head ache.  The complainant No.1 took her to the hospital of OP No.1 and 2 for treatment.Since she had deficiency of blood and her attendants were advised to arrange for two units of blood. The complainant No.1 arranged two units of blood from Red cross blood bank. However, any test or cross check up, the OP No.2 started blood transfusion to Smt. Ekta.However, the condition of the patient became critical and thereafter the treating doctor present over there stopped the transfusion of blood to the patient. In view of her precarious condition she was shifted to ICU and thereafterOP No.2 restarted and continued transfusing the blood. Finding her condition being highly unstable the patient was referred to Delhi on wrong discharge summary. This is how she was taken to Jaipur Golden Hospital as her condition was very critical after about six hours she breathed her last. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2, hence the complaint.

4.      Notices were issued to the Ops.  After causing their appearance, Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 filed joint written statement alleging inter alia that the patient was admitted  in the emergency department with complain of  headache, giddiness and loss of appetite.  Upon examination the patient was found to be sever aenemic.  Several blood tests were conducted.  Her hemoglobinlevel was found to be 5.4 Hgm. The patient was advised to arrange four units of blood, however, the patient’s attendant brought only two units of blood group AB RH + ve from Red Cross. At about 6.00 pm first unit of blood was started but after few a minutes, the patient complained of palpitation. Soblood transfusion was stopped at 7 PM but thereafter again blood transfusion was restored.   Due to shivering and pain at epigastric region, the patient was given hydrocortisone and injection pantoprazole. Patient was given injection metrogylsporolac and capsule Imodium was given at 10 pm.  On 25.08.2013 in the morning, the patient became unconscious in the ward, however after giving some medicines and inserted some injections, the patient became fully conscious. During examination, her pulse was found 110 per minute. Thereafter second unit of blood which was lying in ICU refrigerator after normalization of its temperature was started at 10.15 pm.  Injection Lasix 1 ampule was given midway of this transfusion. However there was no urine output. Thinking of delayed blood reaction and possible due to acute renal failure, patient was shifted to higher centre at 1PM on 25.08.2013 itself. Thus there was no negligence on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.      OP No.3also filed separate written statement wherein it was admitted the admission of patient and her treatment. OP No.3 has also filed reply almost on the same lines as that of OP No.1 and 2.  Preliminary objections about maintainability of complaint, concealment of true facts, locus standi and accruing cause of action etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

6.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Panipathas allowed the complaint vide order dated 29.11.2016, which is as under:-

“In our view, if the income of unskilled labour or house wife is assessed as Rs.7500/- per month then it comes to Rs.90,000/- per year and after applying the multiplier of 16 as per Motor Vehicle Act, amount of compensation comes to Rs.14,40,000/-. So in our view Rs.14,40,000/- would be an adequate amount of compensation to be granted to the complainants.

13.    In our view out of the said amount of compensation, Rs.10,00,000/- lacs shall be paid to the complainants by the respondent No.3, insurance company as the respondent No.2 was insured  with the respondent No.3 insurance company, the copy of the said policy is Ex.R1. the remaining amount i.e. Rs.4,40,000/- will be paid to the complainants by the respondent no.1 and 2 jointly and severally. Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent no.3 insurance company to make the payment of Rs.10,00,000/- lacs on behalf of the respondent no.2, to the complainants. The respondent No.1 and 2 are also directed to pay their amount of Rs.4,40,000/- to the complainants. Since the complainant No.2 and 3 are minors, it is directed to the respondent NO.3 to deposit 25% each in the name of complainants no.2 and 3 in the shape of FDRs in any nationalized bank till the period the respondent Nos.2 and 3 attain their majority and the remaining amount of 50% out of Rs.10,00,000/- lacs is directed to be paid to the complainant No.1. The complainants shall also be entitled to a sum of Rs.6600/- as compensation for the mental harassment caused to them and for the litigation expenses.”

7       Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P Nos. 1 and 2as well as OP No. 3have preferred these appeals separately.

8.      Arguments were heard. With their kind assistance entire record of both appealsas well as that of the District Commission including whatever evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties has been properly perused and examined.

9.        It is admitted that  on 24.08.2013, Smt. Ekta mother of complainants No.2 and 3 and wife of the complainant No.1 was admitted in the hospital of OP No.1 due to complain of headache.  It is not disputed that during the transfusion of blood to the patient, her condition deteriorated and became critical following which the treating doctor stopped the transfusion of blood   but thereafter it was again re-started. It is also not disputed that when condition became precariousshe was shifted to ICU and thereafter patient was ultimately referred to Delhi, where she died away.

10.    Report of the medical board Ex.C-5 is important and has been reproduced below:-

“After going through the facts in complaint highlighted in point  A and facts highlighted  in point B, treatment record and laboratory report of Maharaja  Aggarsain Hospital, Panipat and Jaipur Golden Hospital, New Delhi, it seems to be a case of blood transfusion re action.”

11.    Perusal of various documents and report of medical board Ex.C-5, it is clear that death of Smt. Ekta Rani has occurred due tocomplications  blood transfusion reaction and the OP No.1 and 2 did not take proper care of the patent during and afterblood transfusion.It is quite surprising that when patient had adversely reacted to blood transfusion and had started experiencing palpitations then in that eventuality of the reaction why this blood transfusion was restored after some time. Further this thing happened twice but after having failed on two occasions third time again it was restarted next morning with which most of the damage took place and her renal system failed following which she could not  be revived even after being shifted to Delhi and finally she suffered multi organ failure and finally died away.The learned District Commission has righty allowed the complaint of the complainant.

12.    Resultantly, the contentions raised on behalf of the present appellantsin both the cases stands rejected as rendered no assistance and found to be untenable and the order passed by the learned District Commission does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and is well reasoned and accordingly stands maintained for all intents and purposes.  Hence, both appeals bearing No.144 of 2017 and F.A. No.310 of 2017stands dismissed on merits.

13.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- each deposited at the time of filing the appeal bearing No.144 of 2017 andFirst Appeal bearing No.310 of 2017be refunded to the complainantsagainst proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

14.              Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

15.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

16.              File be consigned to record room.

17.              The original judgement be attached with appeal No.144 of 2017 and certified copy be attached with appeal No.310 of 2017.

 

24^thMay, 2023                                                                       S. P. Sood                                                                                                                            Judicial Member    

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)