Haryana

StateCommission

A/103/2018

GOLD FIELD HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTRE - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUNITA AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

ANIRUDH KUSH

18 Apr 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                      First Appeal No.103 of 2018

                                                Date of Institution: 25.01.2018

                                                          Date of order: 18.04.2023

 

1. Gold Field Hospital & Research Centre, Village Chhainsa, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad 121004, Haryana, through Smt. Shashi Adhlakha.
2. Dr.Gangandeep Singh, Gold Field Hospital & Research Centre, Village Chhainsa,Tehsil Ballabgarh, Distt. Faridabad-121004, Haryana.
3. Dr. Karnail Pardumman Singh, Gold Field Hospital & Research Centre, Village Chhainsa, Tehsil Ballabgarh, Distt. Faridabad-121004, Haryana, Smt. Shashi Adhlakha.
4. Smt. Shashi Adhlakha, Secretary, Gold Field Hospital & Research Centre, Village Chhainsa,Tehsil Ballabgarh, Distt. Faridabad-121004, Haryana.
5. Nursing Incharge, Gold Field Hospital & Research Centre, Village Chhainsa,Tehsil Ballabgarh, Distt. Faridabad-121004, Haryana through Smt. Shashi Adhlakha.

…..Appellants

Versus

1. Mrs. Sunita W/o Shri Narottam Singh Bhati, Advocate
2. Narottam Singh Bhati, Advocate son of shri Jatinder Singh Bhati, both residents of village Kaurali, Tehsil Ballabgarh, Distt. Faridabad, Haryana.
3. M/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 134-135, Sahu Plaza Building, IIIrd Floor, Sneh Nagar Alam Bagh, Lucknow (Uttar Pradesh) 226005.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                  

Present:-    Mr.Anirudh Kush, Advocate for theappellants.

                   Dr. Bipin Dwivedi alongwith Mr.R.K.Solanki and Mr. N.S.Bhati, Advocate for the respondent No.1 and 2.

                   Mr.Jatin Sehrawat, Advocate for the appellant No.2.

                   Mr.Vinod Chaudhri,  Advocatealongwith Ms. Geeta Chaudhri, Advocate for respondent No.3.

 

First Appeal No.424 of 2018

Date of institution:10.04.2018

Date of order: 18.04.2023

 

M/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 134-135, Sahu Plaza Building, ALAM Bagh, Lukhnow (U.P.), Now through its Regional Manger SCO No109-111, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh.

…..Appellant

Versus

1. Mrs. Sunita W/o Shri Narottam Singh Bhati, Advocate
2. Narottam Singh Bhati, Advocate son of shri Jatinder Singh Bhati, both residents of village Kaurali, Tehsil Ballabgarh, Distt. Faridabad, Haryana.
3. Gold Field Hospital & Research Centre, Village Chhainsa, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad 121004, Haryana.
4. Dr.Gangandeep Singh, Gold Field Hospital & Research Centre, Village Chhainsa,Tehsil Ballabgarh, Distt. Faridabad-121004, Haryana.
5. Dr. Karnail Pardumman Singh, Gold Field Hospital & Research Centre, Village Chhainsa, Tehsil Ballabgarh, Distt. Faridabad-121004, Haryana, Smt. Shashi Adhlakha.
6. Smt. Shashi Adhlakha, Secretary, Gold Field Hospital & Research Centre, Village Chhainsa,Tehsil Ballabgarh, Distt. Faridabad-121004, Haryana.
7. Nursing Incharge, Gold Field Hospital & Research Centre, Village Chhainsa,Tehsil Ballabgarh, Distt. Faridabad-121004, Haryana

 

…..Respondents

CORAM:    S.P. Sood, Judicial  Member

                  

Present:-    Mr. Vinod Chaudhri Advocate alongwith Ms Geeta Chaudhri, Advocate for theappellant.

                   Dr. Bipin Dwivedi alongwith Mr.R.K.Solanki and Mr. N.S.Bhati, Advocate for the respondent No.1 and 2.

                   Mr. Jatin Sehrawat, Advocate for respondent No.4.

                   Mr. Anirudh Kush, Advocate for respondent Nos.3,5 and 7.

                   Respondent No.6 already ex parte.

CORAM:    S.P. Sood, Judicial  Member

                  

                                                ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Vide this common order above mentioned two appeals bearing No.103 of 2018 and F.A. No.424 of 2018will be disposed of as both the appeals have been preferred against the order dated 22.12.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (in short ‘District Commission).

2.      Delay of 69 days in filing the appeal bearing No.424 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 11.09.2013, the complainant’s wife was suffering from fever and as such complainant No.2 took her to Govt. Hospital, Kaurali where she was examined and was found to be that she was suffering from Malaria positive. So the treating doctor of OPD advised some medicines. However her further increased  fever during the night of 13/14.09.2013 following which complainant’s husband took her to opposite party No.1-hospital where complainant No.1 was admitted under the care and treatment of OP No.2.  On 14.09.2013 treating doctor told that his wife need to be kept on ventilator support for which her husband was reluctant. The complainant No.1 was again admitted into OP hospital vide IPD No.2013/118817.  However while she was still on ventilator support, a needle was negligently placed into her artery of left hand by an unqualified person instead of nursing staff to the complainant No.1. The unqualified person also injected some fluid through intraveinous mode.  Injected some medicines  in negligent manner, which resulted into stoppage of blood circulation in the left hand of complainant No.1 and this is how front part of her hand got totally damaged.   The doppler report of Sarvodaya Hospital stated that  due to injection of several medicines in artery instead of her vein her artery got blocked of the same side where there injections were given. The patient was referred to Sarvodaya Hospital, Sector-8, Faridabad. The complainant No.2 got her admitted in said hospital on 16.09.2013 where doctors told them that in order to save the complainant  No.1, her left hand  has to be amputated due to the problem having been developed into gangrene in this hand. The said gangrene had occurred as the needle was inserted in most negligent manner in the artery instead of vein. This is how left hand of complainant No.1 was amputated so as to save her life. Thus there was gross medical negligence on the part of the Ops, hence the complaint.

4.      Notices were issued to the Ops.  Opposite party Nos.1 to 5 filed joint written statement alleging that on 14.09.2013, complainant No.1 was admitted in the hospital of OP No.1  with complain of chest pain, fever and breathlessness. The treating doctor conducted several tests and thereafter treating doctor suggested for shifting her into ICU but instead of admitting the patient in ICU, complainant No.2 resorted to LAMA discharge on the same day by signing some forms. Thereafter since condition of the patient deteriorated and she was readmitted as per the request of complainant No.2 and was shifted to ICU on 14.09.2013 at 3.50 p.m. and high risk consent  form was also signedfrom her son. The patient was given mechanical ventilator support. The complainant No.1 developed bluish dis-colourization of finger with swelling of left hand  and pulse of this hand was not palpable.  The treating doctor informed the complainant No.2 about  the condition of patient and also about non-availability of doppler as well as CTVS surgeon. The complainant No.2 insisted to take her to Sarvodaya Hospital Faridabad. Further it was submitted that ABG procedure is a blind  procedure and radial artery thrombosis was a known complication of ABG so no negligence could be attributable to the respondent.  The incidence of permanent ischemic damage and temporary occlusion has been reported to be 0.9% and 19.7% respectively. The other underlying cause could be sepsis itself was a prothrombotic state and predisposing factor for thrombosis, the patient on ventilator with PEEP may have hypoperfusion of peripheries, PVD, Raynaud’s disease/Phenomenon, protein C, protein S, Antithrombin III deficiency etc.  The delayed decision of complainant’s family to start the critical care treatment has been the main cause for all this.  It was denied that during her treatment some unqualified person on behalf of respondent inserted the needle to the complainant No.1.   It was also denied that doppler report said that artery was blocked at the same side on which injection was given.  It was also denied that doctors of Sarvodya Hospital, Faridabad told the complainant that gangrene has occurred because the needle was inserted in a most negligent manner to complainant No.1. It was also denied that due to gross negligence, the complainant No.1 had developed gangrene and her left hand has to be amputated. Thus there was no medical negligence on the part of the Ops and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.      OP No.6 filed separate written statement.  It was alleged that  OP No.1 hospital had obtained an Error and Omission Medical  Establishment Insurance policy, which was valid from01.092013 to 31.08.2014 and indemnity limit during the policy period was of Rs.30,00,000/-.  In case any liability was fastened upon OP No.6 for and on behalf of the insured favouring the complainant, then the same could not exceed per patient subject to excess clause application asper terms of policy but without any interest, costs and litigation expenses.  Rest of the allegations were denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Faridabadhas allowed the complaint vide order dated 22.12.2017, which is as under:-

“Resultantly, the complaint is allowed. Opposite parties Nos.1 to 6 jointly and severally, are directed to pay amount of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainants within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of this order.”

7       Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P Nos. 2and 3have preferred these appeals.

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 OP No.1-hospital had obtained an Error and Omission Medical  Establishment Insurance policy, valid from 01.09.2013 to 31.08.2014 and indemnity limit during the policy period was Rs.30,00,000/-.  It is also not disputed that complainant was admitted in the OP No.1 hospital on 14.09.2013 with complain of chest problem, fever and breathlessness.  It is also not disputed that during her treatment, the treating doctor of OP No.1 hospital gave mechanical ventilator support to complainant No.1. It is also not disputed that left hand was amputated in Sarvodaya Hospital, Sector-8, Faridabad, on account of its having developed gangrene.

10.    With all of the above stated admitted fact acting in the background the only question which fall for adjudication is whether the problem of gangrene in left hand front portion was result of mis-handing which took place during her treatment while her stay in OPs hospital in the ICU on 14.09.2013. Where some unauthorized person from amongst the ICU staff happened to puncture left hand artery of complainant No.1 and injected some fluids which resulted into stopping the blood circulation.  In this part of her hand or this problem occurred to the patient for some other reasons. Well to answer this query it is an admitted case of both the parties that when complainant was taken to OP hospital emergency ward during intervening night of 13/14.09.2013 she was faced with problems of chest, fever and breathlessness only and at that point of time she did not have any such problem with her left hand as such. Further, it also stands established that while she was being treated in ICU some person happened to insert a needle into front portion of her left hand and afterwards some fluids were also introduced through that needle which resulted into stopping of blood circulations of this area as such. This development clearly suggested that instead of inserting the needle into her vein so, as to inject fluids by way of intravenous mode the said person had actually mistook her left hand artery as her vein and transfused fluids through the same thereby choking the blood circulations of this area altogether and causing thrombosis and ultimately gangrene.  No explanation could be furnished by OPs as to how this could have happened for some other reason. Further it is also evident when patient’s condition deteriorated then instead of trying to mitigate her problems, OPs doctors advised her family members to shift her to Sarvodaya Hospital under the pretext that OPs hospital did not have doppler and CTVS facilities with an oblique motive that they may not have to carry out the inevitable amputation of her left hand in their own hospital so as to save themselves from this blame. Even otherwise it is a matter of common experience that transfusion of liquids or fluids is generally carried out in veins and never in arteries which are supposed to transmit pure blood from heart to all parts of body unlike of veins which carry impure blood from all parts to lungs for its purification and then to heart to be pumped again. Therefore, the problem occurred when needle was inserted in her left hand artery instead of her vein followed by transfusion as well. So, the whole problem initiated at that point of time which perpetuated also without any corrective measures and lead to hampering the blood circulation itself. So, in such a scenario the answer to the question posed above is very much in affirmative.  The learned District Commission has righty allowed the complaint of the complainant.

11.    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.103 of 2018 and F.A. No.424 of 2018 stands dismissed on merits.

12.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- each deposited at the time of filing the appeal bearing No.103 of 2018 and First Appeal bearing No.424 of 2018 be refunded to the complainantsagainst proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

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

14.              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.

15.              File be consigned to record room.

16.              The original judgement be attached with appeal No.103 of 2018 and certified copy be attached with appeal No.424 of 2018.

 

18^thApril, 2023                                                                      S. P. Sood                                                                                                                            Judicial Member    

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)