BARINDER KAUR vs Chander Malhotra

-THIS appeal has been directed by the complainant against order dated 4. 7. 2000 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar vide which her complaint for compensation was dismissed.

BRIEFLY stated the facts are that Sh. Tarsem Singh was husband of Smt. Barinder Kaur, complainant. He had visited Malhotra Hospital, Shaheed Udham Singh Nagar, Jalandhar belonging to Dr. Chander Malhotra, respondent No. 1 on 3. 7. 1999 to get his throat checked from him. After examination, he advised to undergo operation of the throat for removal of tonsils and demanded Rs. 3,200 on account of operation. Accordingly he paid Rs. 500 as advance. On 4. 7. 1999, Tarsem Singh along with his wife Barinder Kaur complainant approached respondent No. 1 Dr. Chander Malhotra at about 9. 00 a. m. and Tarsem Singh was admitted in his hospital. He was given injections namely Phergan, Fortwin and Atropins before operation. Before operation, he was also given Xylocaine and before administering the medicine, sensitivity test was conducted to which Tarsem Singh did not show any reaction. Therefore, he was taken to operation theatre but after some time, respondent No. 1 came out of the operation theatre and told that her husband was serious as injection of anesthesia had reacted. Ultimately her husband expired. She got a criminal case registered under Section 304a of IPC in Police Station, Division No. 4. Her husband was working as conductor and was aged about 39 years.

Alleging deficiency in service, complainant filed complaint claiming compensation of Rs. 4 lacs on account of monetary loss, Rs. 50,000 on account of mental agony and Rs. 10,000 as litigation costs along with interest @ 12% p. a.

RESPONDENT Nos. 1 to 3 filed joint reply and stated that Tarsem Singh was admitted in their hospital where he was checked by respondent No. 1 for treatment of enlarged and infected tonsils and was advised surgery. They denied that Tarsem Singh had paid Rs. 500 as advance. They, however, admitted that on 4. 7. 1999 pre-operation treatment including injections Phergan Fortwin and Atropins were given. A test was conducted before administering the injections and thereafter patient was taken to operation theatre. However, after few minutes, patient developed palpitation and cardiac arrest. Thereafter respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were called in and emergency treatment was started and all necessary steps were taken but the patient died of cardiac arrest due to heart attack. They further stated that there was no negligence or deficiency in service on their part, so, the complaint should be dismissed. Respondent No. 4 Oriental Insurance Company which was impleaded afterwards also filed reply stating therein that there was no negligence on the part of respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

PARTIES adduced their evidence by way of affidavits and documents. After hearing Counsel for the parties, District Consumer Forum vide order dated 4. 7. 2000 dismissed the complaint as meritless. Aggrieved by the said order, complainant has filed the present appeal.

WE have heard Counsel for appellant Mr. G. K. Saini, Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for respondent No. 4 and carefully gone through the file.

IT is an admitted fact that Tarsem Singh was admitted in the hospital of respondent No. 1 on 4. 7. 1999 for the operation of infected tonsil by respondent No. 1. The main allegation of appellant is that respondent No. 1 had given intravenous injection which had reacted and resulted death of Tarsem Singh at the operation theatre. It is true that appellant had got registered case under Section 304a, IPC against respondent No. 1 in Police Station, Division No. 4, Jalandhar for alleged negligence of respondent No. 1. However, there is no evidence that the police had found prima facie case of negligence and had challaned him. The dead body of Tarsem Singh was subjected to post-mortem examination. Ex. O-4 is certified copy of the post-mortem report dated 5. 7. 1999. In it, according to information as furnished by police, the cause of death was shown as drug reaction. However, doctors had not opined that the cause of death was drug reaction but on the other hand they stated that cause of death was due to sudden cardiac arrest which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and was ante mortem in nature. Therefore, post-mortem report had negated the allegation of appellant that injection was given intravenously by respondent No. 1 which reacted and that caused death of her husband Tarsem Singh s/o Banta Singh. A perusal of treatment card Ex. O8 shows that Tarsem was admitted in Malhotra Hospital by respondent No. 1 on 4. 7. 1999 at about 8. 00 a. m. and in pre-operation, he was administered Fortwin Injection and atropins and further was given Xylocaine. It is also stated that sensitivity test was performed before giving injection but he did not show any reaction. It is stated that the patient was given local anesthesia for surgery and after a few minutes, he started palpation and suffered cardiac arrest. However, every effort was made to revive him after giving emergency treatment but all in vain and he expired. Thus, according to respondents he had died not due to any drug reaction but he died due to cardiac arrest.

There are affidavits of Dr. S. D. Goel, MD, Anesthesia and Dr. V. K. Vasudev, MS, General Surgeon on the file. According to these affidavits, Dr. Chander Malhotra was most competent doctor dealing in ear, nose and throat and had vast experience in performing tonsil operation. Dr. S. D. Goel, MD (Anesthesia) further stated that in tonsil operation, general anesthesia is not required at the time of operation and tonsil operation was done under local anesthesia and ENT surgeon was competent and well qualified to administer local anesthesia. He next stated that he had seen record of the patient Tarsem Singh and was of the opinion that proper procedure was followed for giving local anesthesia and for testing the patient for any reaction to the Xylocaine. Thus, there was no negligence on the part of Dr. Chander Malhotra.

COMPLAINANT has not produced any expert medical evidence to prove that there was any negligence on the part of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. It is unfortunate that before operation could be conducted, decease suffered cardiac arrest and died due to heart failure. When he developed some symptoms of cardiac arrest in the operation theatre, then oxygen was given and intravenous drip was also given. Even heart massage was given in order to revive the patient but he could not be revived.

IT has been observed by the District Consumer Forum that Adrenaline and Xylocaine injections were given sub-cutaneously and otherwise also there was no question of liquid entering into vein or blood vessel because in tonsils there is no question of any blood vein. According to medical literature, general anesthesia is most common, but tonsillectomy can be performed with sedation and local anesthesia. Therefore, general anesthesia is not required. It is further stated that there could be excessive bleeding from the site where the tonsils were removed and there could be vomiting and dehydration but in the present case no such thing had taken place. It is further stated in 7th Edition of API textbook of Medicine by Sidhharth N. Shah that sudden cardiac arrest is the most dramatic and emotional moment of a person''s life and person with massive pulmonary embolus could suffer sudden cardiac death. If Tarsem Singh had suffered cardiac arrest then it was not fault of respondents. Hence, we concur with the reasoning given by the District Consumer Forum and hold that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had followed proper and standard procedure and there was no negligence on their part. Consequently appeal is dismissed.

COPIES of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. Appeal dismissed.