Harkanwal Singh and Ors. vs Ohri Hospital and Ors.

The appellants being aggrieved of dismissal of their complaint of medical negligence in the treatment of late Ms. Sandeep Kaur by opposite party doctors have preferred this appeal. 2. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for disposal of the appeal are that appellants are husband and minor children of late Sandeep Kaur who was teacher by profession. The appellants filed consumer complaint against the opposite parties alleging that opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 are qualified doctors and they are running a small hospital i.e. OP No. 1. It is alleged in the complaint that on 3.8.2014, complainant No. 1 took his wife Sandeep Kaur to OP No. 1 hospital with complaint of minor chest problem. OP Nos. 2 & 3 on examination admitted late Sandeep Kaur for treatment and she was kept in ICU of the hospital. It is alleged that the medicines given by the opposite parties were not having any fruitful effect and this fact was told to the doctors concerned. On 20 8.2014 at about 10.05 p.m., Sandeep Kaur suddenly started vomiting blood and died. According to the complainants deceased was normal and she started vomiting blood only after intubation was done by the opposite-parties doctors which caused some infernal injury to the heart. The complainants filed a criminal complaint against the opposite parties. Post mortem was done and cause of death of Sandeep Kaur was given as septicaemia. The complainants on the aforesaid facts raised a consumer dispute alleging medical negligence on the part of the opposite party doctore. 3. Learned State Commission on consideration of record as also report of PGI Chandigarh did not find any medical negligence in the treatment of Sandeep Kaur. The complaint c was accordingly dismissed. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants have assailed the impugned order on three counts. Firstly, it is contended that State Commission has failed to appreciate that deceased was kept in ICU for 12 days whereas as per the medical norms, the patient should not have been kept in ICU more than 72 hours. We do not find merit in this contention because learned Counsel for the appellants have failed to show any literature providing that no patient should be kept in ICU for more than 72 hours. e 5. Secondly, it is contended that State Commission has failed to appreciate that cause of death as per the post mortem report is septicaemia. Merely because the patient has died because of septicaemia, the opposite parties cannot be held guilty of medical negligence unless there is a cogent evidence to show that septicaemia developed because of any negligence on the part of the doctors. No allegation in this regard is made in the complaint. Otherwise also, on perusal of medical record, it is dear that patient was admitted at OP-1 hospital for the treatment of Bilateral Plural Effusion, consolidation (pneumonia). The progress notes clearly reveal about the regular follow up treatment and necessary investigations (x-ray, CT scan, ultrasound, echo) were done and proper medication was given. The patient was transfused one unit of whole blood. During course of treatment patient suffered empyema hemothorax etc. which indicate the patient was septicaemia. Despite every effort and treatment, patient could not be saved. We do not find any lapse of shortcoming of the opposite parties during the treatment of the instant patient. 6. Lastly, it is the case of the complainant that patient started vomiting blood on intubation done by the doctors resulting in some internal injury. This allegation is not supported by postmortem report which records that there was no injury to the vitral organs, namely, heart, liver or lungs. It is pertinent to note that matter was even referred to expert committee comprising of four specialists doctors of PGI Chandigarh. The Committee in its report have not found any medical negligence as the part of the opposite parties doctors. 7. Hon''ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab & Anr., III (2005) CPJ 9 (SC) : VI (2005) SLT 1 : 122 (2005) DLT 83 (SC) : III (2005) CCR 9 (SC) : (2005) 8 SCC 1 has categorically observed as under; "When a patient dies or suffers some mishap, there is a tendency to blame the doctor for this. Things have gone wrong and, therefore, somebody must be punished for it. However, it is well known that even the best professionals, what to say of the average professional, sometimes have failures. A lawyer cannot win every case in his professional career but surely he cannot be penalized for losing a case provided he appeared in it and made his submissions." 8. In view of the discussion above, we do not find fault with the order of the State Commission. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.