N.S.SAHOTA vs NEW RUBY HOSPITAL

THE challenge in this appeal is to the order of the District Forum, Jalandhar dated March 5, 1998 whereby the complaint of complainant/appellant has been dismissed.

THE brief relevant facts necessary to be mentioned for determining controversy are few. THE complainant Sh. N.S. Sahota (Retd. P.C.S. Officer), husband of late Smt. Parkash Kaur alleged that his wife was admitted in the respondent''s hospital on 26.12.1991 and remained there upto 31.12.1991 and the opposite party, Dr. Mandeep Singh Sethi could not properly diagnose the disease of his wife and whatever treatment was given by him was not proper for the ailment of his wife. Hence the opposite parties were guilty of providing deficient services and negligent in giving wrong treatment to his wife. THE appellant has asserted that opposite parties are liable to refund the amount paid to them besides the payment of compensation for damages for driving his wife to death alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. The opposite parties filed their version and admitted the fact that Smt. Parkash Kaur came to New Ruby Hospital on 1.1.1992 where she was admitted as a case of Hypertension with NIDDM with Hyperglycemia with actute bronchitis with delirium. She was old heart patient with enlarged liver as was told by her relations attending her. At that time she was drowsy and had breathing problem and she did not complain of any pain in the chest or headache and was moving all the four limbs. She was investigated on that very day and proper medicines were given after proper tests. The condition of the patient started improving and was able to walk with a light support and she moved in the carridor on 5.1.1992. Her daughter who is also M.D. remained in the hospital and regularly watching the treatment and all the medicines and treatment were given with her consent. Her son-in-law Dr. Harmanjit Singh Heera who is also M.D. in chest diseases from Delhi came on 5.1.1992 just to check her up and he discussed the whole case with the opposite party No. 2 and was fully satisfied and approved the treatment given and diagnosis and investigations done on the deceased. Dr. Kuldip Kaur, M.D., was regularly watching the treatment of her mother and was satisfied with the treatment. Opposite parties denied if the condition of the patient continued to be deteriorating rather it was improving day-by-day. In fact the condition of the patient improved on the very next day, and she started taking food by mouth freely. Fluids which were given on the first day were stopped. Dr. Harminder Singh, M.D. Specialist, a family doctor of the complainant had referred the patient for admission with opposite party No. 1. According to him, he examined Smt. Parkash Kaur on 31.12.1991 at her home when she was discharged from Sethi Heart Hospital, Jalandhar. She was suffering from Diabetes Mellitus with Hypertension with Bronchopneumonia. He opined that the patient suffering from multiple problems like diabetes, hypertension and cardiomegly can collapse suddenly at any time without giving warning signs. Smt. Parkash Kaur died due to heart failure and as per history her diseases were such due to which her sudden collapse cannot be attributed to the negligence of the opposite parties. Both the parties led their evidence on affidavits and documents which resulted in passing the impugned order.

In appeal, the Counsel for the complainant pleaded that Dr. Mandeep Singh Sethi could not properly diagnose the deceased and he miserably failed to tell the real disease of the deceased. On two occasions of emergencies, one between 10.1.1992 and 11.1.1992 when deceased suffered severe heart problem, opposite party No. 2 Dr. S.P.S. Grover was out of station and it was only due to the efforts of Dr. Kuldip Kaur, daughter of the deceased that the patient Smt. Parkash Kaur (deceased) was saved on that day and on the occasion of second fatal emergency. On the intervening night of 12.1.1992 and 13.1.1992 when deceased again suffered a heart attack, only junior doctor namely Ravinder Singh was present and at that time of second emergency, Dr. S.P.S. Grover in spite of the fact that information was given in time reached half an hour late, when the deceased had already breathed her last. No proper instruments were there in the hospital of Dr. S.P.S. Grover. It is further argued that the deceased was suffering from psychatilic problem on 6.1.1992 and from 6.1.1992 to 9.1.1992, he was under the complete treatment of Dr. Kulwant Singh, M.D., the psychiatrist of New Ruby Hospital, Jalandhar, therefore, it cannot be said the deceased was improving. Dr. Kuldip Kaur daughter of the deceased reached New Ruby Hospital only on 8.1.1992 to enquire her health and she was never present in Jalandhar from 26.12.1991 to 31.12.1991, when her mother remained admitted in Holy Health Hospital owned by opposite party No. 3. It has also been argued that the appellant was not supplied relevant documents filed by the opposite parties in the absence of the complainant. Non-supply of copies of affidavits, documents tendered by the opposite parties is a denial of justice and no proper opportunity of being heard was afforded to the appellant.

WE have heard Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records. After going through the records, it is clear that the doctors tried to the best of their knowledge and ability to save the life of the patient. There is nothing on record to suggest that the opposite parties were negligent in the management of the patient. On 11.1.1992 when the deceased felt some severe headache, she was properly attended by Dr. Ravinder Pal Singh who was on emergency duty, and gave proper injection. There is nothing on the records to show that Dr. S.P.S. Grover was out of station and was not available except the allegation of the daughter of the deceased. Dr. Kuldip Kaur with regard to the second emergency Dr. S.P.S. Grover in his affidavit has stated that the patient got up on 13.1.1992 at about 2.30 a.m. and complained of pain in chest. The respondent No. 2, Dr. S.P.S. Singh was called by Dr. Ravinder Pal Singh, doctor on duty. Oxygen inhalation, emergency, I.V. Injection Cardiac Massage and other resuscitation measures were given immediately and continued till 3.30 a.m. but she gave no time and within seconds her heart stopped and not responding to all the emergency medicines and emergency. This is known in heart patients that it can creep severe problems at any time even cardiac arrest. The opposite party Dr. S.P.S. Grover''s affidavit also speaks that it is not a fact that the patient was not given life saving drugs and was not put on oxygen. The opposite party attended the patient immediately and it is also not a fact that Doctor Grover came to attend the patient after half-an-hour of her death. There is nothing to infer that diagnosis made by Dr. Sethi or his line of treatment was not proper especially when her daughter Dr. Kuldip Kaur, M.D. and Dr. Harmanjit Singh Heera, M.D. (son-in-law of deceased) have said nothing in their affidavits against the line of treatment given to the deceased by the opposite party No. 3. Even otherwise, their affidavits seem to be based on sentimental grounds being the close relations of the deceased. The case in hand is not a case of obvious or apparent negligence on the part of the opposite party in the matter of diagnosing the disease. In order to prove negligence it was expected of the complainant to produce medical expert evidence. The position has been cleared by the decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Indian Association v. V.P. Shantha & Ors., III (1995) CPJ 1 (SC)=1995 (2) CPC 602, wherein para 37 of the judgment, it was observed as under : "It is no doubt true that sometimes complicated questions requiring recording of evidence of experts may arise in a complaint about deficiency in service based on the ground of negligence in rendering medical services by a medical practitioner; but this would not be so in all the complaints about deficiency in rendering services by a medical practitioner. There may be cases which do not raise such complicated questions and the deficiency in service may be due to obvious faults which can be easily established such as removal of the wrong limb or the performance of an operation on the wrong patient or giving injection of a drug to which the patient is allergic without looking into the out-patient and containing the warning [(as in Chin Keow v. Government of Malaysia, 1967 ACJ 379 (PC, England)], or use of wrong gas during the course of an anaesthetic or leaving inside the patient swabs or other items of operating equipment after surgery. One often reads about such incidents in the newspapers. The issues arising in the complaints in such cases can be speedily disposed of by the procedure that is being followed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies and there is no reason why complaints regarding deficiency in service in such cases should not be adjudicated by the agencies under the Act. In complaints involving complicated issues requiring recording of evidence of experts, the complainant can be asked to approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief."

SINCE the present case does not fall in the first category of cases of apparent negligence on the part of the doctor, the evidence produced by the complainance himself is considered insufficient to prove negligent of the doctor, more so, in the absence of any medical witness produced on the subject. In the matter of giving proper treatment or delay, if any, in referring the patient for specialised treatment depends upon the opinion given by the experts. There is no evidence on record that the doctors were negligent in discharging their duty in the instant case. The burden of proving the negligent act or wrong diagnosing was on the complainant. The complainant has not produced any direct expert evidence to show that the treatment given to his wife by the opposite parties was wrong which resulted in her death, alleging deficiency in service. In Dr. Laxman Bal Krishan Joshi v. Dr. Drimbak Bapu Golbole & Anr., AIR 1969 SC 128, Hon''ble Supreme Court has held as under : "The duties which a doctor owes to his patient are clear. A person who holds himself out ready to give medical advice and treatment impliedly undertakes that he is possessed of skill and knowledge for the purpose. Such a person when consulted by a patient owes him certain duties, viz. a duty of care in deciding, whether to undertake the case, a duty of care in deciding what treatment to give or a duty of care in the administration of that treatment. A branch of any of those duties gives a right of action for negligence to the patient. The practitioner must bring to his task 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 judges in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law requires. The doctor, no doubt, has a discretion in choosing treatment which he proposes to give to the patient and such discretion is relatively example in cases of emergency."

For the reasons recorded above, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is affirmed. Appeal dismissed.