PARAMJIT KAUR vs DOABA HOSPITAL

JASWINDER Singh, aged about 33 years is alleged to have died on account of negligent act of the opposite parties in the matter of making proper diagnosis and giving proper treatment. Paramjit Kaur his widow and Harbeen Kaur and Ranjot Singh his children claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs from the opposite parties Doaba Hospital Maternity and Surgical Wing and Dr. Ashutosh Gupta of the Hospital. JASWINDER Singh was working as a Cameraman in the Doordarshan Kendra, Jalandhar, earning Rs. 8,000/- per month. Apart from the above, he was looking after his aged parents. He was suffering from fever and in order to get treatment, approached the opposite party on September 28, 1996 at about 9.00 a.m. On the same day at about 8.00 p.m., he was discharged. At the time of discharge, it was mentioned in the Discharge Slip that it was a case of cerebral heomorrahage (cerebral maleria). Annexure C1 is the copy of the discharge slip. On way to Daya Nand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana, JASWINDER Singh died. It was alleged that the opposite party the Hospital was Maternity and Surgical Wing and the Doctors did not have expertise for handling the cases like the one with which JASWINDER Singh was involved. The treatment given was not upto the standard required. On notice of the complaint, the opposite parties submitted their version denying the allegations of the complainant regarding negligent act. It was claimed that the Doctor opposite party No. 2 was competent to handle the case and that services of other experts on the subject were also availed and the treatment provided was proper. The complainant filed replication reiterating the stand as taken up in the complaint. On behalf of the complainant, affidavit of Paramjit Kaur, widow of JASWINDER Singh, affidavits of Amrik Singh, Ranjit Singh, Ravi Kiran, Manjit Singh, Sarwan Singh, and Ujjal Singh were produced. Salary particulars as issued by Doordarshan Kendra of JASWINDER were also produced. On the other hand, the opposite parties produced affidavit of Dr. Ashutosh Gupta as well as affidavits of Dr. H.S. Dhingra, Dr. Rakesh Chowdhary and Dr. Vijay Mahajan. At this stage, it may be stated that Dr. Vijay Mahajan was called by the complainants before removing the patient from the Hospital of the opposite party.

AS held by the Supreme Court in "Indian Medical ASsociation v. V.P. Shantha & Others", III (1995) CPJ 1 (SC)=1995 (2) CPC 602, three types of cases relating to medical negligence can be before the Fora established under the Consumer Protection Act. First type of cases are prima facie cases of medical negligence, which have been stated to be (Example: if left leg was to be operated in fact operation on the right leg was done). In such like cases, no expert evidence is required that the Fora can conveniently adjudicate the dispute of medical negligence. The second category of cases are where expert evidence is required to prove medical negligence on the part of the opposite party. Otherwise, these are not cases of prima facie negligence and the third type of cases may be where inspite of expert evidence being produced, the Fora established under the Act may not be in a position to adjudicate the dispute and may refer the complainant to the Civil Court. The present is not a case of prima facie negligence on the part of the opposite party. After Jaswinder Singh was admitted in the Hospital, some treatment was given. Since his condition deteriorated and after the expert opinion of the Doctors called to the Hospital was obtained, it was decided to refer the patient to DMC, Ludhiana. All these Doctors whose affidavits have been produced have supported the opposite party with regard to the treatment given to the patient being proper. The evidence of the complainants'' relations as referred to above is not considered sufficient or relevant to prove negligent act either in the matter of making diagnosis or providing treatment. The complainant thus, has to suffer for lack of evidence produced to support his allegation of negligent act on the part of the opposite party. It may be observed that initially the complainants were represented by Counsel but after the evidence was led by the opposite party, no body has been appearing on behalf of the complainants. The complainants have thus utterly failed to prove negligent act on the part of the opposite party and are not entitled to any compensation. There appears to be tendency on the part of the complainants to rope in the Doctors in the frivolous litigation under the Consumer Protection Act. It may be so that no court fee is payable on the complaints to be filed under the Consumer Protection Act. By bringing in frivolous litigation, the Doctors are taken out of the Hospitals and brought to the Courts. In the Hospitals, they would have done good cause by providing medical aid to the sick whereas in the Courts, they are made to waste time and suffer harassment. This is the position in the present case. We dismiss the complaint with the direction to the complainant to pay costs of litigation to the opposite parties, which are quantified at Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only). Complaint dismissed with costs.