Parveen Gandhi vs K.N. Singla

THE facts in this complaint: Mr. Anil Gandhi (since diseased -herein referred as a "Patient") aged about 37 years, was son of a business man having earning of Rs. 10,000 p.m. On 1.7.1999, as he was suffering from fever, got admitted in Golden Century Hospital, New Delhi (the OP -2), under treatment of Dr. K. N. Singla, on same day, at 11 p.m. (Annexure 1). He was given one bottle of Glucose, his condition was improved by next morning. Again, at 9 a.m. on the next day, another bottle of glucose was administered, immediately the patient started shivering, his Blood Pressure (BP) collapsed, condition deteriorated for which the OPs -1 and 2 advised the complainants to shift the patient to Jaipur Golden Hospital, New Delhi (the OP -3), for further treatment (Annexure B). There, he was kept on artificial ventilation, but condition did not improve, he was declared dead at 12.45 p.m. The complainant paid the hospital charges (total Rs. 3,705) vide three receipts (Annexures C, D, E). Thereafter, after lapse of two months, in September, the complainants came to know that the death of his son was due to administration of adulterated glucose and because of negligent treatment by the OP -1 at both hospitals OPs -2 and 3. Despite several requests and visits by the complainant to get the medical records and document for cause of death, the OPs 2 and 3 turned a deaf ear. The complainant alleged that the OPs -1 and 2, just, in order to deny their liability of negligent act & lapses in the treatment has directed the patient to be shifted to Jaipur Golden Hospital. Hence, the complainants filed this complaint and prayed for the compensation of Rs. 22,00,000 and Rs. 50,000 towards mental agony and Rs. 22,000 as litigation costs. The complainant produced Annexures A to E (only hospital bills), and filed affidavit evidences of himself and Dr. Anil Shandil.

Defence:

The OPs -1 and 2 filed their written versions and the affidavit evidences. Denied the negligence, both in giving treatment to the complainant and while shifting to the Jaipur Golden Hospital.

Arguments:

WE have heard the arguments of both the parties. The Counsel for the complainant brought our attention to the opinion of one witness Dr. Anil Shandyl, a Lecturer, in LLRM Medical College, Meerut, who has clearly stated that: Para 5: "due to lack of necessary and requisite medical aid for shifting the patient was not available which was the foremost duty of Golden Century Hospital with OPs/parties and it was well in the knowledge of the doctor that "in absence of requisite and necessary medical aid could be fatal for the patient."

Para 6: "This reflects the carelessness of treatment to the patient at Golden Century Hospital which was without requisite care and adequate facilities, which was to be given to the patient at Golden Century Hospital, which proved fatal for the life of the patient in absence of adequate, requisite and well equipped medical facilities."

The Counsel for the Complainant supported his argument by referring concern medical literature

Principle of critical care medicine.

Mechanical Ventilator Support.

Provisions of critical care. 3. The Counsel further argued that, that life of the patient could have been saved, if timely, medical, surgical intervention with reasonable care and adequate medical facilities would have been provided by the Golden Century Hospital to the patient. Therefore, it was a carelessness approach by OP -1 and OP -2 who had no adequate facilities.

THE Counsel for OP argued that, the Complainants have deliberately suppressed the material fact that the patient was admitted as a case of high fever for 3 days, vomiting and dehydration, otherwise, he would have been given the required treatment. Complainants themselves purchased the glucose; the first bottle administration was uneventful. On the next day morning (i.e. 2.7.1999), the condition of the patient did not improve; fever was high at 103øF. All of a sudden, the patient had developed seizure and due to this, his condition kept on deteriorating, with decrease in respiratory effort, due to complications by aspiration of vomitus into the trachea/wind pipe. There was persistent fall in blood pressure, despite all measures and he was put on artificial ventilation. Hence, argued that the allegations of the Complainants are baseless, that around 9 a.m. another bottle of glucose was injected to the patient which resulted in serious complications, the said Glucose was brought by the complainants, from outside shop. Due to the serious condition, the patient was transported to OP -3 immediately, with all medical precautions and respiratory care (tracheal intubation and ambu bag). Findings:

IN our observations, the patient was shifted to OP -3, when the patient''s condition started deteriorating. We have perused the medical records on file. The hospital treatment sheets at OP -3, recorded that the condition of the patient at 11 a.m., 11.30 a.m., was very serious and emergency treatment and necessary resuscitation and intubation was performed. But, we are surprised to note that, the admission slip shows the time of admission at 12:45 p.m. on 2.7.2009 to Jaipur Golden Hospital and subsequently declared dead at 12:45 p.m. on the same day. We find that the complainant has not filed any police complaint at the time of death, the post mortem was not got conducted and no Medical Board was got constituted to determine the cause of death. There is no evidence to prove that the complainant has sent the glucose bottle for chemical analysis, no complaint was lodged against the chemist and the manufacturer of the said glucose.

WE put reliance upon the Bolam''s Test and the several judgments of Hon''ble Supreme Court, as well this Commission. In the case Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., : I (1996) CLT 532 (SC) : IV (2006) CPJ 8 (SC) : (1996) 2 SCC 634, the Hon''ble Supreme Court, held that: "in the very nature of medical profession, skills differs from doctor to doctor and more than one alternative course of treatment are available, all admissible. Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he is performing his duties to the best of his ability and with due care and caution. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession."

In Hucks v. Cole,, (1968) 118 New LJ 469, Lord Denning stated that:

"a medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field."

Therefore, we of considered view that, the OP, Dr. Singla treated the patient of high grade fever with due caution and due to serious deteriorating condition, he referred the patient to another hospital, for further management. Referring the patient to another hospital, is not negligence; it is a standard of medical practice. We find no substance in the affidavit of Dr. Anil Shandyl and the medical literature also does not support this case. No doubt, the hospital records of Jaipur Golden Hospital show some discrepancies, in the timings, which, in our opinion, are unintentional, which were made during handling of dire emergent situation. Also, the complainant failed to prove negligence on the part of OP and also there was no post mortem, chemical analysis report of glucose bottle, in question. We cannot draw any presumption to hold the OP negligent in this case. Accordingly, we dismiss this complaint and parties are directed to bear their own costs.