SHANTI DEVI vs C.K.MITTAL

SMT. Shanti Devi wife of Sh. S.L. Aggarwal of Ambala Cantt. has come up in appeal against the order dated 30.4.1996 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Ambala, whereby her complaint, alleging deficiency in medical service against Dr. C.K. Mittal while treating her for chest pain etc. has been dismissed.

THE complainant had approached the District Consumer Forum with the grievance that when she visited the clinic of Dr. C.K. Mittal with pain in her chest, the Doctor gave her an intervenous injection in her right wrist: As alleged, the injection was not properly given by the Doctor and it had caused severe pain in her right hand as the blood had started oozing out of the vein where the injection had been given. She remained under the treatment of Dr. C.K. Mittal for about 48 hours and thereafter consulted one Dr. Jatinder Kumar Gupta, a Surgeon of Ambala Cantt. and finally she was taken to the P.G.I, at Chandigarh on 26.10.1993. She remained in the P.G.I, for quite sometime and ultimately, since gangrene had developed in her right hand, the Doctors at the P.G.I, advised amputation of the hand. Aggrieved against the aforesaid treatment, the complainant claimed a sum of Rs.4,90,000/- by way of compensation against Dr. C.K. Mittal and the National Insurance Company Ltd. from whom Dr. C.K. Mittal had taken an indemnity policy for Rs. 5 lacs. In the written reply filed by Dr. C.K. Mittal, it was pleaded that when the complainant came to his clinic in the morning of 24.10.1993, she was in a precarious condition complaining of severe pain in her chest. THErefore, an intervenous injection of Fortwin and Phenargan was given to the patient with which the complainant went to sleep after a few minutes. It was further pleaded that all possible care was duly taken and the services of another Dr. Jitender Kumar Gupta, a Surgical Specialist of Ambala Cantt, were also enlisted. It was further pleaded that the consultation with Dr. Jitender Kumar Gupta was made for better treatment of the patient and that there was no negligence on his part in rendering medical service. The complainant tendered in evidence her own affidavit alongwith the affidavit of her husband and also examined Dr. Augustine, Senior Resident General Surgeon in the P.G.I. In rebuttal/ the opposite party Dr. C.K. Mittal also examined himself and Dr. Jitender Kumar Gupta. After examining the matter in detail and the evidence led by the parties, the District Consumer Forum, Ambala, however, came to the conclusion that the complainant failed to establish any negligence or deficiency in rendering medical service on the part of Dr. C.K. Mittal. In fact, the evidence of Dr. Augustine, Senior Resident General Surgeon in the P.G.I., Chandigarh, has clinched the issue against the complainant who had examined her in support of her allegations. According to Dr. Augustine, it was not wrong at all to give Fortwin and Phenargan injection to a patient complaining of severe pain in the chest in order to sedate the patient and relieve him/her of pain. In view of this position, the learned District Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint.

In the appeal before us, the learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently reiterated the submissions made on behalf of the complainant before the District Consumer Forum and has further contended, that as gangrene had developed and the hand of the complainant had to be amputated, it was obviously due to the negligence of Dr. C.K. Mittal, who had given the injection. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents have taken us through the record to plead, that there was no deficiency in service whatsoever in the treatment given by Dr. C.K. Mittal. After hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant and having gone through the record, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of Dr. C.K. Mittal. Firstly, there is no evidence whatsoever on the record on the basis whereof it could be inferred that there was either any negligence or deficiency in service in the matter of diagnosis, process of treatment or there was any departure from the traditional method of treatment in the case of the complainant. Rather, Dr. Augustine, a Senior Resident Doctor of the F.G.I., Chandigarh, has clearly stated that the treatment given by Dr. C.K. Mittal was the one generally being given by the Doctors to patients complaining of similar pain. In view of the aforesaid position, we have no hesitation in holding that there is no legal infirmity in the order passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, which is a detailed and well-reasoned one. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.