SIR GANGA RAM HOSPITAL vs SMT. PRAKASH RANI NAYYAR & ORS

This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 7.8.2007 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Consumer Complaint No. C-09/98 - Smt. Prakash Rani Nayyar & Ors. Vs. Sir Ganga Ram Hospital by which, complaint was partly allowed and OP was directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

Brief facts of the case are that Mr. K.L. Nayyar, husband of complainant No. 1 and father of Complainant no. 2 to 6/Respondents was admitted at OP/appellant hospital due to abdomen pain. After conducting many medical tests in the said hospital on the deceased, Dr. R. Sood advised to give medicine as Tarivid 200 ml, Matrogil inj.Ranitin. Tarivid 100 ml were given to the deceased instead of Tarivid 200 ml. so insufficient and improper medicine was given to the deceased. If the sufficient and proper medicine was given to the deceased, then the deceased could have survived more. Complainants have paid the amount of about Rs.1,75,000/- for the medical tests and the medicines etc. On 26.11.96, Dr. R. Sood stated that the deceased was suffering from duodenal ulcer. Dr. Sood advised for operation immediately to cure duodenal ulcer. Dr. R. Sarangi, surgeon refused to conduct operation immediately and he advised to continue to give medicines as prescribed on 25.11.1996. The concerned doctors did not provide sufficient and proper medicines to the deceased. The deceased was also medically examined. The concerned doctors did not act according to the report. They did not repeat the above said medical sonogram and pathologist test after some duration which was must to know if the medicines were adequate and proper or not. As per report, the water came out from chest to the stomach and there was pus, water and blood in chest and abdomen. Even then the concerned doctors of the OP hospital did not give proper attention and treatment to the deceased. Due to the negligence of the concerned doctors of the OP hospital, the deceased died untimely. The prescribed medicines were not sufficient to cure the disease and infection. On 11.12.1996, the concerned doctors of the OP hospital advised to conduct operation to cure deodenot ulcer. On 13.12.1996, the operation was conducted by the concerned doctors of the OP hospital on the deceased to cure duodenal ulcer, but the perforation was not sealed. The condition of the deceased was not improved by the operation. After the operation, the deceased was transferred to ICU conducting the abdominal operation in presence of pus, water and blood in chest and abdomen would have remained as cause of death. The doctors have not given proper treatment. The concerned doctors did not treat the deceased to be infection free before conducting the operation. The operation did not help the deceased rather it became the cause of death. Hence, the concerned surgeon and medicine doctors are responsible for his death. It is the negligence on the part of concerned doctors of the OP hospital. After the operation, the complainants saw the deceased in the ICU, then they found that there was blood in his teeth/mouth. The complainants got frightened and they complained to the concerned doctors and the nurses about the condition of the deceased. The concerned doctors did not decide the cause of blood from his mouth and they did not treat the deceased which also lead to his death. The deceased died due to negligence and carelessness on the part of concerned doctors, nurses and staff of the OP hospital for providing improper treatment, attention, care and untimely and inadequate services provided by the OP hospital. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complaint filed complaint for compensation of Rs.15,75,000/-.

OP resisted complaint and denied any negligence or deficiency in service in the treatment of Mr. K.L. Nayyar and contended that the patient was attended to and treated by a team of highly skilled, qualified and experienced doctors in their respective fields of specialization and was provided best of the treatment as per standard medical norms and procedures. Shri K.L. Nayyar was brought to the hospital with acute abdominal pain and was examined by Dr. Randhir Sood. Dr. Randhir Sood advised the administration of 200 mg Tarivid I/V twice a day along with other medicines at the time of admission and the patient was given the same dosage as prescribed by Dr. Randhir Sood. The grievance of the complainants that Tarivid 100 ml were given to the deceased instead Tarivid 200 ml is absolutely misconceived. The complainants do not understand that 100 ml of Tarivid contains 200 mg of the drug. The patient had attack of severe pain suggestive of perforation on 23.11.1996 and sought medical advice after three days of home remedies. Investigations done on admission revealed deranged kidney functions and raised TLC count. Conservative management with I/V fluids antibiotics, naso-gastric aspiration and monitoring of vital parameters in high risk patients is a well-accepted mode of management. The patient showed gradual improvement and on 29.11.1996, he passed motion. The patient was being examined 2-3 times every day by the consultants. The patient was steadily improving and had started taking soft diet orally since 6 th December, 1996. He was passing stools regularly. Fresh investigations had revealed recurrence of petonitis in view of which it was decided to operate upon the patient. On 13.12.1996, the patient was operated. Post-operative patient was in the ICU on respiratory support and was being monitored closely. It was further denied that any delay was caused in conducting operation and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties allowed complaint partly as mentioned above.

None appeared for respondents even after service and they were proceeded ex-parte.

Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and perused record.

Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that inspite of no negligence on the part of appellant, learned State Commission committed error in allowing complaint partly on the ground of conventional treatment for a long period whereas treatment was provided as per norms; hence, appeal be allowed and impugned order be set aside.

Complainant based their claim firstly, on the basis of not giving proper medicine; namely, Tarivid-200 ml and secondly, not conducting operation at the earliest. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that as per literature of Tarivid Tablet each 100 mL infusion solution contains 220 mg ofloxacin hydrochloride and doses were properly administered. Perusal of aforesaid literature makes it crystal clear that 100 mL Tablet of Tarivid contains 200 mg ofloxacin and also rightly administered dose to deceased K.L. Nayyar. Thus, there was no deficiency on the part of appellant in giving Tarvid 100 mL Tablet.

As far delay in conducting operation is concerned, perusal of record reveals that as patient had shown gradual improvement, conventional treatment was continued and operation was postponed. It further reveals that on account of recurrence of petonitis, doctors decided to operate and patient was operated on 13.12.1996. Learned State Commission also observed that patient was in the hands of highly qualified and skilled doctors, in such circumstances, no deficiency can be attributed on the part of appellant in postponing surgery.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has also placed medical literature pertaining to Gastroduodenal Disease in the elderly patient in which it has been mentioned that avoidance of emergency surgery is preferred and Co-morbid conditions should be carefully sought, treated, or optimized prior to surgery. Looking to the condition of patient, doctors have not committed any deficiency in postponing operation and putting patient on conventional treatment. Aforesaid literature further reveals that mortality rates for complications of peptic ulcer disease can be 100 times higher in the elderly with bleeding as the most common cause of death. In the case in hand it appears that inspite of best treatment patient could not be saved and he died due to cardiac arrest, no negligence can be imputed on the part of appellant and learned State Commission has committed error in allowing complaint partly and allowing compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

In the light of aforesaid discussion, impugned order is liable to set aside.

Consequently, appeal filed by appellant is allowed and order dated 7.8.2007 passed by learned State Commission in Consumer Complaint No. C-09/98 - Smt. Prakash Rani Nayyar & Ors. Vs. Sir Ganga Ram Hospital is set aside and complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.