S.K.Sethi vs RAKESH MALHOTRA

COMPLAINANT Nos. 2 and 3 are the minor children of complainant No. 1. Smt. Sunita Sethi w/o complainant No. 1 and mother of complainant Nos. 2 and 3 was employed with East Patel Nagar Branch of Syndicate Bank and drawing gross salary of about Rs. 6,850 per month. It was alleged that a week prior to 17.9.1996, complainant No. 1 and his wife who complained of weakness, visited the clinic of opposite party and after examining complainant No. 1''s wife the opposite party opined that she had low blood pressure and asthma for which he prescribed some medicines. On 17.9.1996, complainant No. 1 and his wife again visited the clinic of opposite party as the later one was feeling weak. Opposite party prescribed medicines for two days. It was stated that after complainant No. 1 and his wife came back home after attending their offices the wife complained of uneasiness. Therefore, complainant No. 1 took her to the clinic of opposite party at about 7.00 p.m. After examining Smt. Sunita Sethi the opposite party put her on glucose. COMPLAINANTs allege that she was administered Imferon injection without giving test dose. After 5/10 minutes, she complained of uneasiness and sinking. Opposite party asked complainant No. 1 to bring certain medicines from the Chemist and when he returned with medicines after about five minutes, he saw the lips and tongue of his wife turning blue and she was having difficulty in breathing. Seeing the worsening condition of his wife, complainant No. 1 took his wife to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. Opposite party reluctantly agreed to accompany him to the hospital. It was further alleged that on reaching hospital Smt. Sunita Sethi was declared as brought dead at about 7.45 p.m. Opposite party has been negligent in treating her. On the basis of statement of complainant No. 1 an FIR under Section 304A was recorded at P.S. Prasad Nagar on 17.9.1996 against the opposite party. Post-mortem examination of the wife of complainant No. 1 was conducted, later on. It was prayed that opposite party be directed to pay amount of Rs. 30 lakh by way of compensation for having caused the death of Smt. Sunita Sethi on account of negligence in treatment.

OPPOSITE party contested the complaint by filing written version. It was alleged that on 17.9.1996 Smt. Sunita Sethi visited the clinic of opposite party at 10.00 a.m. with symptoms of fever, general-bodyache, weakness and lethargy and he diagnosed it a case of viral fever c Mod. Anemia c low B.P. She was advised oral fluids and I.V. fluids if her condition did not improve. At 6.30 p.m. complainant No. 1 rang the opposite party telling that condition of his wife has deteriorated. He advised complainant No. 1 to bring her to his clinic. Both of them reached the clinic by 7.00 p.m. On checking, blood pressure of Smt. Sunita Sethi was found to be 80/50. complainant No. 1 who was advised to take his wife to some hospital, declined to do so as his children were alone at home. At 7.10 p.m. Smt. Sunita was given DNS and injection Decadron 1ml. I.V. direct. At 7.15 p.m. injection Optineuron 3 ml. in glucose bottle was given. At 7.18 p.m., injection Imferon 0.5 ml. I.V. test dose direct was given. At 7.20 p.m. injection Efcorlin I.V. direct was administered. Between 7.22 p.m. and 7.25 p.m. injections Mephentine I.V. direct and Adrenaline 0.2 ml. s/c were administered. As her condition was deteriorated the opposite party advised complainant No. 1 to immediately rush her to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. He also accompanied them to the hospital. They reached hospital at about 7.40 p.m. CMO after examining Sunita Sethi declared her as brought dead. Complainant No. 1 insisted for preparing MLC. It was denied that there was negligence on part of opposite party in treating the deceased and/or the complainants are entitled to the compensation claimed. We have heard Mr. G.S. Vashisht for complainants and the opposite party.

Post-mortem examination of the deceased was conducted on 18.9.1996 by the Department of Forensic Medicine, Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi. Copy of autopsy report is at pages 16-17. After the viscera report was received, final opinion regarding cause of death of the deceased was recorded in the report dated 23.4.2003 (copy at page 60). Copies of MLC of the deceased prepared by the hospital is at page 36 while that of FIR at pages 13 to 15. Contention advanced by the opposite party was that he had administered only the test dose of Imferon injection which could not have caused the death of Smt. Sunita Sethi. It was pointed out that the MLC which was prepared on the basis of information supplied by complainant No. 1 also notices that only the test dose of the said injection was given to the deceased. According to the opposite party, it was at the stage of lodging FIR that complainant No. 1 alleged that Injection imferon was given without any test dose. It was further pointed out that no definite opinion regarding the cause of death was given in the final report dated 23.4.2003. Final opinion as recorded in this report reads thus: "No definite opinion can be given regarding the cause of death. The anaphylactic reaction is ruled out because of negative viscera analysis report. "

ANY injection reaction acts as a poison in the body and all changes as are specific to poisoning are seen in viscera. Further, in case of any reaction, changes would occur in larynx and trachea. As is manifest from the said report, no poisoning was detected in the viscera of Smt. Sunita Sethi. Autopsy report dated 18.9.96 does not indicate any change in larynx and/or trachea of the deceased. Stand taken by the opposite party that only a test dose of injection Imferon was given to the deceased is supported by the said MLC. Reaction due to test dose could not have caused the death of the deceased. Assuming for the sake of argument that vial of Imferon injection was given through the drip without test dose being given the autopsy report dated 18.9.1996 and final opinion as recorded in the report dated 23.4.2003 completely rule out the death of Smt. Sunita Sethi due to administration of said injection. Opposite party, therefore, cannot be held deficient in service in treating the deceased. Complainants have miserably failed to prove the case of medical negligence on part of the opposite party. Complaint, thus, deserves to be dismissed being without any merit. Dismissed as such. No order as to cost. Complaint dismissed.