NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
CONSUMER CASE NO. 86 OF 2016
 
1. SHASHI SHEKHAR DVIVEDI
18, Sardar Patel Path, North S.K. Puri, Boring Road,
Patna -13
Bihar.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus 
1. DR. MUKUND PRASAD & 3 ORS.
Neuro Surgeon, C/o. Paras HMRI Hospital, Bailey Road, Raza Bazar,
Patna -14,
Bihar.
2. Dr. Abhishek,
Neuro Physician, C/o. Paras HMRI Hospital, Bailey Road, Raza Bazar,
Patna - 14,
Bihar.
3. Dr. Ravi Shanker Singh,
Medical Suprintendent Paras HMRI Hospital, Bailey Road, Raza Bazar,
Patna - 14,
Bihar.
4. Paras HMRI Hospital ,
Through Medical Suprintendent Bailey road, Raza Bazar,
Patna- 14,
Bihar.
...........Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER

For the Complainant :
Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate with
Mr. Shaurya Sahay, Advocate and
Mr. S. K. Sarkar, Advocate
For the Opp.Party :

Dated : 26 Apr 2016
ORDER

DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER

1.      The complainant, Mr. Shashi Sekhar Dvivedi, filed this complaint against the opposite parties, Dr. Mukand Prasad (OP1), Dr. Abhisek (OP2), Dr. Ravi Shanker Singh (OP3) and Paras HMRI Hospital, Patna as OP4 alleging gross medical negligence and deficiency in service causing death of his wife, Smt. Saroj Dvivedi aged about 65 years.

2.      We have heard the learned counsel for complainant at the admission stage. He argued and narrated the facts of this case that, on 24-06-2015 at 6:00 AM, Smt. Saroj Dvivedi (hereinafter referred as patient) was taken to emergency wing of Paras HMRI Hospital (OP4). She had acute pain, she was responding to instructions. The junior doctors attended the patient and advised for emergency CT scan. The complainant deposited Rs.40,000/-. The CT Scan revealed blood spots in the right side of brain. As per instructions of              Dr. Abhishek, a Neuro Physician (OP3), the patient was shifted to ICU and conventional treatment was started. The patient was then shifted to surgical ICU. The nephrologist also   examined the patient, he advised dialysis. During dialysis the patient’s condition further deteriorated, therefore, she was put on ventilator. The CT scan report revealed “right side hemorrhage and midline shift of brain towards the left side”. The reports were seen by OPs 1&2, decision of immediate surgery was taken.  The OP1 categorically stated that by operation, there is a chance of survival. The hospital gave an estimate of Rs.3,50,000/- for surgery. Accordingly, the complainant deposited Rs.67,000/- in the midnight and requested to expedite the operation and assured to deposit remaining amount in the morning but, the hospital authority denied it, and informed that the operation cannot be done, unless the full amount is paid. Therefore, due to such inhumane attitude of OPs, with great hardship, the complainant arranged to pay further Rs.1, 67,000/-. The hospital authority decided to carry out operation in a hurried manner, before arrival of OP1. This amounts to violation of Regulation 3.5 of Ethic Regulation which requires that a specialist doctor should communicate his opinion in writing to the attending physician, but the same was not done by Dr. Mukund Prasad/OP1 either before undertaking the alleged operation or after the operation. Thus, OP-1 has violated Regulation 3.6 of Ethic Regulation and also rendered the service with deficiency and the act was also negligent, for the sake of money. The patient was taken to operation theatre at 1.00 A.M. surgery was over by 4.30 P.M. The patient was put on the ventilator and informed that there was no chance of survival of the patient. Thereafter, patient was shifted to ICU. It was shocking to see that the head of the patient was not shaved. The attendant of patient asked the doctor about CD of operation, but it was refused to give. The relatives asked about post operation CT, to know about operation, so performed. The doctors behaved rudely with the patient’s attendant. The OP1 never attended the patient after surgery in the recovery room. Thus complainant alleged that, operation was never performed.  The patient unfortunately expired on 27-06-2015. The OP-4 did not give death summery or complete medical record, handed over some copies of reports, thus, it clearly shows that OPs conduct was bizarre and wanted to hide something, or to tamper their records and for the sake of money. Therefore, the complainant filed this instant compliant for claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 15% p.a., from the OPs.

3.      We have heard the counsel at the admission stage. We have perused medical record and the death summary issued by Department of Neurology of Paras Hospital. It revealed that,

Diagnosis:

  • Large ICH with midline shift.

  • < >< >< >

    Type II Diabetes Mellitus

  • < >

The patient was investigated for laboratory tests and CT scan study. Opinions from Departments of Cardiology, Nephrology and Neurosurgery were taken. On the same day, i.e. on 25.06.2015, an urgent de-compressive craniotomy was done. Thereafter, on 27-06-2015 patient suffered cardiac arrest, and subsequently died.

4.      The “Casualty Card” revealed the patient was admitted with the complaints of sudden onset of drowsiness, left side weakness, slurring of speech. She was a known case of HDN/CAD/Post PTCA/CKD. The patient was admitted and started emergency medication after NCCT Head. It was advised as no anti-platelet drugs, given injection Mannitol and Rantec. The patient was under observation of cardiologist and neurologist. The doctor’s assessment sheet/progress sheet revealed that, the OP doctors mentioned about the outcome, as “patient may die on OT table or even after 1 hour of post operatively or patient may undergo vegetative”. This was explained to the patient’s attendant, who put the signature, thus it was an informed consent. The doctor’s assessment sheets clearly show that the patient was regularly examined and monitored for vital signs and treatment. It was also repeatedly mentioned in the medical record that the condition of the patient was poor. Therefore, in our view, it is not prima facie case of medical negligence. The OP1 had given proper treatment as per standard of practice during the emergency. Several judgments of this Commission and Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “No cure should be taken as negligence of a doctor”. Therefore, on the basis of foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit to entertain or admit this complaint. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed.  

Considering the facts and circumstances, the Registry is directed to refund Rs.5000/- fees paid by the complainant.

 
......................J
J.M. MALIK
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
DR. S.M. KANTIKAR
MEMBER