Full Judgment
(Order)
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member:
1. The appellant/complainant (hereinafter called œthe complainant?) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 11.8.2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar(hereinafter called œthe District Forum?) in consumer complaint No.805 dated 8.12.2006 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.
2. The complaint was filed by the complainant under Sections 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short the Act) against the opposite parties on the allegations that the complainant is father of late Sh. Salinder Singh, who died on 12.9.2006 and he was suffering from Diabetes Mellitus and was taken to hospital of OP No. 1 on 30.8.2006 and OP No. 2 after taking blood group B negative started treatment and liver function report shows that serum billrubin is at 8.9% whereas it should have been less then 1% which shows that he was suffering from defective liver and was having B negative group. Even after 4 days Ops No. 1 and 2 were reluctant to discharge the patient but on the advice of another Doctor, the son of the complainant had left hospital of OP Nos. 1 and 2 and was got admitted in hospital of OP No. 3, where the blood of his son was tested as blood was to be given and on test the blood group was found O-positive whereas Ops No. 1 and 2 had tested his blood group as B-negative and accordingly, the treatment was given. In case the proper test of the blood group and proper treatment would have been given the life of the son of the complainant could have been saved, therefore, the son of the complainant died due to negligence of the Ops, hence, the complaint with the direction to the Ops to pay Rs. 6,75,000/- as compensation.
3. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties. OP No. 1 in his written statement have taken the preliminary objections that the complainant is not covered under the definition of consumer as no amount was received by the replying OP for the investigation of this patient; if the patient was an indoor patient of M/s Aulakh Hospital; the complaint is not maintainable against OP No. 1; the complainant has not approached the learned District Forum with clean hands; there is no evidence worth the name to show that there was any negligence or delay in service at the hands of the OP while conducting requisite investigations during the course of treatment with Aulakh Hospital where the OP is running Clinical Laboratory and no negligence has been committed by this OP during the investigation of the patient in question; the Consumer Fora cannot become a tool at the hands of unscrupulous persons, who filed complaint in the garb of exploitation; the complaint is liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of the Act; there is unexplained delay of number of months to file the complaint; the complaint is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. Replying OP has been unnecessarily made the party in this complaint; the compensation claimed in the complaint is too exaggerated and that the complainant has not produced complete treatment record of the complaint, therefore, the OP reserve the right to rebut the allegations or documents, if any, produced in subsequent period. On merits, it has been again re-iterated that the OP is not running hospital but Clinical Laboratory. The date of admission of the patient in question can be verified from the date of record of the hospital. It has been denied that OP No. 2 after taking the blood group B negative of the said patient started treatment of the patient in question and that liver function test of the said patient showed serium bilirubin at 8.9%. In case the report dated 2.9.2006 is not of this patient but of another Sulinder Singh of aged 3 months. He was investigated on 30.8.2006 as per the orders of the treating Doctor, there is no Doctor named Dr. Gulshanbir Singh working in Aulakh Hospital and Laboratory. It has also been denied that blood grouping of this patient was done in laboratory of OP No. 1 and that the blood group was B negative. As per his knowledge, no transfusion was done of this patient in the Aulakh Hospital, therefore, there is no need for getting blood grouping of this patient done. Even otherwise for the purpose of blood transfusion blood sample of the patient was sent to the blood bank for cross-matching and blood grouping was done by the blood bank. It has been denied that the death had occurred due to blood reaction, therefore, there was no delay or any deficiency in service on the part of this OP and complaint against him is liable to be dismissed.
4. Whereas OP No. 3 in his reply have taken the preliminary objections that the complainant is not a consumer; the complaint is not maintainable either on facts or law; the complaint is gross abuse of the process of this Forum; there is no evidence worth the name that there is any negligence or deficiency in service or delay at the hands of this OP during the course of treatment to the complainants son. The treatment was performed in OP No. 3 hospital on standard scientific lines; the process of Consumer Fora cannot become a tool at the hands of the unscrupulous persons to extract the money; the complaint filed by the complainant is false, frivolous and liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of the Act. There is un-explained delay of number of months to file the complaint; there is no cause of action accrued to the complainant against this OP; the complicated questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, the matter be referred to the Civil Court and that in the absence of death certificate or post mortem report, no cause of death can be ascertained. On merits, it has been stated that OP No. 3 is a Multi Speciality Hospital and that the patient Salinder Singh s/o Sh. Hardev Singh, resident of Village Kakar, Distt. Amritsar aged 18 years was brought to this hospital on 3.9.2006 in a very delirious condition and was immediately attended by the Medical Officer on duty. There was drowsiness ++, Aneurea ++, Jaundice ++++, Odema + and the diagnosis at that time was Hepatic Encephlopathy and immediately the patient was seen by Dr. Rohit Kapoor and proper treatment was started. The patient/ attendants had record of certain investigations got done in the recent past. The patient was treated in fully equipped ICU of the hospital but the condition of the patient did not improve. He was put to ventilator on 11.9.2006 and on 12.9.2006, the patients attendants/ relatives got life support system of the patient removed despite it informed consequences thereof and took the patient against medical advice and after that what happened is not in the knowledge of this respondent. During the course of hospitalization, he was transfused blood after proper investigation done and after getting blood from approved blood bank and after matching of the blood of the patient and the treatment given to the said patient was on scientific lines given by fully qualified experienced Doctors. However, they cannot comment upon the treatment given before coming to OP No. 3 Hospital and ultimately, it was stated that there was no merit in the complaint and the same be dismissed.
5. The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.
6. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, receipts Ex. C-2 to C-11, report of blood bank Ex. C-12, report of blood bank Ex. C-13, death certificate copy Ex. C-14, report of Aulakh Hospital Ex. C-15. On the other hand, opposite party No. 1 had tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Avtar Singh, Prop. of M/s Aulakh Hospital and Clinical Laboratory Ex. R-1, affidavit of Bakshish Singh Ex. R-4, record book of Lab from 30.8.06 to 2.9.06 Ex. R-5. OP No. 3 had tendered into evidence affidavit of Dr. Jarnail Singh Saini Ex. R-2, copy of patient treatment record Ex. R-3 (Pages 1-74). OP No. 4 had tendered into evidence M.S. Randhawa, Sr. Divisional Manager Ex. R-6, Insurance comprising 8 page Ex. R-7.
7. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written statement filed by the Ops, evidence and documents brought on the record, the learned District Forum did not see any merit in the complaint and the same was dismissed.
8. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sh. S.K. Mahajan, Advocate and learned counsel for respondent No. 1 Sh. Updip Singh, Advocate and learned counsel for respondent No.4 Sh. B.S. Taunque, Advocate.
10. In the grounds of appeal, it has been contended that the deceased Sulinder Singh was suffering from Diabetes Mellitus and was admitted in the hospital of OP No. 1 whereas OP No. 2 is Doctor of OP No. 1 and he was referred to hospital laboratory for blood test and in the report, blood group of the patient was found to be B-negative. Total serum billrubin was 8.9mg showing defective liver but the proper treatment was not given by OP Nos. 1 and 2 during the four days he remained admitted there and on the advice of some other Doctor, the complainant took his son to the hospital of OP No. 3 where the blood group of his son was found as O+, which shows that OP No. 1 had given wrong treatment and give wrong report of the blood group. The learned District Forum has not appreciated the evidence on the record properly and has referred to the judgments, which are not applicable to the case of the complainant.
11. In case we go through the allegations in the complaint; it has been stated that OP Nos. 1 and 2 found the blood group of the deceased as B-negative whereas in the hospital of OP No. 3 it was found O+, therefore, they have given the wrong treatment to the son of the complainant, which deteriorated the health of his son, ultimately, leading to his death.
12. However, we have to see whether the complainant has been able to connect all the things on the basis of evidence on the record. The complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex. C-1, other documents Ex. C-2 to C-11 are the bills of the medical store with regard to purchase of the medicines. Ex. C-12 is the report of the blood bank referred by Saini Hospital in which blood group has been referred as O+, the same is Ex. C-13. Ex. C-14 is death certificate. Ex. C-15 is the report of Clinical Laboratory dated 2.9.2006 in which the blood group has mentioned as B-negative. But it has been argued by the counsel for the respondents that in this case full particulars of Salinder Singh has not been mentioned, his fathers name or age has not been mentioned. There can be number of patients in the name of Salinder Singh referred to this laboratory for test, therefore, this report authentically does not relate to the deceased. Moreover, if for the sake of arguments, it is taken that the blood group of the deceased was B-negative as determined by OP No. 1, the next question is what type of treatment was given by OP No. 1 on the basis of this report. That medical record has not come on the record. Basically, Aulakh Hospital, who had been managing the patient has not been made a party. OP No. 1 is just laboratory and not the hospital whereas the complainant has confused himself that the hospital and the laboratory are the same institution whereas they are different institutions. Mere testing of blood group is not sufficient till it is held that on the basis of that reports, some treatment was given by Aulakh Hospital to the patient and blood was transfused in Aulakh Hospital on the basis of this laboratory report. In case the blood would have been taken from the laboratory there would have been matching of the blood group in the laboratory as in the case of Saini Hospital, reference to Ex. C-12 dated 11.9.2006 in which the blood group of one Salinder Singh has been referred as O-positive whereas the deceased remained in Aulakh Hospital upto 3.9.2006 and after that on the advice of another Doctor, he was shifted to OP No. 3 Hospital and documents placed on the record that upto 3.9.2006 no blood of B-negative was given to the deceased by Aulakh Hospital on the basis of test conducted by OP No. 1, therefore, firstly, the complainant has failed to implead Aulakh Hospital where the patient was admitted for treatment. It has been specifically stated that OP No. 2 is not working in that laboratory or hospital. No record has been produced by the complainant that he was Doctor in Aulakh Hospital or OP No. 1, therefore, in the absence of specific evidence on the record, no liability can be assigned on OP Nos. 1 and 2. The patient was shifted to OP No. 3 on 3.9.2006 and he died there on 11.9.2006. Op No. 3 tried every possibility to give the treatment. The treatment record of OP No. 3 is on the record. During the course of arguments, the counsel for the appellant has not been able to refer what type of deficiency was in the treatment of OP No. 3. Otherwise every Doctor make every effort to treat his patient with ability but when the patient was taken to the hospital of OP No. 3, his condition was deteriorated and could not control and ultimately, died, therefore, the counsel for the appellant has not been able to lay hand about the deficiency in the treatment given by OP No. 3. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the findings so recorded by the learned District Forum are correct in dismissing the complaint of the complainant. We do not see any infirmity in the order of the learned District Forum.
13. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
14. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 17.1.2014 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
15. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.