Monilek Hospital and Research Centre and Another Vs. Padamchand JaIn and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1107602
CourtRajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Jaipur
Decided OnFeb-05-2013
Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 688 & 723 of 2012
JudgeASHOK PARIHAR, PRESIDENT, THE HONOURABLE MR. ANIL KUMAR MISHRA, MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MRS. SUNITA RANKA, MEMBER
AppellantMonilek Hospital and Research Centre and Another
RespondentPadamchand JaIn and Others
Excerpt:
1. both the aforesaid appeals arise out of the judgment dated 27.04.2012 of the learned district forum, jaipur 3rd jaipur ( hereinafter refered to as the “dcf” ) in complaint no.418/2012 ( 330/08) titled padamchand jain and ors. vs. monilek hospital and ors., whereby the complaint of the complainants was allowed and the hospital and the doctor were directed to make payment of rs. 11 lakhs as compensation and rs. 5000/- as cost of proceedings to the complainants. 2. the first appeal has been filed by the monilek hospital and dr.a.k.sharma ( hereinafter referred to as the “hospital and dr.sharma” ) whereas the second appeal has been filed by the complainants. 3. the brief facts giving rise to the present matter are that the son of complainants no. 1 and 2 anant kumar jain was having some urine problem with headache and he consulted dr.sharma at his residence. dr.sharma diagnosed that it was a matter of kidney failure and suggested transplantation of kidney for which he gave an estimate of around rs. 2,20,000/-. the kidney of anant kumar's mother matched 98% with his son and therefore, she was found a fit person to donate the kidney. the kidney of anant kumar was transplanted on 23.02.05 by dr.sharma at monilek hospital and it incured an expenses of around rs. 3 lakhs. on fifth day after the operation the patient had problem in passing urine at about mid night and the matter was informed to dr.sharma but he did not attend the patient till 4 o'clock in the morning. after arrival at the hospital at 4 o'clock dr.sharma got x-ray and sonography of the patient done and then he informed the complainants that an mri had to be done and the facility of mri was not available at monilek hospital therefore, anant kumar was sent to getwell laboratory at around 10 a.m. with a compounder and sweeper in an ambulance. the mri was performed at 1 p.m. and its report was prepared at 3 p.m. the report of the mri revealed that there was a blood clot in the artery supplying blood to the kidney and therefore, passage of the urine was not possible. a surgical operation was performed at 4 o clock on the same day to remove the clot and this surgery was performed about 15 hours after the patient developed problem with passage of urine. due to non supply of blood to the kidney for 15 hours, it stopped working and ultimately the transplanted kidney was also removed by a surgical operation eight to ten days after the second operation. anant kumar was subjected to dialysis which continued to eleven to twelve months and ultimately he died on 10.03.06. the carelessness and the negligence of the hospital and the doctor in the post operative care resulted in the death of anant kumar. a complaint was filed before the learned dcf which was allowed it by the impugned order. 4. the hospital and the doctor have filed the appeal on the basis that they were not at all negligent or careless in the treatment of the deceased and all due care was taken by them during the surgery and after the surgery. kidney was successfully transplanted but there was some problem after 5th day of the surgery in passage of urine and the matter was informed to the doctor at 4 a.m. and he immediately rushed to the hospital and under took ultrasound of the patient and after consultation with dr.tolani it was advised to perform an mri. the facility of mri was available in very few clinics and laboratories in jaipur and hence the patient was rushed to getwell laboratory and after performance of the mri, anant kumar was operated upon second time for removal of the blood clot in artery. there had been no delay or negligence or carelessness and the doctor took all due deligence and care in pre-operative and post operative surgery in the matter. the learned dcf did not appreciate the evidence and the material available on record and ignored the documents submitted by them and erroneously allowed the complaint, therefore, the appeal be allowed. 5. the complainants have also preferred the appeal on the basis that the compensation awarded by the learned dcf is too meagre and hence an amount of rs. 19 lakhs, as claimed in the complaint be allowed. 6. we have heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the record and the impugned judgment of the learned dcf. 7. it is an admitted fact that anant kumar, the son of complainants no. 1 and 2 was having some renal problem and he was consulted with dr.sharma, who suggsted for kidney transplantation. the complainant no..2 donated the kidney to the patient and kidney transplant was performed by dr.sharma on 23.02.05 at monilek hospital. at the mid night of 28.02.05, the patient developed some problem in passage of the urine. as per the complainants, the nurse informed dr.sharma at around 1.00 a.m. about the problem but he did not turned up in the hospital to take care till 4 a.m. whereas as per the hospital and the doctor the doctor was informed about the problem at around 4 a.m. and he immediately rushed to the hospital. 8. it is pertinent to mention here that no documents were submitted by the hospital and the doctor before the learned dcf in support of their defence and version and they have submitted an “intake and output report' of the patient from 27.02.05 to 28.02.05 before this commission. the hospital and the doctor did not explain or gave any reasons for not submitting these documents before the learned dcf. the learned counsel for the hospital and the doctor submits that it was for the first time at around 3.20 a.m. in the early hours of the day that the patient developed some problem in passage of urine and the quantity of urine was reduced from 750 ml. to just 250 ml. and then from 250 ml. to 20 ml. at around 4.15 a.m. he further submits that the problem was not developed at around 1 a.m. as alleged by the complainants. it is pertinent to mention here that neither any doctor nor the resident of the hospital who maintain the record, certified these documents nor submitted their affidavits in support of the documents. therefore, the photo copies of this intake and output record are not proved and are immaterial. 9. it has been alleged by the complainants that on the 5th day after the surgery, the patient developed problem in passage of urine and the matter was informed to the nursing staff immediately and the nurse attending the patient informed at around 1.00 a.m. i.e. around mid night to dr.sharma, but the doctor arrived at the hospital three hours late at around 4 a.m. though the photo copies of  “intake and output record '' has not been proved by any person preparing it even then for the sake of arguments if the contents of the documents are deemed to be correct, then it is clear that it has not been mentioned in the entire record as to at what time the patient was taken for ultrasound or x-ray and at what time he was taken to getwell laboratory for mri. the complainant's version has been supported by their affidavits which proved that the patient was taken to getwell laboratory at around 10 a.m. i.e. around six hours after the undergoing x-ray and sonography. as the patient was in a serious condition, efforts should have been made by the hospital as well as by the doctor to get the mri done at the earliest but six hours' delay in sending the patient to the getwell laboratory and that too without any doctor shows the casual approach of the hospital and the doctor. it appears that they do not take the matter seriously and sent the patient for mri after six hours and then at getwell laboratory also, the mri was performed at around 1.00 a.m. i.e. around three hours after his arrival at the laboratory. after getting the report of the mri at 3 p.m. the patient was again taken to the monilek hospital and the report revealed that there was a clot in artery leading to the transplanted kidney and the blood could not be supplied due to this clot. as there had been almost fifteen hours' delay in diagnosing the blood clot in the artery to the transplanted kidney, it was damaged and the patient was subjected to second surgical operation to remove the blood clot. 10. on the basis of record available with the learned dcf, we are in agreement with the findings and the conclusions arrived at by it that the monilek hospital as well as dr.sharma did not produce any document to suggest that what cautions were taken by them in the treatment of the patient. the bed head ticket of the patient also did not reveal as to what care was taken and what treatment was given to the patient during the post operative treatment of the patient. the learned dcf rightly observed and concluded that fifteen hours' delay in removing the blood clot was very fatal and if the mri facility was not available with the hospital, then it was the duty of the hospital as well as dr.sharma to personally get the mri done immediately at some other suitable place, but they did not take immediate steps in this regard and sent the patient six hours late to getwell laboratory for mri. the case of the patient should have been taken on priority by the hospital and the doctor, but their act and conduct in treating the patient show that both were very careless and negligent in post operative care of the patient, which resulted in failure of the transplanted kidney also. 11. from the record submitted by the complainants, it is evident that the patient anant kumar's transplanted kidney was also removed about ten days after the surgery and he was subjected to the dialysis for about eleven months which cast the complainants huge expenses. the learned dcf, on the basis of record rightly held the hospital and dr.sharma responsible for carelessness and negligence in treatment of the deceased anant kumar and their act and conduct amounted to deficiency in their services. 12. in the present facts and circumstances, the learned dcf has rightly exercised its discretion while allowing the complaint and has rightly awarded an amount of rs. 11 lakhs as compensation to the complainants, which appears to be adequate and proper therefore, we do not find any substance and merits in both the appeals and both appeals deserves to be dismissed. 13. for the aforesaid reasons the appeal of the monilek hospital and dr.sharma i.e. appeal no.688/2012 and appeal of the complainants i.e. appeal no.723/2012 are dismissed and the judgment dated 27.04.2012 of the learned dcf is affirmed. the monilek hospital and dr.sharma are further directed to pay an additional amount of rs. 10,000/- as cost of proceedings for the present appeals. the compliance of the impugned order of the learned dcf as also of this commission be made within two months. however, the hospital and doctor shall be at liberty to withdraw the amount if any deposited by them before the district forum in the present appeal.
Judgment:

1. Both the aforesaid appeals arise out of the judgment dated 27.04.2012 of the learned District Forum, Jaipur 3rd Jaipur ( hereinafter refered to as the “DCF” ) in complaint no.418/2012 ( 330/08) titled Padamchand Jain and ors. Vs. Monilek Hospital and ors., whereby the complaint of the complainants was allowed and the hospital and the doctor were directed to make payment of Rs. 11 lakhs as compensation and Rs. 5000/- as cost of proceedings to the complainants.

2. The first appeal has been filed by the Monilek Hospital and Dr.A.K.Sharma ( hereinafter referred to as the “hospital and Dr.Sharma” ) whereas the second appeal has been filed by the complainants.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the present matter are that the son of complainants no. 1 and 2 Anant Kumar Jain was having some urine problem with headache and he consulted Dr.Sharma at his residence. Dr.Sharma diagnosed that it was a matter of kidney failure and suggested transplantation of kidney for which he gave an estimate of around Rs. 2,20,000/-. The kidney of Anant Kumar's mother matched 98% with his son and therefore, she was found a fit person to donate the kidney. The kidney of Anant Kumar was transplanted on 23.02.05 by Dr.Sharma at Monilek Hospital and it incured an expenses of around Rs. 3 lakhs. On fifth day after the operation the patient had problem in passing urine at about mid night and the matter was informed to Dr.Sharma but he did not attend the patient till 4 O'clock in the morning. After arrival at the hospital at 4 O'clock Dr.Sharma got x-ray and sonography of the patient done and then he informed the complainants that an MRI had to be done and the facility of MRI was not available at Monilek Hospital therefore, Anant Kumar was sent to Getwell laboratory at around 10 a.m. with a compounder and sweeper in an ambulance. The MRI was performed at 1 p.m. and its report was prepared at 3 p.m. The report of the MRI revealed that there was a blood clot in the artery supplying blood to the kidney and therefore, passage of the urine was not possible. A surgical operation was performed at 4 O clock on the same day to remove the clot and this surgery was performed about 15 hours after the patient developed problem with passage of urine. Due to non supply of blood to the kidney for 15 hours, it stopped working and ultimately the transplanted kidney was also removed by a surgical operation eight to ten days after the second operation. Anant Kumar was subjected to dialysis which continued to eleven to twelve months and ultimately he died on 10.03.06. The carelessness and the negligence of the hospital and the doctor in the post operative care resulted in the death of Anant Kumar. A complaint was filed before the learned DCF which was allowed it by the impugned order.

4. The hospital and the doctor have filed the appeal on the basis that they were not at all negligent or careless in the treatment of the deceased and all due care was taken by them during the surgery and after the surgery. Kidney was successfully transplanted but there was some problem after 5th day of the surgery in passage of urine and the matter was informed to the doctor at 4 a.m. and he immediately rushed to the hospital and under took ultrasound of the patient and after consultation with Dr.Tolani it was advised to perform an MRI. The facility of MRI was available in very few clinics and laboratories in Jaipur and hence the patient was rushed to Getwell Laboratory and after performance of the MRI, Anant Kumar was operated upon second time for removal of the blood clot in artery. There had been no delay or negligence or carelessness and the doctor took all due deligence and care in pre-operative and post operative surgery in the matter. The learned DCF did not appreciate the evidence and the material available on record and ignored the documents submitted by them and erroneously allowed the complaint, therefore, the appeal be allowed.

5. The complainants have also preferred the appeal on the basis that the compensation awarded by the learned DCF is too meagre and hence an amount of Rs. 19 lakhs, as claimed in the complaint be allowed.

6. We have heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the record and the impugned judgment of the learned DCF.

7. It is an admitted fact that Anant Kumar, the son of complainants no. 1 and 2 was having some renal problem and he was consulted with Dr.Sharma, who suggsted for kidney transplantation. The complainant no..2 donated the kidney to the patient and kidney transplant was performed by Dr.Sharma on 23.02.05 at Monilek Hospital. At the mid night of 28.02.05, the patient developed some problem in passage of the urine. As per the complainants, the nurse informed Dr.Sharma at around 1.00 a.m. about the problem but he did not turned up in the hospital to take care till 4 a.m. whereas as per the hospital and the doctor the doctor was informed about the problem at around 4 a.m. and he immediately rushed to the hospital.

8. It is pertinent to mention here that no documents were submitted by the hospital and the doctor before the learned DCF in support of their defence and version and they have submitted an “Intake and output report' of the patient from 27.02.05 to 28.02.05 before this Commission. The hospital and the doctor did not explain or gave any reasons for not submitting these documents before the learned DCF. The learned counsel for the hospital and the doctor submits that it was for the first time at around 3.20 a.m. in the early hours of the day that the patient developed some problem in passage of urine and the quantity of urine was reduced from 750 ml. to just 250 ml. and then from 250 ml. to 20 ml. at around 4.15 a.m. He further submits that the problem was not developed at around 1 a.m. as alleged by the complainants. It is pertinent to mention here that neither any doctor nor the resident of the hospital who maintain the record, certified these documents nor submitted their affidavits in support of the documents. Therefore, the photo copies of this intake and output record are not proved and are immaterial.

9. It has been alleged by the complainants that on the 5th day after the surgery, the patient developed problem in passage of urine and the matter was informed to the nursing staff immediately and the nurse attending the patient informed at around 1.00 a.m. i.e. around mid night to Dr.Sharma, but the doctor arrived at the hospital three hours late at around 4 a.m. Though the photo copies of  “Intake and output record '' has not been proved by any person preparing it even then for the sake of arguments if the contents of the documents are deemed to be correct, then it is clear that it has not been mentioned in the entire record as to at what time the patient was taken for ultrasound or x-ray and at what time he was taken to Getwell Laboratory for MRI. The complainant's version has been supported by their affidavits which proved that the patient was taken to Getwell Laboratory at around 10 a.m. i.e. around six hours after the undergoing x-ray and sonography. As the patient was in a serious condition, efforts should have been made by the hospital as well as by the doctor to get the MRI done at the earliest but six hours' delay in sending the patient to the Getwell Laboratory and that too without any doctor shows the casual approach of the hospital and the doctor. It appears that they do not take the matter seriously and sent the patient for MRI after six hours and then at Getwell Laboratory also, the MRI was performed at around 1.00 a.m. i.e. around three hours after his arrival at the laboratory. After getting the report of the MRI at 3 p.m. the patient was again taken to the Monilek Hospital and the report revealed that there was a clot in artery leading to the transplanted kidney and the blood could not be supplied due to this clot. As there had been almost fifteen hours' delay in diagnosing the blood clot in the artery to the transplanted kidney, it was damaged and the patient was subjected to second surgical operation to remove the blood clot.

10. On the basis of record available with the learned DCF, we are in agreement with the findings and the conclusions arrived at by it that the Monilek Hospital as well as Dr.Sharma did not produce any document to suggest that what cautions were taken by them in the treatment of the patient. The bed head ticket of the patient also did not reveal as to what care was taken and what treatment was given to the patient during the post operative treatment of the patient. The learned DCF rightly observed and concluded that fifteen hours' delay in removing the blood clot was very fatal and if the MRI facility was not available with the hospital, then it was the duty of the hospital as well as Dr.Sharma to personally get the MRI done immediately at some other suitable place, but they did not take immediate steps in this regard and sent the patient six hours late to Getwell Laboratory for MRI. The case of the patient should have been taken on priority by the hospital and the doctor, but their act and conduct in treating the patient show that both were very careless and negligent in post operative care of the patient, which resulted in failure of the transplanted kidney also.

11. From the record submitted by the complainants, it is evident that the patient Anant Kumar's transplanted kidney was also removed about ten days after the surgery and he was subjected to the dialysis for about eleven months which cast the complainants huge expenses. The learned DCF, on the basis of record rightly held the hospital and Dr.Sharma responsible for carelessness and negligence in treatment of the deceased Anant Kumar and their act and conduct amounted to deficiency in their services.

12. In the present facts and circumstances, the learned DCF has rightly exercised its discretion while allowing the complaint and has rightly awarded an amount of Rs. 11 lakhs as compensation to the complainants, which appears to be adequate and proper therefore, we do not find any substance and merits in both the appeals and both appeals deserves to be dismissed.

13. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal of the Monilek Hospital and Dr.Sharma i.e. Appeal No.688/2012 and appeal of the complainants i.e. Appeal No.723/2012 are dismissed and the judgment dated 27.04.2012 of the learned DCF is affirmed. The Monilek Hospital and Dr.Sharma are further directed to pay an additional amount of Rs. 10,000/- as cost of proceedings for the present appeals. The compliance of the impugned order of the learned DCF as also of this Commission be made within two months. However, the Hospital and doctor shall be at liberty to withdraw the amount if any deposited by them before the District Forum in the present appeal.