MASTER SHIVANSHU Vs. DOON VALLEY HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SH . Shambhu Prasad Uniyal, Father and Natural Guardian of Master Shivanshu, (hereinafter to be referred as "Complainant") has filed this consumer complaint before this Commission under Section 12 read with Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging medical negligence committed by opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3; Doon Valley Hospital; Dr. Rakesh Mamgain and Dr. (Smt.) Manju Ranjan (Rawat) in his son's treatment and compensation of Rs. 22,19,320 (Rupees twenty -two lacs nineteen thousand three hundred twenty only) along with interest 12% per annum from 3.5.2006 till the date of payment.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the consumer complaint is being filed through the father and natural guardian Mr. Shambhu Prasad Uniyal on behalf of the complainant -a minor child age about 10 months approximately. The complainant was born to Mr. Shambhu Prasad Uniyal (Father) and Smt. Uma (Mother) on 26.3.2006 in Government Hospital, Rishikesh. He was born by normal delivery. Both the complainant and his mother were discharged on 28.3.2006 from the said Government Hospital. After one month from the date of birth, the complainant started getting fever, which despite regular treatment persisted and when in high fever, he started getting febrile attacks. The Doctors of the Government Hospital, Rishikesh advised CT Scan, etc. of the complainant to detect the cause. Dr. Narendra Raturi of the said Government Hospital, who was treating the complainant, contacted Dr. Rakesh Mamgain -opposite party No. 2 and discussed the problem of the complainant and as per advice, the complainant was brought to Dehradun, where he was admitted on 3.5.2006 at Doon Valley Hospital, Dehradun -opposite party No. 1. Immediately after admitting the complainant attending doctor, i.e. opposite party No. 3 therein, advised CT scan of the complainant's brain. Hence, as per advice, immediately CT Scan of the complainant was got conducted at Suri Diagnostic and Imaging Center, Dehradun. After CT Scan had been conducted, the complainant was brought back to Doon Valley Hospital on3.5.2006. There the attending doctors of Doon Valley Hospital gave a note to the complainant's father to bring medicines and injections, etc. for the child. The complainant then was put on intravenous drip/injection from 3.5.2006 itself. In the night of 3.5.2006 when the complainant's mother was allowed to enter the ward after the intravenous drip/ injection had been implanted, for breast -feeding the child, she found that at the site and around where the intravenous drip / injection had been implanted on the right hand of the complainant, the fingers had turned blue. The nurse on duty immediately was informed. The said nurse casually stated that it was because of tightness of theband around the wrist. However, nothing was done despite repeated requests and after much persuasion, the nurse agreed to apprise the opposite parties about the condition of the fingers of right hand of the complainant. The complainant's father and mother were called upon to leave the ward thereafter as only patients can stay inside. Attending staff of opposite party No. 1 would look into and take care was stated, but neither the doctors of the opposite party No. 1 attended nor bothered to look into the condition of the complainant. The next morning on 4.5.2006, the complainant's father and mother, when were permitted to enter, were taken aback to see that the entire forearm of the complainant had turned blue and the palm, dark blue during the night. This condition was again then immediately informed to opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, who informed thib is nothing serious. Casually it was advised that by applying turmeric boiled in hot water three or four times, the condition would become alright and hurriedly the complainant was discharged. The right arm of the complainant was bandaged after covering it with wool and full sleeves T -shirt was put and discharged from the opposite party No. 1. On the advice of opposite party No. 2, the complainant along with his parents returned back to Rishikesh and Turmeric in boiled hot water was applied after removing bandage on the right forearm, palm and fingers, but there was no improvement. Seeing the deteriorating condition of the complainant, his parents were alarmed. Hence the complainant again was brought back to Dehradun on 6.5.2006 to consult the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 of opposite party No. 1. However, the attitude of doctors of opposite party No. 1 particularly opposite party No. 2 was simply evasive. The complainant's parents being in a fix, hence, along with the complainant went to Dr. Sachin Suri, where earlier CT Scan was got done on 3.5.2006. There a colour Doppler Imaging of the Vessels of Right Upper Limb of the complainant was got conducted by Dr. Sachin Suri at Suri Diagnostic and Imaging Center. The Doppler findings were suggestive of no flow of blood in the Palmer Arch and Digital Arteries on the right arm including the hand of the complainant, i.e. the site where the intravenous drip/injection was implanted by the doctors of opposite party No. 1. This condition on the right hand of the complainant has developed as a vascular supply of blood to the right hand was occluded, because of very tight bandage applied at the side of intravenous drip/injection applied on the complainant at opposite party No. 1. However, it was so negligently and tightly applied that the vascular supply to the hand was occluded and as a result whereof Gangrene developed therein. The cause of developing of Gangrene on the right hand of the complainant, is directly attributable to the negligence of the doctors of the opposite party No. 1 in application of intravenous drip/ injection on 3.5.2006 and the bandage therein on a tender child of just about one month. Proper care, in applying bandage at the sight where intravenous drip/injection had been applied, had not been done due to laches/ negligence of the doctors of the opposite party No. 1. That further since there was no relief to the complainant during the stay from 6.5.2006 at Dr. Suri's Hospital, on the advice the complainant's father shifted the complainant toPGI, Chandigarh. Doctors atPGI, Chandigarh on 9.5.2006, after admitting the complainant in Emergency, observed that Gangrene had been developed on the right hand of the complainant due to wrong administration of injection. There was Gangrene on the fingers as well as discolouration of both Palmer and Dorsal Aspects of the complainant's right hand extending to the forearm, because of negligence of the doctors of opposite party No. 1. The fingers of the right hand Palm gradually shrinked and become stiff. Because of the negligence of the doctors of the opposite party No. 1, the complainant's right hand up to wrist had to be amputated at the level of Metacarpophalangeal joint of the right hand. That even after amputation of right arm wrist of the complainant treatment at Himalayan Institute Hospital at Jollygrant, Dehradun for Septicemia had to be got done from 10.8.2006. That negligence is writ large on the face of it in conducting medical duties undertaken by the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 of opposite party No. 1. Negligence is prima facie self -apparent, nothing further is required to deduce it. Due to laches /negligence in performance of medical responsibilities as mentioned above, the complainant has become permanently handicapped and his entire life ruined. As a result of negligence of doctors of opposite party No. 1, not only the complainant but the complainant's parents are undergoing mental trauma, agony and the complainant shall throughout his life suffer from the ignominy of no right hand and consequent deformity. In view of the above on behalf of the complainant, his father had got issued a legal notice dated 16.11.2006 through Advocate to the opposite party No, 2 to offset and compensate for the negligence in which towards medical expenses already incurred in opposite party No. 1 -Doon Valley Hospital, Dehradun; PGI, Chandigarh; Government Hospital, Rishikesh and Himalayan Institute Hospital at Dehradun including costs of medicine, hospitalization stay, fare, ambulance, etc. to the tune of Rs. 17,320 was sought. The complainant further sought compensation towards mental pain, agony, harassment, humiliation/future prospects, etc. and for loss of earning to the complainant's father during this period a sum of Rs. 2,30,000 and towards permanent disability and disfiguration from cradle to grave and social stigma to the complainant a sum of Rs. 17,00,000 was claimed. However, a frivolous reply thereto was received. The complainant in addition to the amount sought in the said notice dated 16.11.2006 further seeks a sum of Rs. 2.00 lacs towards future artificial hand which will be put/implanted on the complainant. That the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 stood indemnified with United India Insurance Company, Divisional Office, No. 1,54 Janpath, New Delhi vide insurance cover under alleged Policy Nos. 040100/46/05/0604 and 040100/46/05/0605 respectively both valid for the period from 26.5.2005 to 25.5.2006. Thus, all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation so sought for the negligence and deficiency in service. That the cause of action to the suit arose at Dehradun, when the complainant was admitted in the Doon Valley Hospital, i.e. opposite party No. 1 on 3.5.2006 and was under treatment of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 there, who had applied intravenous drip/injection on the complainant's right hand, which was resulted in Gangrene having developed and consequent amputation of the right hand and since then the cause of action continues.

(3.) THE opposite party Nos. 1,2 and 3 have filed the written statement (Paper Nos. 38 to 44) thereby denying the allegations made by the complainant in the consumer complaint and pleaded that it is wrong to say that any doctor Sh.NarenderRaturiever contacted the opposite party No. 2 or ever discussed any matter with the opposite party No. 2 pertaining to the complainant. The complainant has not made Dr. Raturi or the Government Hospital, Rishikesh party to the consumer complaint under whose treatment the patient was initially in treatment, hence the complaint is bad for non -joinder of necessary party. It is admitted that the CT Scan was advised by the opposite party No. 2 to the patient on3.5.2006 after going through the history of the patient, the patient was suffering from high grade fever with seizures (fits) off and on due to HIE (Hypoxic Ischemic Encephalopathy) and Septicemia, which is an emergent situation. Para 3 of the consumer complaint as stated is erroneous, wrong and is denied. The proper and requisite treatment was duly given by the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. It is wrong to say that the fingers of the child were turning blue at the time of intravenous drip, it is further wrong to say that any such complaint was ever found or made to any of the doctors or nurse of the opposite party No. 1. It is wrong to say that the doctor of the opposite party No. 1 not attended the patient. The allegation made in para 1 of the complaint is just an afterthought of the complainant to defame the answering opposite parties. It is categorically denied that on 4.5.2006, the right forearm of the complainant had turned blue and the palm was dark blue. It is wrong to say that the opposite party Nos, 2 and 3 ever advised for application of Turmeric boiled in hot water. It is further wrong to say that the complainant was discharged hurriedly, it is evident from discharge card filed by the complainant (Paper No. 10) that the patient was discharged on the persistent request of his parents, hence noting to that effect was made on the discharge card as attendant wants to go home "DOPR" (discharge on persistent request). It is further wrong to say that the patient's arm was covered with wool or full sleeves. The answering opposite parties are not aware what the wards of the patient did after taking the child to Rishikesh, the complainant or his parents never turned up after4.5.2006 to the answering opposite parties. It is categorically denied that the parents of the complainant visited opposite party No. 2 on 6.5.2006. The opposite parties are not aware as to what happened after 4.5.2006, when the patient was taken away by their wards from the hospital. It is wrong to say that the complainant had developed Vascular supply of blood due to intravenous drip/injection applied on the complainant at opposite party No. 1, it is pertinent to mention that the bandage is applied at the time of giving drip to the infants as the infants move their hand very on and off being unware of the treatment and taking out the drip needles, whichmight resultinto an injury, hence to prevent the same a very soft bandage is applied, so the child do not move his hand till the drip is over. It is also pertinent to mention that if the bandage applied on the hand of the patient is tight the drip would automatically stop. In the present case, the patient was treated with full caution and diligence and the drip of glucose and intravenous injections were successfully given and on completion of the drip the complainant's parents took him from the hospital. The complainant is not even aware of the reasons and causes of Gangrene. The complainant's parents have not stated, as to why the patient was admitted to Dr. Suri's Hospital, neither any prescription of Dr. Suri is on record. The opposite parties are not aware as to what happened after the parents of the complainant took him on 4.5.2006 from the hospital -opposite party No. 1, the complainant was in normal condition at the time the complainant was taken away from the hospital. It is wrong to say that there was any negligence in treatment provided by the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. Para 12 of the complaint is not admitted, as the complainant is not the consumer of the answering opposite parties. The patient was treated with due diligence and all reasonable care. Para 14 of the complaint is admitted to the extent that a false, frivolous and baseless notice was issued to the answering opposite parties, which was duly replied vide reply notice dated 30.11.2006. There is no cause of action to the present complaint. The consumer complaint is bad for non -joinder of necessary party. The complainant has not impleaded Dr. Suri, who was the treating doctor of the complainant (as stated by the complainant). Even otherwise the complainant does not disclose any cause of action related to acts of omission and commission of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. The baseless compensation sought has been enhanced just to fit the case within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Commission. In additional pleas, the opposite parties have stated that the complainant wasbrought to the opposite party No. 2 on 3.5.2006 and after going through the history of the patient and records supplied by the wards of the patient, the opposite party No. 2 suggested for an immediate CT Scan. The patient was suffering from high grade fever with seizures off and on due to HIE (Hypoxic Ischemic Encephalopathy) and Septicemia. Immediately on the same day, i.e. 3.5.2006, the patient was given medical treatment as per prescribed procedure with due diligence and care and thereafter the patient was shifted to Neo Natal Nursery where the Intravenous drip of the patient was continued. The condition of the patient was normal and the occurrence of the fits/seizure were controlled. The patient was duly attended by the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 and other doctors on round time and again. On 4.5.2006, after completion of drip, the parents of the complainant insisted on discharge of the patient as the patient was in normal condition. On persistent request made by the parents of the complainant the opposite party No. 2 after writing the prescription of medicines to be given to the complainant, allowed the parents of the complainant to take the complainant to home. After 4.5.2006, neither the complainant was brought nor the parents of the complainant contacted the answering opposite parties. The answering opposite party is not aware as to under what treatment the complainant was before 3.5.2006 and neither aware of what happened after 4.5.2006, when the complainant was taken away by his parents in normal condition. There are several causes of developing Gangrene, a bandage put to administer the movement of hand of a child, who is on drip, cannot cause Gangrene. The treatment given by the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 to the complainant was the best treatment, the infrastructure of opposite party No. 1 is very modern and well equipped. The opposite party No. 2 is M.D. (Pediatric) and has been successfully practising since 1983. The opposite party No. 3 is M.D. (Pediatric) Gold Medalist and is successfully practising since 1992. The treatment to the complainant was given properly, diligently with due care and caution and as per the universally accepted method. There is no deficiency in service and no medical negligence on the part of the answering opposite parties. The answering opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 are the well renowned and reputed doctors of Dehradun. The opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 are duly insured with the United India Insurance Company having Professional Indemnity Policy Nos. 040100/46/05/00604 and 040100/46/05/ 00605, both effective from 26.5.2005 to 25.5.2006 respectively.