- (1.) This appeal arises out of order dated 15.9.2000 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred as the "Commission") in Original Petition No. 265 of 1992, whereby a complaint filed by Ms. Ins. Malhotra-complainant has been dismissed.
(2.) Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 2.1. The complainant-appellant herein is the sister of Priya Malhotra who died on 24.8.1989 in Bombay Hospital-respondent No. 7 herein. In May, 1989 Priya Malhotra complained of burning sensation in stomach, vomiting and diarrhea. On 13.7.1989, her family doctor Dr. P.H. Joshi advised to get the patient admitted to Bombay Hospital for investigation and treatment under the care of Dr. Ramamoorthy. On 14.7.1989, Priya Malhotra was admitted to the Bombay Hospital, but on that day Dr. Ramamoorthy was out of station and in his absence Dr. Chaubal examined Priya Malhotra and prescribed to undergo several tests. Priya Malhotra was diagnosed as having Koch's of abdomen. 2.2. On 16/17.7.1989, Dr. Jain suspecting kidney problem referred Priya Malhotra to Dr. A. Kriplani, a Nephrologist. On 18.7.1989, Dr. A. Kriplani informed appellant that Priya Malhotra had kidney failure and chronic renal failure. The appellant consented for immediate Haemodialysis as was recommended by the doctor to save Priya Malhotra's life. In spite of Heamodialysis, Priya Malhotra continued to have vomiting and diarrhea and the same went out of control. Dr. A. Kriplani directed performance of Ba-meal and Ba-enema tests suspecting Koch's of abdomen and the two tests conformed dilated loops of small intestine. Dr. Vasant S. Sheth carried out ascetic tapping. On 22.7.1989, Dr. A. Kriplani advised Peritoneoscopy for confirming Koch's of abdomen. On the same day, on the recommendation of Dr. Vasant S. Sheth and Dr. A. Kriplani, ultrasonography of upper abdomen was performed on Priya Malhotra for confirmation of Koch's of abdomen. On 31.7.1989, Dr. Vasant S. Sheth performed ascetic tapping on Priya Malhotra and the diagnosis made from Histopathologist was confirmation of Koch's abdomen (anti malignant). Dr. A. Kriplani prescribed Streptomycin injection with other medicines. The two reports of M.D. (Pathologist) and Dr. Arun Chitale dated 1.8.1989 would show no T.B. organism in Peritoneal Fluid. On 3.8.1989, Dr. A. Kriplani advised CT scan for confirmation of T.B. lower abdomen. Priya Malhotra vomited and could not be controlled even by giving I.V.C.C. Perinorm injection. On 6.8.1989, chest X-ray taken by X-ray Department of the Bombay Hospital showed lung and pleura normal. 2.3. On 8.8.1989, Dr. Vasant S. Sheth and Dr. [Mrs.j S.R. Jahagirdar examined Priya Malhotra and advised laparoscope. The operation was to be performed by Dr. [Mrs.] S.R. Jahagirdar on 9.8.1989. Four bottles of blood were given to Priya Malhotra during diagnosis. Liver profile and renal profile tests were performed. Liver profile showed 'Australia Antigen' positive and renal profile showed low serum sodium and serum potassium. On 9.8.1989, Dr. Pramod came at about 3:00 a.m. and removed Femoral Cath. On that day, Priya Malhotra was having high fever. On the same day. Dr. [Mrs.] S. R. Jahagirdar, could not attend the hospital and in her absence Dr. Pratima Prasad performed Laparoscopy when Dr. A. Kriplani, Dr. Vasant S. Sheth and Dr. S. Gupta were also present in the O.T. 2.4. After the operation, Priya Malhotra was removed to the recovery room where she allegedly told the appellant by gestures that she was having severe pain in the chest and she was speechless and having breathing difficulty. Dr. A. Kriplani observed that there was no need to worry and Priya Malhotra would be kept in I.C.U. for two days under observation. On 12.8.1989, Priya Malhotra was shifted to 3rd floor of the hospital. According to the appellant, Priya Malhotra started becoming semi-conscious and erratic in behaviour. On 20.8.1989, Priya Malhotra developed intestinal fistula leading to her throwing out liquid from her body and she developed serious infections septicemia. On 22.8.1989, Priya Malhotra became deep unconscious and she passed no urine and her face was swollen. On 23.8.1989, Dr. A. Kriplani advised Haemodialysis and Pneumothorax. Unfortunately, on 24.8.1989 at about 9:15 a.m., Priya Malhotra expired. On the same day, post-mortem upon the dead body of I'riya Malhotra was conducted at J. J. Hospital, Bombay. The post-mortem report revealed the cause of death was due to Peritonitis with renal failure. 2.5. The appellant filed police complaint against the doctors of Bombay Hospital in Azad Maidan Police Station, Bombay. In the year 1990, complaint was also filed before the Maharashtra Medical Council. 2.6. On 2.7.1992, written complaint was sent by post to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which was registered as Complaint No. 265 of 1992 against Dr. A. Kriplani, Dr. [Mrs.] Pratima Prasad, Dr. S. Gupte, Dr. Singhania, Dr. [Mrs.] S.R, Jahagirdar and Dr. Sachdeva. On notice, the respondents entered appearance and filed their separate written statements. The Bombay Hospital initially was not a party in the complaint. An application for impleadment of Bombay Hospital as party respondent No. 7 was allowed by the Commission in the year 1996.
(3.) During the course of the proceedings before the Commission, the appellant was granted opportunity to produce written opinion of expert doctors in support of her allegations made in the complaint against the named doctors and Bombay Hospital for their medical negligence or lack of proper medical treatment to deceased Priya Malhotra. The appellant could not lead the evidence of any expert doctor in support of her complaint and she pleaded before the Commission that no expert doctor was willing to give an opinion against the doctors of Bombay Hospital though, according to her, unofficially some doctors had expressed an opinion that injustice had been done to deceased Priya Malhotra. The appellant was issued notice to appear on 9.7.2000 for recording of her cross-examination. The Counsel for the respondents stated before the Commission that they did not intend to cross-examine the appellant. None of the respondent had appeared as witness in support of his or her defence, as pleaded in the written statement. 3.1. On consideration of the entire material on record, the Commission vide its order dated 15.9.2000 dismissed the complaint of the appellant holding that the complainant has not been able to establish a case of medical negligence against the respondents.;