AICL Cases 2016

1. Justice delayed but not denied - Though AICL member hospital held negligence by state commission, but exonerated to pay compensation part after revision petition before National commission.


Facts:

The pregnant wife of complainant delivered a premature baby at Sarvodaya Hospital (OP 1 ) on 09.03.2004, as there was no NICU facility despite claiming all the emergency facilities including Nursery and ICU and the baby and the patient were shifted to Safdarjung hospital (OP 2), but there also the infant was put into normal ICU instead of NICU with patient of all age group, where the baby acquired infection, resulting in death on 25.04.2004 alleging negligence on part of both the hospitals, the Complainant approached the District Forum seeking direction to the Opposite Parties to refund the amount spent towards medical expenses, pay compensation of ₹19,00,000/- for loss of child, mental agony and harassment, and costs of ₹22,000/-.
Version of Alleged OP’s:
Being an AICL member the matter of OP 1 was well presented under the guidance of medico legal experts, denying all the allegations in written version and stated that the patient was under the treatment of the gynaecologist and visited the Hospital during the antenatal period on 29.11.2003, 17.01.2004 and on 07.02.2004 with a bad obstetric history of two pregnancies in the past, one of which resulted in delivery of a dead baby. On 09.03.2004 the patient was brought to in a critical and life threatening emergency situation with ruptured membrane with the cord lying outside the vulva and the baby in an abnormal position of Breach presentation. Premature delivery with high chances of the unborn child getting. asphyxiated, for better NICU facailites baby was referred to the nearest GTB hospital, nut patient party insisted for OP 2 hospital. It was averred that the doctors of the First Opposite Party Hospital exercised re00asonable knowledge & skill in treating the mother and the infant and that no negligence can be attributed to them.
OP 2 also denied all the allegation stating that treatment was provided free of cost and that the baby was brought with brought in a high risk condition with premature sepsis, bronchopneumonia and respiratory insufficiency as written in Discharge Card and despite providing best treatment for 1.5 months the baby could not survive and hence no negligence can be attributed.
Held by DCF:
Based on the evidence adduced, the District Forum dismissed the Complaint observing that the OP 1 Hospital had operated upon the patient to save her life and that of the baby and that the Complaint was not maintainable against the Second Opposite party Hospital as the entire treatment was rendered free of cost.
First Appeal before State commission:
The State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum and allowed the FA No.429 of 2007 holding both the OPs guilty of negligence but awarded compensation against the OP 1 and directed to pay an amount of ₹2, 00,000/- as compensation with costs of ₹20,000/-.  The case against OP 2 was dismissed.
Revision petition before National commission:
With the promise to fight for medical fraternity AICL on behalf of OP 1 filed a revision petition U/S 21(b) of CPA, 1986 was filed against the order dated 25.11.2013 passed by state commission. The learned court held that the decision of the State Commission, granting immunity to the OP 2 Hospital is unsustainable.  It is set aside accordingly and the Revision Petition succeeds to that extent. And since the OP 2 has also been held to be grossly guilty of medical negligence, the compensation awarded (₹ 2,00,000/-) by the State Commission in favour of the Complainant, shall be paid by the said OP 2 Hospital, viz.

2. Complaint of negligence dismissed, State commission founds no merit in the case.


AICL member doctor operated the patient / complainant on 29.12.2009 for Varicocelectomy and was discharged stating the surgery was uneventful. Thenafter the complainant applied for the air force service and got selected in written examination but in got rejected in the physical rounds and declared unfit, as the varicocelectomy was done negligently and led to many complications; alleging medical negligence, the complaint filed a consumer complaint seeking compensation amounting to Rs. 1 lakhs. The learned DCF, east champaran decided the case in AICL member favour.
Being aggrieved by the order dated 17.05.2010 the complainant filed the appeal but later no one appear on behalf of the appellant and the AICL counsel on behalf of member submitted that the allegations of negligence are found to be incorrect on the basis of medical report , which clearly states that there is no negligence on part of treating doctors. The learned DCF also opinioned the same. The learned State commission also goes with the decision of DCF and finds no merits in the case and dismisses the appeal.