AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member
This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order dated 31.01.2019 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), whereby the Appeal was allowed and the Order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jaipur – IV (hereinafter referred to as the ‘District Forum’) was set aside.
There is a short delay of 13 days in filing the present Revision Petition. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, the delay is condoned.
The brief facts that the Complainant’s daughter Divyanshu (herein referred as ‘patient’) was diagnosed as adenoids with bilateral secretary otitis media, Sinusitis and tonsillitis. Dr. Satish Jain, the ENT surgeon at Jain ENT hospital (OP-Respondent) performed Adenotonsilliectomy with Bilateral Grommet Insertion on 10.06.2010. She was shifted from Operation Theater toward at 10.30 a.m. She started coughing problem at 12.30 p.m., therefore, immediately oxygen was given, x-ray was done and the pediatrician Dr. Sethi was called; he examined the child. It was alleged that the operating surgeon was not careful, therefore, the foreign material entered in the bronchus and lungs which developed aspiration pneumonia of the child. The Complainant further alleged that the operation package for Rs. 16,920/- was fixed by the hospital, but due to the negligence of the doctor complication arose and the patient was shifted to Babylon and Imperial Hospital. The Complainant incurred further expenditure of Rs.28,000/-. Being aggrieved the Complainant filed the Complaint before the District Forum, Jaipur-IV.
The District Forum after hearing the parties, held the hospital liable for negligence and allowed only Rs. 28,000/- to the Complainant.
Being aggrieved the hospital (OP) filed First Appeal before the State Commission, which was allowed and consequently the Consumer Complaint was dismissed.
Being aggrieved the Complainant filed the instant Revision Petition.
We have heard the learned Counsel for the both the parties and perused the entire material on record including the Orders of both the fora below.
The learned Counsel from both the sides reiterated their evidence. It is evident from medical record that the ENT surgeon Dr. Jain examined Ms. Divyanshu (Patient) for the complaints of nasal obstruction. After relevant investigations, he advised adenectomy with bilateral grommet insertion under general anesthesia. He prescribed higher antibiotics. The patient was operated by Dr. Satish Jain after obtaining proper inform consent. It was the case of Complainant that there was no Pediatrician in the hospital to handle complication like aspiration. From the medical literature on ENT surgery, post-operative minimal aspiration was a known complication. In the instant case, two hours after the operation child had cough and immediately the treating doctor attended the patient. A call was sent to pediatrician also. The child was administered with Oxygen, IV fluids, the higher antibiotics (injection Angmentin, Amikacin & Cefraxone), and nebulization and thereafter the child was referred to Pediatric hospital.
It should be borne in mind that referring the patient to higher center is not negligence of treating doctor. In the instant case, the doctor took proper decision. Initially, at 4.00 p.m. the child was taken to Babylon Hospital on 11.06.2010 and treated till 13.06.2010 and discharged LAMA. Thereafter, the child was treated in Imperial hospital for five days and discharged on 18.06.2010. She was treated with antibiotics, vitamins and other medicines and got cured.
It is pertinent to note that if the foreign body/material entered into bronchus during the operation the patient would have sever reflx and suffered the respiratory distress immediately. But after the operation the patient was comfortable for 2 hours till 12.30 p.m. After proper treatment as per the reasonable standard, the patient was referred to Pediatric Hospital. We do not find any deficiency or negligence in the duty of care of treating Surgeon and the hospital.
The learned Counsel for the Opposite Party relied upon the articles namely ‘Aspiration Pneumonitis-Mendelson’s Syndrome’ and ‘Common Postoperative Complications’.
As the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. Within the meaning and scope of section 21(b), we find no jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored by the State Commission as may necessitate interference. It would be apt to rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd.[ 2011 11 SCC 269]
Based on the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the instant revision petition, accordingly it stands dismissed.
The parties to bear their own costs.