Charan Kamal Chopra vs Dr. R.K. Gupta & Anr

Dr. S.M. Kantikar, J

We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner - complainant and perused the material on record.

This case relates to alleged medical negligence, which resulted in the death of the mother of the complainant.

The District Forum had partly allowed the complaint and directed the respondents no. 1 and 2 - the opposite parties no. 1 (doctor) and 3 (insurance co.) to pay a lumpsum of Rs.1,00,000/- jointly and severally to the complainant and to further pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. (The opposite party no. 2 (hospital) was not made a respondent in the appeal before the State Commission.)

In appeal, the State Commission had re-appraised the case and vide its Order dated 01.05.2018 had allowed the appeal and set-aside the Order dated 06.12.2016 of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint:

After close perusal, we find the case laws cited by the learned counsel for the opposite parties fully support the version of the opposite parties. From the facts and circumstances of this case, it clearly appears that treatment was given to the patient by Dr. R. K. Gupta, to the best of his skill and ability. It is not uncommon that treatment is provided to patients using dialysis process in old age also when age of the patient is more than 80 years or even 90 years. We also feel that there are possibilities of improvement in the condition of a patient after dialysis in most of the cases. Dialysis is the process of removing excess water, solutes and toxins from the blood in those whose native kidneys have lost the ability to perform these functions in a natural way.

There is no doubt of any type in this regard that medical profession is a noble profession. People involved in the medical profession, more particularly the doctors command respect in our Society. At the same time, expectations of the public persons are also much more from the doctors than the other institutions and sections of the Society. In fact, a doctor cannot give complete assurance and guarantee to save life of a patient. Certainly for a patient process of treatment is a question of life and death. In this way, a doctor is required to be more and more careful at the time of treatment of a patient. A little negligence on the part of a doctor can make life of a patient hell. A doctor can help a patient by providing him best possible medicines/treatment. Sometimes, mistake may also be possible on the part of a doctor also at the time of treatment. After all, a doctor is also a human being. Working of a doctor cannot be expected like a machine or a computer.

The opposite party No. 3 - United India Insurance Company Limited has provided insurance policy to the opposite parties No. 1 and 2. Although the insurance policy has been provided but when the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 cannot be held liable to make payment of the amount claimed, certainly no findings can be given in this case against the opposite party No. 3.

As a result as per discussions above in detail, we have no hesitation in holding that the complainant has failed to prove that the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 have committed any act of carelessness and negligence causing death of Smt. Kamla Rani. The impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is held to be illegal and invalid and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

(paras 27, 28, 29 and 30 of the State Commission's Order)

This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the said Order dated 01.05.2018 of the State Commission.

We find the Order of the State Commission to be well-appraised and well-reasoned. Within the meaning and scope of section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, we find no jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice.

The sum and substance of the complainant's allegations was that his mother, the patient, was treated unnecessarily for a kidney ailment, without proper diagnosis or investigations, which led to the death of the patient. Without diagnosis of kidney ailment, dialysis was performed on the patient in one Kapil Hospital on 30.11.2010, and the patient was brought back to the opposite party no. 2 hospital (R. K. Gupta Hospital). If the patient had a kidney problem, injection Lasix should have been administered before starting dialysis, but it was administered during dialysis, therefore, due to old age, the patient could not sustain the treatment, which caused death of the patient on the next day i.e 01.12.2010.

The sum and substance of the opposite party no. 1 doctor (Dr. R. K. Gupta)'s contention was that the patient was brought to the opposite party no. 2 hospital (R. K. Gupta Hospital) in a serious condition with breathlessness. The patient had other complaints of nausea, vomiting, oliguria and loss of appetite for the last 12-13 days. She had a history of diabetes mellitus and hypertension for the past about 15 years. It was a case of anaemia and renal failure, hypertension, diabetes mellitus and ischemic heart disease. The patient could pass very small amount of urine despite administration of injection Lasix and there was no improvement in the health of the patient. Hence, the decision for hemodialysis was taken. The procedure was done in one Kapil Hospital and the patient was brought back to opposite party no. 2 hospital (R. K. Gupta Hospital). The condition of the patient did not improve. Due to her uremic condition, her blood pressure remained continuously low, and the patient ultimately expired on 01.12.2010. The patient was treated with standard and reasonable care and there was no negligence.

We note that on 28.11.2010, the mother of Charan Kamal Chopra, the complainant, got admitted to opposite party no. 2 hospital (R.K. Gupta Hospital) run by opposite party no. 1 doctor (Dr. R. K. Gupta), for complaints of high blood pressure and weakness. Investigative tests, including blood tests, ECG, ultrasound, ECHO, etc., were performed.

Admittedly, the patient was a known diabetic and hypertensive for the last about 15 years. She was about 78 years old. She was admitted in the intensive cardiac care unit (ICCU). The serious condition of patient was informed by opposite party no. 1 (doctor) to the relatives and a written consent was taken from the patient's son. The patient could pass very small amount of urine. The laboratory reports dated 30.11.2010 revealed Blood Urea 152 mg% and Serum Creatinine 8.2 mg%, which were significantly higher than the normal / standard parameters. Thus, the patient was in uremia -renal failure. As a standard protocol, during emergency in renal failure, the opposite party no. 1 (doctor) advised for hemodialysis.

To briefly sum-up, we note that the patient was a known case of diabetes and hypertension for the last about 15 years, which is also a cause of renal damage and renal failure. The opposite party no. 1 (doctor) had performed his duty as per the standard protocol. Evidently, the death of the patient was not due to negligence or deficiency, it was caused by uremia leading to renal failure. There is nothing to show that the opposite party no. 1 (doctor) did not exercise the reasonable care and the requisite diligence. We, thus, find that medical negligence is not established.

The revision petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.