Daryab Singh vs Medwin Hospital & Anr

Dr. S. M. Kantikar, Member

The instant Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 29.11.2010 of the State Commission, Hyderabad in First Appeal No.879 of 2008 whereby the appeal preferred by the Complainant/Petitioner against the Order of District Forum dated 30.11.2007 was dismissed.

Brief facts that; Anitha Singh the wife of petitioner ( herein referred to as ‘Patient’) underwent Caesarian Operation at about 11 p.m. on 19.10.1997 and delivered a female baby. It was performed by Dr. Dr.Rooma Sinha / Respondent No.2 under General Anesthesia. It was alleged that after the operation her condition became critical and she was kept in ICU. She remained unconscious on ventilator for 90 days, but there was no improvement. The hospital authorities refused to consult some specialist in Pulmonary medicine and Cardiology. Lastly the OPs informed that patient may not recover.

Being aggrieved the complainant/ petitioner filed Consumer Complaint No.7/1998 before the Consumer Forum-I, Hyderabad and prayed compensation and sought the directions to the respondents to shift the patient to any other hospital.

The District Forum dismissed the Complaint vide order dated 27.10.2003 with the following observations:

“18. Both from the factual narrations of the opp. parties and as well the evidence of opp. party no.2 it is very clear that ever since the patient has developed ARDS on the operation theatre, in no time the patient was started with emergency treatment by monitoring her taking all precautions. There is no rebuttal evidence to state that the line of treatment which skill and knowledge. The testimony of DW.1 coupled with the history sheets covered by Ex.B1 establish that the patient was very well taken care right from the time of her admission till discharge. In the absence of any expert evidence on behalf of the complainant no negligence or deficiency in service could be found against them and cannot be found fault. This aspect was made clear in Mrs.Kiran Bala vs. Christian Medical College and Others II (2002) CPJ National Commission. The complainant has totally failed to show or prove medical negligence against the opp. parties. Through the evidence of DW-1 and with the medical record the opp. parties have proved that they acted in accordance with the general and approved practice something went wrong by the sudden complication of ‘ARDS’ which had occurred to the patiently, the doctors cannot be made liable for mis-change or mis-adventure or even for an error of judgement has been laid in Master Suban Kasyap Vs. Dr. Mrs. Sarala Madakar 1 (1991) CPJ 505.

Thus on an overall consideration and evaluation of the evidence on record we hold that the complainant miserably failed to establish the allegations of the medical negligence against the opp. parties and on the other hand from the medical record covered by Ex.B1, it is abundantly clear that every sincere effort was made to save the life of the patient when she had suddenly developed ARDS on the operation table subsequent to caesarian operation. It is not known why the complainant has not produced the discharge summary of the NIMS Hospital. PW-1 admitted that the even in NIMS weaning of ventilator was done and gradually the patient had a sudden development of ARDS and the reasons for sudden ARDS could not be known. The patient had to be kept on ventilator 89 days in the hospital, which was taken advantage to attribute medical negligence towards the opp. parties, in the light of the decision of the National Commission in Jagdish Kumar Bajpai Vs. Union of India IV (2005) CPJ 197 (NC). In the absence of any expert evidence to prove negligence the opp. parties cannot be found fault at all.

In the result, the complainant is dismissed with costs of Rs.2000/- to each of the opp. parties.”

Being aggrieved, the complainant filed the First Appeal F.A. No.879/2008 before the A.P. State Commission. It was dismissed with the following observations:-

“13) The complainant though examined PW2 however he did not allege that either the operation or the treatment that was given by the Op2 doctor was not in correct lines. He did not state that the line of operation or treatment was either faulty or there was lack of skill or knowledge. When she had developed ARDS on the operation table treatment was given. She was monitored by taking all precautions. There was no rebuttal evidence to show that either the operation or the treatment given by her was not in correct lines as observed by the Dist. Forum. Ex. B1 case record discloses that the patient was well taken care right from her admission till discharge. Simply because she had developed sudden complication of ARDS RW1 cannot be found fault. As rightly observed by the Dist. Forum the doctors cannot be made liable for mis-chance even for error or judgement. PW1 in fact has admitted that even in NIMS weaning of ventilator was done and gradually the patient was recovered and became normal. Therefore the sudden development of ARDS and Hypoxia could not be attributed to RW1. The patient was kept on ventilator for 89 days in the hospital. She was recovered whatever ailment she suffered from. We are in full agreement with the opinion of the Dist. Forum. We do not see any mis-appreciation of fact or law by the Dist. Forum in this regard. We do not see any merits in the appeal.”

We have heard the learned Counsel for both the sides, perused the material on record inter alia the orders of both the Fora below and the medical records.

Vide our order dated 24.04.2015, the delay of 360 days in filing the instant Revision Petition was condoned.

Both the fora have decided the matter on merit based on the evidence and the medical record. It was held that the patient after the caesar delivery, on the operation table, she developed Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). Immediately she was treated with team of doctors and kept under continuous monitoring on ventilator. She was under observation for a period of 90 days. In our considered view, it was the reasonable and accepted standard of practice. Hence, negligence cannot be attributed to the treating doctors. The complainant has not filed any cogent evidence or expert opinion to prove his case.

The State Commission has passed a well-appraised reasoned Order. It has concurred with the findings of the District Forum. No palpable crucial error in appreciating the evidence by the two fora below, as may cause to require de novo re-appreciation in revision, is visible. There is no jurisdictional error, or legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice visible which needs any interference with the impugned Order of the State Commission in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission u/s 21(b) of the Act.

Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.’ the Revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission is extremely limited as has been recently held by] by observing as under:-

“It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

The instant Revision Petition is devoid of any merit and it is dismissed accordingly. However, no orders as to the costs.