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(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Petitioner Geetaben Jayeshbhai Shah, (hereinafter referred to as the “Complainant” or Appellants) against the Impugned Order dated 21.09.2016 passed by State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Gujarat, (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 509/20011, wherein the Appeal was dismissed and the Order passed by District Forum, Gandhinagar was confirmed.
The Complainant is Geetaben, the Opposite Parties are the Managing Trustee of Sheth Pukhraj Raichand General Hospital (OP-1), Dr. Rachanaben Parikh (OP-2), Dr. Bhadreshbhai Shah-Anesthetist (OP-3), Saramma Vergis (OP-4) was a nurse in the OP-1 Hospital & Dr. Kishore Hirachand Jain (OP-5).
The issue involved is alleged medical negligence causing death of the patient Dhaval, the son of the Complainant. .
The District Forum dismissed the Consumer Complaint with the following observation:-
“21. Considering all these circumstances, documents on record and our observations, the complainant has failed to prove that the opponents have rendered deficient services or were negligent in rendering treatment to complainant's son Dhaval. Therefore, the complainant is not entitle to any relief as prayed for. The complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.”
The Complainant’s First Appeal before the State Commission was also dismissed, hence, this Revision Petition.
Heard the arguments from both the sides. Perused the material on record and Orders of both the fora below.
On 29.04.2005, the boy Dhaval underwent "Right Modified Radical Mastoidectomy", it was performed by OP-2 at the OP-1 Hospital. It was alleged that the nurse (OP-4) administered Inj. Artacil 25 mg and Inj. Neostignine to the patient, and within a few minutes, the boy expired. The PM surgeon opined that the cause of death was "Cardiorespiratory Arrest due to Pulmonary Edema.”
The learned counsel for petitioner/Complainant argued that the State Commission failed to consider the important facts that the deceased boy's father purchased four Inj. Atracil and two Inj. Dicloran as prescribed by the doctor, which was supported by a statement from the medical store owner. The counsel submitted that if Inj. Aciloc and Inj. Dicloran were administered to the deceased, there was no evidence for when, who & doses of the injections administered. The patient's injection chart only mentioned Inj. Aciloc being administered. The OPs failed to provide complete medical record as in the "Progress report" indicated that Inj. Aciloc should be administered every 12 hours and Inj. Dicloran SOS. The learned counsel submitted that the State Commission did not seek any expert medical opinion for cardiac arrest but made a general observation about rare cases of Inj. Aciloc causing a reaction.
The learned counsel for OPs argued that the District Forum and the State Commission have already held that there was no negligence on the part of the respondents. And it was not the case of res ipsa loquitur. The learned counsel for OPs denied specifically that OP-4 Saramma Vergis administered Artacil 25 mg with Inj. Neostigmine to the patient. After the surgery, as per the doctor's instructions injections of Dicloran and Aciloc were administered. The complications were treated with all necessary precautions. Despite their efforts, the patient unfortunately passed away. The opinion of the head of the Department of Anaesthesia at BJ Medical College, Ahmedabad stated that they were unable to determine if the use of both drugs together caused the death. The PM report also did not indicate any medical negligence of OPs.
In the instant case, there are concurrent finding of the facts and the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is limited. I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Order passed by the State Commission warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd[2011 11 SCC 269] and in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.[ Civil Appeal No. 432 / 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022] held that the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is extremely limited.
Based on the discussion above, I do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.