SHIV PRAKASH SHAROHA vs VIDYA SAGAR INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH AND NEURO SCIENCES VIMHANS

-COMPLAINT of the appellant seeking compensation of Rs. 2,20,000 on account of having been wrongly diagnosed by the respondent was dismissed vide impugned order dated 5. 6. 2007 by holding that the treatment given by the respondent was correct and there was no negligence nor was the diagnosis wrong.

FEELING aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal. The case of the appellant in brief was that on 10. 9. 2002, he felt uneasiness with pain in chest. He consulted doctors of respondent. The appellant reached at 2. 15 p. m. at emergency ward of respondent. The duty doctor examined the appellant and checked his blood pressure. The duty doctor did not find anything alarming. He also informed the appellant that chest pain may be due to hypertension. He advised the appellant to visit OPD for further investigation.

While the appellant was going towards the OPD wing of respondent, he again felt chest pain and immediately reported chest pain to Dr. Ajay Sinha who was present in the OPD. ECG was conducted, the appellant felt lot of pain. The duty doctor of OP wards gave SOS sorbitrate tablet. The concerned doctor advised rest. Later on the appellant went to the house. After some time the appellant again felt chest pain. He was taken to Holy Family Hospital. ECG was again conducted. Doctors of Holy Family Hospital diagnosed severe heart attack. He was immediately referred to Escorts Hospital where he was operated. The only grievance of the appellant against the respondent is that respondent could not detect severe heart attack. Thus the appellant lost about four precious hours and lapse on the part of the respondent could have been fatal to the life of the appellant. The appellant filed the instant complaint seeking compensation of Rs. 2,20,000.

THE stand taken by the respondent is that it gave medical advice after subjecting him to initial examination of blood pressure and ECG, which was absolutely correct and with the treatment given in emergency by way of protective medicine the appellant felt better. It was only after he felt better that he left the Institute of the respondent and never come back with any complaint. However as per direction given in the appeal filed by the appellant against the earlier order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint, the District Forum obtained opinion of AIIMS to the effect whether the diagnosis made by Dr. Ajay Sinha of the respondent on the basis of ECG was correct or not. The Associate Professor of Cardiology of AIIMS submitted his report on 4. 11. 2006. The comments reproduced from the report, by the District Forum are as under: "ecg shows the rate as 70-/mm with PR interval as 140 ms. This is biphasic T-waves in lead II, III AVF and AVR. There is no significant ST elevation or depression in any other leads. The repeat ECH was showing the same finding. The present ECG does not qualify to diagnose acute MI. "

THE grievance of the appellant that the District Forum has not assessed the report by AIIMS in entirety as some of the observations made by the doctor of AIIMS shows that the diagnosis was wrong. As per Counsel for the appellant these observations are as under: however, the diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome is not only based on ECG. The history, clinical presentation, clinical examination, ECG and enzyme tests has to be considered to make the diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome. If the clinical presentation of the patient suggests acute coronary syndrome, this ECG cannot rule out acute coronary and if the clinical presentation and other criteria are not fulfilling this ECG does not make the diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome. In order to hold the hospital or doctor guilty for medical negligence, we have culled out certain parameters from large number of decisions rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India and English decision starting from Bolam''s test in (1957) 2 All ER 118, 121 D-F. These are as under: (i) Whether the treating doctor had the ordinary skill and not the skill of the highest degree that he professed and exercised, as everybody is not supposed to possess the highest or perfect level of expertise or skills in the branch he practices? (ii) Whether the guilty doctor had done something or failed to do something which in the given facts and circumstances no medical professional would do when in ordinary senses and prudence? (iii) Whether the risk involved in the procedure or line of treatment was such that injury or death was imminent or risk involved was upto the percentage of failures? (iv) Whether there was error of judgment in adopting a particular line of treatment? If so what was the level of error? Was it so overboard that result could have been fatal or near fatal or at lowest mortality rate? (v) Whether the negligence was so manifest and demonstrative that no professional or skilled person in his ordinary senses and prudence could have indulged in? (vi) Everything being in place, what was the main cause of injury or death? Whether the cause was the direct result of the deficiency in the treatment and medication? (vii) Whether the injury or death was the result of administrative deficiency or post-operative or condition environment-oriented deficiency?

Let us examine this case on the touchstone of aforesaid criteria. Even if we take into consideration the observations made by doctors of AIIMS still the respondent cannot be held guilty for medical negligence as the appellant went there with problem of chest pain in the emergency of the respondent hospital which is an institute of mental health and neuroscience and any doctor of ordinary skill would have subjected him to blood pressure examination and ECG and since the veracity of the blood pressure and the ECG conducted by the hospital had not been questioned by the AIIMS, respondent cannot be held guilty for medical negligence. There was no negligence in giving the treatment as the appellant on his own went to Escorts Hospital and never underwent any subsequent treatment by the respondent hospital. We do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same. The complaint appears to be vexatious and with mala fide intention of blackmailing the hospital. Even the compensation being sought is in respect of the treatment of disease which was treated by some other hospital.

F. D. R. /bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the appellant be returned forthwith after completion of due formalities.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room. Appeal dismissed.