AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Naik Subedar K.L. Gulyani while travelling in a bus on 23.09.2015 was attacked by a pick pocket. The case of the complainant, who is the widow of Late Sh. K.L. Gulyani, as set out in the complaint, is that the bus driver and conductor did not call the police and did not give any first aid to the deceased. This is also the case of the complainant that the deceased, with the help of one Mr. Navin Kumar, reached the door of opposite party no. 2 Dr. Manocha but no medical treatment was provided to him by Dr. Manocha. He was advised by Dr. Manocha to go to Orchid Hospital & Heart Centre. It is alleged that the aforesaid hospital crossed the height of callousness and none of its staff members attended to the victim who died because of excessive bleeding. The Principal Officer of Orchid Hospital & Heart Centre, Dr. Manocha and Sh. Rajender Kumar Gupta, owner of the bus in which the deceased was travelling, were impleaded as parties in the complaint.
In its reply filed before the District Forum, the opposite no. 1 Orchid Hospital & Heart Centre inter-alia stated that the patient was brought dead by the police and this complaint was nothing but an attempt to blackmail them and to extort money from them. It was stated in the reply that the deceased was brought dead at about 08:45 pm on 23.09.2015 when Dr. S.S. Jha and Dr. Hariom Gupta were on duty. They examined the patient who did not have any pulse or B.P. or heart sound. Even the respiratory efforts and deep reflexes were absent, whereas the pupils were dilated and fixed. Since the patient was brought dead, there was no question of giving any treatment to him. The dead body was therefore, handed over to the police.
The District Forum, vide its order dated 16.06.2008, held Orchid Hospital & Heart Centre and Dr. Manocha guilty of culpable medical negligence and directed Orchid Hospital & Heart Centre to pay Rs. 5 lacs and Dr. Manocha to pay Rs. 2 lacs as compensation to the complainant. Opposite party no. 3, owner of the bus namely Sh. Rajinder Kumar Gupta was given up by the complainant during the pendency of the complaint.
Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, Orchid Hospital & Heart Centre and Dr. Manocha filed two separate appeals. Vide impugned order dated 12.07.2010, the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by Orchid Hospital & Heart Centre but dismissed the appeal filed by Dr. Manocha. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the complainant and Dr. Manocha filed two separate revision petitions before this Commission. The complainant/petitioner compromised with Dr. Manocha and in terms of that compromise, all the allegations against Dr. Manocha were withdrawn by her. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that Dr. Manocha paid a sum of Rs. 2 lacs to the complainant without admitting any negligence or deficiency on his part.
The main question which arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the deceased was alive or he was already dead when he was brought to Orchid Hospital & Heart Centre. It is an admitted position that an enquiry into the allegations of the complainant was made by a committee of six doctors formed by Delhi Medical Council and the said committee concluded that the deceased was not alive when he was brought to the hospital. The said finding having not been challenged either before the Medical Council of India or by way of a Writ Petition, has become final. In the absence of such a challenge, the said finding, in my opinion, should not have been viewed adversely by the District Forum.
Even if the matter is examined independently, I find that the complainant did not produce any medical or documentary evidence to prove that the deceased was alive at the time he was brought to Orchid Hospital & Heart Centre. The complainant filed affidavit of Sh. Navin Kumar and his wife Vandana whose affidavits filed before the District Forum give an impression that the deceased was still alive when he was brought to the hospital. The hospital, on the other hand, has placed on record a copy of the report dated 23.09.2005 prepared by Dr. S.S. Jha of Orchid Hospital & Heart Centre which, to the extent, it is relevant reads as under: Ref ....... Dated 23/9/08
At 08:45 PM
Name - Unknown
Age/Sex - Middle Aged (Symbol showing sex as male) Middle aged male is brought to hospital at 08:45 PM (approx) by police Constable
The identity of the Pt is unknown.
He was found in front of Dr. Manocha Clinic C-3 Janakpuri in pool of blood.
Immediately he was taken in Casualty in the clinreally by the undersigned Pt was soaked in pool of blood
Deeply - Comaloso
Deep - Reflexes absent
Pupil - Fixed & dilated
No reaction to light Injury mark in groin region
Pulse - No recordable
BP - No recordable
No respiratory effort
Chest - No Breath Sound audible
EVS - No heart sound
Impression - Pt was brought dead and the body was handed over to the police at 09:00 pm
The aforesaid report has been assailed by the learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner pointing out that this report purports to have been prepared at 08:45 pm whereas it refers to handing over the dead body to the police at 09:00 pm and therefore, seems to be ante-dated or at least ante-timed. I however, find no merit in the contention. The time 08:45 pm recorded on the top of the document is the time at which the deceased was brought to the hospital and not the time at which the report was written. It is also evident from the third line of the report where it is recorded that a middle aged male was brought to the hospital at about 08:45 pm by a police Constable. In fact, Dr. Hariom Gupta, Medical Incharge of Orchid Hospital & Heart Centre stated on oath that the patient in question was brought dead to the hospital at 08:45 pm on 23.09.2005 and when examined, he had no pulse, no B.P., no heart sound and no respiratory efforts. He further stated that deep reflexes were absent whereas the pupils were dilated and fixed and therefore, he was declared dead when brought to the hospital. In view of the aforesaid documentary evidence, the oral statement of Sh. Navin Kumar and his wife in the form of affidavit cannot be accepted. It has to be kept in mind that it is only a doctor who, after examining a person, can find out whether a person is alive or not. A layman such as Sh. Navin Kumar or his wife could not have known, at the time the deceased was allegedly taken to Orchid Hospital & Heart Centre as to whether he was actually alive or not. There is nothing in their affidavit such as any conversation with the deceased from which it may be inferred that he was alive at the time he was taken to the hospital. Therefore, there will be no justification for preferring the affidavit of Sh. Navin Kumar and his wife over the documentary evidence produced by the hospital. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that contradictory statements were made by Navin Kumar at different times. I however, need not go into that since his oral statement cannot be preferred to documentary evidence, in the form of the report prepared by the hospital. This is more so when the statement of Navin Kumar does not indicate, on what basis he presumed the deceased to be alive.
The learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant assails the report of the hospital on the ground that as per the said report, the deceased was taken to the casualty whereas as per the statement of ASI Kaptan Singh, police officer, recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C., his dead body was found in the courtyard of the hospital. Admittedly, ASI Kaptan Singh was not produced as a witness before the District Forum nor any affidavit of the aforesaid person was filed. Moreover, even as per the statement of ASI Kaptan Singh, Dr. S.S. Jha had told him that he had checked the patient and he was brought dead. Therefore, even if we go by the statement of ASI Kaptan Singh, recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C., the deceased was already brought dead to the hospital.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, I have no hesitation in holding that the finding of the State Commission, to the effect that the deceased was already dead when brought to Orchid Hospital & Heart Centre, does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
The revision petition is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.