VINAYAK GUPTA (MINOR) vs SAROJ HOSPITAL

BY this order we shall be disposing of the aforesaid two appeals arising from the common order dated 19.9.2001, passed by the District Forum whereby the complaint of the appellant was dismissed.

A minor child of 13 years of age was admitted with respondent No. 1 Saroj Hospital on 23.8.1999 for viral fever. He was examined by Dr. Nagrani of respondent No. 1 and kept in ICU. The father of the child was advised to call some child specialist for treatment as their child specialist Dr. Harish was not available. Blood tests were carried out. The test indicated that kidneys were normal and blood urea was 28 mg% and creatinine was 1.0% mg. By the next morning the child was having 98.4 fever and attending doctor gave some medicines. The child was shifted to the room and blood test was again taken. The blood urea was found 59.8 mg% and creatinine was 1.3% but on the next day blood urea increased to 103.0 mg% and creatinine 2.9 mg%. On taking ultra sound one spot sized 23mm x 14mm in right kidney was found. On the next day the blood urea increased to 114.3 mg% and creatinine was found 6.9 mg%. Consequently, a kidney specialist was called. He got CT Scan of upper abdomen. The blood urea was found 103.2 mg% and creatinine 8.7mg%. The said doctor declared the condition of the child very serious and case of acute kidney failure and referred him to respondent No. 2 Jaipur Golden Hospital. The child was put on dialysis at Jaipur Golden Hospital where he remained for four days. The father of the child got him discharged on 31.8.1999. However, the child recovered only through Homeopathy medicines

Though the allegations of medical negligence were levelled against both the hospitals for wrong medication and treatment resulting in failure of kidney but no material was produced to show as to the medical negligence on the part of respondent No. 2 Jaipur Golden Hospital in attending the child, who was put on dialysis and was discharged in condition that improved slowly though the child was recovered through other discipline of medicines. The father of the child filed the instant complaint before District Forum seeking compensation on account of mental agony, harassment, physical and emotion sufferings.

VIDE impugned order the complaint was dismissed with the following observations: It appears that something wrong occurred during these four days, which led to the kidney failure during the short period. However, there is no definite and reliable evidence to prove the medical negligence on the part of the attending doctors or the hospitals. The complainant''s version that he heard the staff saying that kidney failure has taken place due to giving some expired medicines to the child is not corroborated by any other evidence. Similarly, in the case of Jaipur Golden Hospital there is hardly any evidence to indicate or prove medical negligence on the part of the attending doctors or the hospital. However, the circumstances indicate that there was some wrong treatment somewhere on account of which there was acute kidney failure of the child. However, without definite evidence of medical negligence, no inference of medical negligence or deficiency in service can be drawn against the two hospitals and their attending doctors. Complicated question of law and facts are involved in these two cases, which may require detailed examination and cross-examination of witnesses which is not possible in these summary proceedings. Therefore, complicated issues can be decided by the Civil Court only. Hence we are unable to give any relief to the complainant in these proceedings. The complaints are, therefore, dismissed. As is apparent from the aforesaid observations, the District Forum did not return definite finding of fact as to the medical negligence on the part of the respondent hospitals. Though it made observations that the circumstances indicate that there was some wrong treatment somewhere on account of which there was acute kidney failure of the child. Yet at the same time, the District Forum also did not deal with the matter on merit by observing that complicated question of law and facts involved may require detailed examinations and cross-examination of witnesses, which is not possible in the summary proceedings.

IN our view there was no such complicated or complex question of law and fact that may not be adjudicated by the District Forum nor any such eventuality crept in the allegations of the complainant that was not capable of being decided in the summary proceedings. Presidents and Members of the District Forum or for that purpose State Commission and National Commission are the persons who have wide and varied judicial experience and are of the rank of District Judge, High Court Judge and Supreme Court Judge. To relegate such matter to a Civil Court of the lowest rung was not proper and an erroneous approach. Since no finding of fact has been returned by the District Forum, we allow the appeals at the outset, set aside the impugned order and send back the matter to the District Forum for deciding it afresh on merit. The matter shall be decided positively within three months. The parties shall appear before District Forum on 8.5.2007 for the aforesaid purpose.

BOTH the appeals are disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

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