Anil Srivastava JUDGMENT
Anil Srivastava, Member
1. This complaint has been filed before this Commission under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (the Act) by Smt. Sunita Kumar and another, resident of Delhi, for short complainant, alleging deficiency of service in the matter of administering treatment to them and praying for relief as under:
a. Direct the respondent hospital to pay the complainants Rs. 15 lacs for the treatment of the child and Rs. 72 lacs. for keeping two trained maids/nurses to take care of the child.
b. Direct the respondents to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs against their negligence unfair trade practice and deficiency which caused mental and physically harassment/agony/wastage of time/financial loss/loss of comfort and peace/loss of family peace, loss of reputation in society etc.
c. Direct the respondents to pay the cost of litigation amounting Rs. 25,000/-.
d. Any other relief(s) order(s) as per facts and circumstances mentioned above may be passed by this Hon'ble Commission as it may thing fit and proper in the interest of justice in favour of complainant and against the respondent.
2. Facts of the case necessary for the adjudication of the complaint are these.
3. The complainant No. 1 Mrs. Sunita, who is the wife of the complainant No. 2 Sh. Rajeev Kumar got herself registered with the respondent hospital i.e., the St. Stephen's Hospital, Delhi 110054 on the 4th month of her first pregnancy. The complainant No. 1 got herself examined by the respondent hospital i.e., from 28.01.2010 to 25.06.2010. The complainants also deposited all medical expenses as raised by the respondent hospital from time to time. During the above said period of pregnancy the OP hospital conducted all the tests including ultrasound etc. and subsequent to the tests done, the doctors of the respondent found and reported everything as normal. The complainant No. 1 got admitted in the respondent hospital i.e., St. Stephen's Hospital on 25.06.2010 and delivered a male child on 26.06.2010. The delivery was forced and there were complications, the fact which was never brought home either to the complainants or to their family members. The complainant or any family member was never informed that the newly born child has been shifted to nursery owing to the deficiency of oxygen. It is only three days after delivery, doctors of the respondent hospital i.e., St. Stephen's hospital informed the complainant that the condition of the child is not good and he has suffered with brain hemorrhage.
4. The complainants thereafter sought the opinion of doctors of other hospitals and they confirmed that the newly born child had suffered with brain hemorrhage which, as per their oral opinion was owing to the negligence of the OP hospital.
5. The complainant has further submitted that the complainant No. 1 was under Ante-natal follow ups of the OP Hospital, hence, everything about the patient or the fetus was known to the doctors of OP hospital and at the time of pain, decision to go for a delivery was taken by the doctors of the respondent hospital noting as per the available records that:-
a. The patient was fit to undertake normal delivery; and
b. The fetus inside the womb was also normal and had no signs of distress to warrant to go for LSCS.
Therefore, during the process of delivery there was fatal distress as the doctors of St. Stephen's Hospital did not decide to abort the process of delivery and to take up the patient for LSCS. This fact clearly shows that the doctors of St. Stephen's Hospital did not monitor the patient as the fetus later developed distresses. The child has Perinatal Asphyxia. The cause of Asphyxia is non-availability of Pediatrician at the time of delivery or non-competence or negligence of the pediatrician. The Asphyxia has led to brain damage causing a spastic child. Brain damage of the child has been detected as revealed by the CT scan.
6. The allegation of the complainant is that OP hospital instead of treating the child pressurized them to take the child from the hospital. The negligence of the OP hospital has led the child with the avoidable ailment. Accordingly this complaint has been filed for the redressal of his grievances.
7. OPs were noticed and in response thereto they have filed reply resisting the complaint both on the technical ground and on merit stating that the complaint is misconceived and mala fide. The complaint has been filed by the complainant with the sole intent of covering up their alleged criminal act of abandoning her new born baby. Despite the orders passed by the Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights, the complainant did not care to visit her child and take him with her. Consequently, the Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights was constrained to direct the lodging of an FIR against her. The OP hospital has further stated that during the delivery the foetus had suffered slight distress. Active resuscitative measures were taken and the child was revived. Further Medical Board was constituted and on examination they came to the conclusion that the child was fit to be discharged from the hospital and thus there was no negligence on their part.
8. OPs have also denied the contention of the complainant alleging negligence on the part of the hospital. The treatment given by the hospital and all steps taken by it were in accordance with the accepted medical practice. It is well settled that a doctor can be said to be guilty of negligence only if he commits such an error, which no doctor of reasonable competence would commit. In the present case there was no error much less an error, which no doctor of reasonable competence will commit. The development of complication is not indicative of negligence on the part of a medical practitioner.
9. The complainant has filed the rejoinder rebutting the contentions raised and reiterating the averments made in the complaint. Both sides have filed evidence by way of affidavit in support of their pleadings. Written arguments have also been filed.
10. This matter was listed for final hearing on 26.04.2019 and on 30.04.2019 when the counsel for both sides appeared and advanced their arguments. I have perused the records of the case and given a careful consideration to the subject matter.
11. Short question for adjudication in this complaint is whether the allegation of negligence as against the OPs in the matter of treating the patient during the delivery, made out as argued by the ld. Counsel for the complainant and if so whether the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed.
12. The version of the complainant during the course of argument is that the delivery of was forced the fact which the complainants were never informed. The complainant No. 1 was admitted on advice of doctors for delivery. The treating doctor did not find out the reason for fetal floating head and could not do any special effort including ultrasound examination to find out the reasons namely, the cord around the neck and position of head. These factors can be dangerous in attempting to deliver such babies by normal route. This is apparently negligence on the part of the doctor. In the file notes, it is mentioned that at the time of admission, the vertex was highly floating at-3 pelvic station and remained there till next day 6.30 A.M. It clearly indicated existence of problem in descending down and fixing the head of baby. The doctors were negligent in not doing the examination properly to find the reason and to tackle the problem accordingly.
13. On the other hand the ld. Counsel for the OP had argued that was no indication to do an elective caesarean nor was there any foetal distress at the time of the onset of induction of labour or thereafter in early labour foetal heart rate which was monitored manually and with electronic instruments. During the process of labour, one of the CTG recording showed a dip in the foetal heart rate, which got immediately reversed after changing the position of the patient. The manual recording was found to be normal. Labour was induced by a dose of cerviprime at 8.30 AM on 26.06.2010 and the complainant gave birth to a male child. The child had a cord around its neck and did not cry at the time of birth. The child was immediately attended to by a Paediatrician, present in the labour room at the time of delivery. The APGAR score of the child at the time of birth was 5 and after three minutes it was 6. Then the child was intubated, cyanosed and ambu bagging done and oxygen given. At 8.35 AM the child was shifted to the nursery. The child was admitted in the neonatal ICU and kept on ventilator. The child developed neonatal seizures at 10hrs. of life. Initially Inj. Phenobarbitone was administered, however the child was poorly controlled by the same. Thereafter Inj. Phenytoin was started, after which no convulsions took place. Since the child's septic profile positive, antibiotic was started. The child developed gastric bleed and had deranged PT/PTT for which FFP was given. The patient was kept on ventilator in SIMV-PSV for 8 days. Physiotherapy and nebulisations were given along with the change in antibiotics. The child was extubated on 13.07.2010 and kept on Bubble CPAP till 15.07.2010. Nebulisation, chest physiotherapy were given along with medical treatment. However the child had also developed altered renal function and cholestatic jaundice as a result of perinatal asphyxia. Fluids were given according to ARF regimen. His renal parameters became normal on 20.07.2010. On 19.07.2010 in Torch profile, the rubella lgM was seen as positive. But there were no stigmas of CRS. On 31.07.2010 the urine culture was found to be positive for fungal infection for which Inj. Amphotericin B was started. The child was tolerating feeds and was on full feeds since 18.07.2010. NCCT of head was done to look for changes. As a result, the child suffered a perinatal asphyxia which caused severe brain damage. However, it cannot be attributed to any error or negligence on the part of the hospital as the OPs had done all that was procedurally possible or permissible.
14. During the pendency of the case this Commission had sought for an expert opinion from the Lady Hardings Hospital on the subject matter whether there has been negligence apparent on the face of record on the part of the treating doctor or the hospital which opinion since received, observing that no case of medical negligence made out. The relevant extracts of the opinion received is as under:
"The complainant was treated at St. Stephen's Hospital, where she received antenatal care and delivered a male baby on 26.06.2010, who required resuscitation and postnatal NICU care and has suffered from perinatal asphyxia. Based on the document provided no case of medical negligence is made out".
15. Secondly the Delhi Medical Council to whom the reference was made by the complainant have in their assessment on the subject observed inter alia as under:-
The Delhi Medical Council notes that the complainant was admitted in the said hospital on 25 June, 2010 for induction of labor at Forty weeks+1. The labor was progressing well after induction, however, the CTG showed some dips which recovered after changing position and IV fluids. The vacuum was applied at full dilatation and a male baby was delivered at 8.30 p.m. and handed over to the paeditrician. The baby asphyxiated at birth and was managed with positive pressure ventilation in the labor room. The Delhi Medical Council observes that the baby suffered from HIE stage III because of perinatal/antepartum asphyxia which subsequently led to cerebral palsy. It is, therefore the decision of the Delhi Medical Council that prima facie no medical negligence can be attributed on the part of doctors of St. Stephens Hospital in the treatment administered to Smt. Sunita or her new born baby. The Delhi Medical Council, however, notes certain discrepancy between doctors and sister's notes in respect of CTG tracings and, therefore, directs the hospital authorities of St. Stephens Hospital to take steps to ensure that CTG tracings and other related investigation are maintained as part of proper record keeping.
Complaint stands disposed.
16. The ld. Counsel for the OPs has also placed before this Commission an order dated 19.03.2019 passed by the ld. MM on a criminal complaint filed by the complainant, observing inter alia, as under:-
Neither any negligent conduct of the doctors who have been summoned as accused has been elaborated nor the opinion of an independent competent doctor regarding the alleged medical negligence has been brought on record. Further, this court has no reason to brush aside the opinion of the medical board on the premise of testimony of CW3 Dr. S.P. Singh whose competence to give the opinion has not been proved. Thus, in light of the legal position extensively delineated above, for lack of adequate material to proceed further, all the accused persons are hereby discharged. They are directed to furnish bail bonds U/s. 437-A Cr.P.C. in due course.
17. I may now examine the allegation of negligence keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case read with the aforesaid expert opinion on the subject. This leads to another question as to what is medical negligence. Medical negligence is a complicated subject and the liability of a doctor depends upon the facts and circumstances brought on record. There may be cases of apparent deficiency/negligence in service by the doctors. Such cases of negligence can be broadly categorised as under:
a. The doctor does not give immediate treatment when required.
b. The doctor does not take precaution as per the medical jurisprudence of giving the test dose of medicines which are likely to be fatal in some cases or may cause allergy.
c. The post-operative treatment is not given properly.
d. The surgical wound is caused at a different place than required.
e. After operation, septicaemia or gangrene takes place.
f Improper prescription of drugs. In case of fever, without knowing the cause of fever, combination of tablets and injections for malaria, typhoid, etc are freely used on trial and error basis.
g. Medical instruments are left in the body.
h. Mal-practice by the doctors, such as uncalled for pathological reports or investigations prescribed.
18. Further, there are allegations that in some cases where the surgery is not required, but the same is carried out, there is no pre-anaesthetic chek-up; delay in performing surgeries, there are certain instances of death on table; there are cases of hospital acquired infection which are not known to the consumers; some of the emergency cases not dealt with by the doctors promptly; transfusing wrong blood; performing a criminal abortion. In such cases, medical negligence being apparent medical practitioners would be liable to pay compensation or damages to the victim. Finally, what is expected from the medical practitioner is to take due care and caution while giving treatment as per the established medical jurisprudence. In other words, if he has acted in accordance with the practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art, no question of deficiency would arise.
19. Coming back to the facts of the case, the expert opinion has found the course of action by the OP Hospital and doctors in order which means no infirmity. It is trite law that in the matter of negligence as is the case, the only point of consideration would be to examine if the treating doctor was sufficiently qualified to administer the treatment and, secondly, when the doctor was sufficiently competent whether while administering the treatment he has observed due and necessary and precaution and thirdly whether timely steps for treating the patient were taken. On these accounts the OP Hospital, keeping in view the facts and circumstances cannot be faulted with since in the given case as per records immediate course of action was taken by the OP Hospital and if that be the case one cannot alleged mala fide in which case, the allegation of the negligence cannot be substantiated.
20. The National Commission in the case of 1 MANU/CF/0025/1998 : (1999) CPJ 13 (NC) titled Calcutta Medicare Research Institute v. Bimalesh Chatterjee and Ors. ruled that "the onus of proving medical negligence and resultant deficiency in service was clearly on the complainant which in the given case remains unsubstantiated.
21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Kusum Sharma v. Batra Hospital as reported in MANU/SC/0098/2010 : (2010) 3 SCC 480, was pleased to hold in para 89 as under:
"89. On scrutiny of the leading cases of medical negligence both in our country and other countries specially the United Kingdom, some basic principles emerge in dealing with the cases of medical negligence. While deciding whether the medical professional is guilty of medical negligence following well known principles must be kept in view:
I. Negligence is the breach of a duty exercised by omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.
II. Negligence is an essential ingredient of the offence. The negligence to be established by the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not the negligence merely based upon an error of judgment.
III. The medical professional is expected to bring a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise 4 (1968) 118 New LJ 4695 (supra) 8 a reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law requires.
IV. A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standard so far reasonably competent practitioner in his field.
V. In the realm of diagnosis and treatment there is scope for genuine difference of opinion and one professional doctor is clearly not negligent merely because his conclusion differs from that of other professional doctor.
VI. The medical professional is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which he honestly believes as providing greater chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances of failure. Just because a professional looking to the gravity of illness has taken higher element of risk to redeem the patient out of his/her suffering which did not yield the desired result may not amount to negligence.
VII. Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill and competence. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession.
VIII. It would not be conducive to the efficiency of the medical profession if no doctor could administer medicine without a halter round his neck.
IX. It is our bounden duty and obligation of the civil society to ensure that the medical professionals are not unnecessarily harassed or humiliated so that they can perform their professional duties without fear and 9 apprehension.
X. The medical practitioners at times also have to be saved from such a class of complainants who use criminal process as a tool for pressurizing the medical professionals/hospitals particularly private hospitals or clinics for extracting uncalled for compensation. Such malicious proceedings deserve to be discarded against the medical practitioners.
XI. The medical professionals are entitled to get protection so long as they perform their duties with reasonable skill and competence and in the interest of the patients. The interest and welfare of the patients have to be paramount for the medical professionals."
22. I may at this stage refer to a decision in the case of Spring Meadows Hospital & Anr. v. Harjol Ahluwalia through K.S. Ahluwalia & Anr. reported in MANU/SC/1014/1998 : (1998) 4 SCC 39. Their Lordships observed as follows:
"Very often in a claim for compensation arising out of medical negligence a plea is taken that it is a case of bona fide mistake which under certain circumstances may be excusable, but a mistake which would tantamount to negligence cannot be pardoned. In the former case a court can accept that ordinary human fallibility precludes the liability while in the latter the conduct of the defendant is considered to have gone beyond the bounds of what is expected of the skill of a reasonably competent doctor."
23. Having analysed the significance or otherwise of the case law on the subject, I may now deliberate whether in the whole process the allegation of medical negligence as against the OPs can withstand the test of scrutiny, as alleged. Negligence per se is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as under:
"Negligence perse : conduct, whether of action or omission, which may be declared and treated as negligence without any argument or proof as to the particular surrounding circumstances, either because it is in violation of a statute or valid municipal ordinance, or because it is so palpably opposed to the dictates of common prudence that it can be said without hesitation or doubt that no careful person would have been guilty of it. As a general rule, the violation of a public duty, enjoined by law for the protection of person or property, so constitutes.
According to Hulsbury's Law of England Ed. 4 Vol. 26 pages 17-18, the definition of Negligence is as under:
"22. Negligence : Duties owed to patient. A person who holds himself out as ready to give medical (a) advice or treatment impliedly undertakes that he is possessed of skill and knowledge for the purpose. Such a person, whether he is a registered medical practitioner or not, who is consulted by a patient, owes him certain duties, namely, a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case : a duty of care in deciding what treatment to give; and a duty of care in his administration of that treatment (b) A breach of any of these duties will support an action for negligence by the patient.
24. No averment in substance has been made by the complainant that the action of the OPs in administering the treatment suffers from any infirmity or their decision to this effect is coupled with any mala fide. If that be the case the allegation of negligence as against the OPs in this behalf cannot be substantiated. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Achutrao Haribhan Khodwa and Ors. vs. State of Maharastra and Ors. as reported in MANU/SC/0600/1996 : (1996) 2 SCC 634, is pleased to observe that in cases where the doctors act carelessly and in a manner which is not expected of a medical practitioner, then in such a case an action on torts would be maintainable but their Lordships have further observed that if the doctor has taken proper precaution and despite that if the patient does not survive then the Court should be very slow in attributing negligence on the part of the doctor.
"A medical practitioner has various duties towards his patient and he must act with a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. This is the least which a patient expects from a doctor. The skill of medical practitioners differs from doctor to doctor. The very nature of the profession is such that there may be more than one course of treatment which may be advisable for treating a patient. Courts would indeed be slow in attributing negligence on the part of a doctor if he has performed his duties to the best of his ability and with due care and caution. Medical opinion may differ with regard to the course of action to be taken by a doctor treating a patient, but as long as a doctor acts in a manner which is acceptable to the medical profession and the court finds that he has attended on the patient with due care, skill and diligence and if the patient still does not survive or suffers a permanent ailment, it would be difficult to hold the doctor to be guilty of negligence. But in cases where the doctors act carelessly and in a manner which is not expected of a medical practitioner, then in such a case an action in torts would be maintainable."
Similarly, in the case of Spring Meadows Hospital & Anr. v. Harjol Ahluwalia through K.S. Ahluwalia & Anr. reported in MANU/SC/1014/1998 : (1998) 4 SCC 39, their Lordships in the Hon'ble Supreme Court is pleased to observe as under:
"Very often in a claim for compensation arising out of medical negligence a plea is taken that it is a case of bona fide mistake which under certain circumstances may be excusable, but a mistake which would tantamount to negligence cannot be pardoned. In the former case a court can accept that ordinary human fallibility precludes the liability while in the latter the conduct of the defendant is considered to have gone beyond the bounds of what is expected of the skill of a reasonably competent doctor."
25. In Jacob Mathew's case as reported in [2008] 6 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"78. A doctor faced with an emergency ordinarily tries his best to redeem the patient out of his suffering. He does not gain anything by acting with negligence or by omitting to do an act. Obviously, therefore, it will be for the complainant to clearly make out a case of negligence before a medical practitioner is charged with or proceeded against criminally. This court in Jacob Mathew's case very aptly observed that a surgeon with shaky hands under fear of legal action cannot perform a successful operation and a quivering physician cannot administer the end-dose of medicine to his patient."
26. In Jacob Mathew's case (supra), conclusions summed up by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are very apt and some portions of which necessary for the adjudication of the case under consideration, are reproduced hereunder-
Negligence is the breach of duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.
The definition of negligence as given in Law of Torts, Ratanlal and Dhirajlal (edited by Justice G.P. Singh), referred to hereinabove holds good. Negligence becomes actionable on account of injury resulting from the act or omission amounting to negligence attributable to the person sued. The essential components of negligence are three: Duty, Breach and Resulting Damage.
Negligence in the context of medical profession necessarily call for a treatment with a difference. To infer rashness or negligence on the part of a professional, in particular a doctor, additional considerations apply. A case of occupational negligence is different from one of professional negligence. A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not proof of negligence on the part of medical professional. So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was also available or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or procedure which the accused followed.
The standard to be applied for judging, whether the person charges has been negligent or not, would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession. It is not possible for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise or skills in that branch which he practices. A highly skilled professional may be possessed of better qualities, but that cannot be made the basis or the yardstick for judging the performance of the professional proceeded against on indictment of negligence."
27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court is pleased to approve the test as laid down in Bolam v. Friern Hospital Management Committee. The relevant principles culled out from the case of Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and Anr as reported in (2008) 6 SCC 1 read as under:
a. Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which prudent and reasonable man would not do, the definition of negligence as given in Law of Torts, Ratanlal and Dhirajlal (edited by justice G.P. Singh), referred to hereinabove, holds good. Negligence becomes actionable on account of injury resulting from the act or omission amounting to negligence attributable to the person sued. The essential components of negligence are three: 'duty', 'breach', and resulting damage.
a. A simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident, is not proof of negligence on the part of a medical professional. So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative course method of treatment was also available or simple because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or procedure which the accused followed. When it comes to the failure of taking precautions what has to be seen is whether those precautions were taken which the ordinary experience of men has found to be sufficient; a failure to use special or extraordinary precautions which might have prevented the particular happening cannot be the standard for judging the alleged negligence.
A professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings: either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, he did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess. The standard to be applied for judging, whether the person charged has been negligent or not, would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession. It is not possible for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise or skills in that branch which he practises. A highly skill professional may be possessed of better qualities, but that cannot be made the basis or the yardstick for judging the performance of the professional proceeded against on indictment of negligence.
28. The National Commission in the case of 1 MANU/CF/0025/1998 : (1999) CPJ 13 (NC) titled Calcutta Medicare Research Institute v. Bimalesh Chatterjee and Ors. ruled that "the onus of proving medical negligence and resultant deficiency in service was clearly on the complainant which in the given case remains unsubstantiated.
29. The ld. Counsel for the complainant in support of their allegation regarding negligence against the treating doctor and the OP Hospital has relied on the following two judgment, namely,
a. Indu Sharma (Dr) v. Indraprastha Apollo Hospital and Ors. as reported in MANU/CF/0240/2015 : III [2015] 248 (NC);
b. Ritesh Kumar Garg v. Max Hospital in C-282/2008 decided on 29.01.2018.
However reliance of these two judgments in the adjudication of this complaint, facts being at variance, would be misplaced.
30. The ld. Counsel for the Op on the other hand has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Vinod Jain v. Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital, Civil Appeal No: 2024/2019, as reported in MANU/SC/0267/2019, holding as under:
In our opinion the approach adopted by the NCDRC cannot be said to be faulty, while dealing with the role of the State Commission, which granted damages on a premise that respondent No. 2-Doctor could have pursued an alternative mode of treatment. Such a course of action, as a super-appellate medical authority, could not have been performed by the State Commission. There was no evidence to show any unexplained deviation from standard protocol. It is also relevant to note that the deceased was medically compromised by the reason of her past illnesses. The deceased was admitted to two other hospitals, post her discharge from respondent No. 1-Hospital. The moot point was whether her 12 admittance and discharge from respondent No. 1-Hospital was the sole, or even the most likely cause of her death. The death had been caused by a multiplicity of factors. In the end, we may also note that the medical certificate issued for the cause of death by Fortis Escorts Hospital cited septic shock due to multiple organ failure as the immediate cause of death, with her diabetic condition being an antecedent cause, as also the multiple malignancies, post chemotherapy and radiotherapy all contributing to her passing away.
We appreciate the pain of the appellant, but then, that by itself cannot be a cause for awarding damages for the passing away of his wife. We have sympathy for the appellant, but sympathy cannot translate into a legal remedy.
31. Having regard to the discussion done and legal position explained I am of the considered view that the negligence as alleged against the treating doctor or OP hospital could not be substantiated and thus the complaint cannot be allowed. Ordered accordingly leaving the parties to bear the cost.
32. A copy of this order be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as is statutorily required. A copy of this order be sent to the District Forum for their record. Files be consigned to records.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.