ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. Two separate appeals have been filed against the order passed by the State Commission in the complaint filed by Satish Kumar and others against Dr. K.I.N. Sharma, alleging medical negligence.
First Appeal No. 385 of 2002
Very briefly facts of the case are that the deceased Babita Rani was admitted on 6.2.1999 at about 2.30 p.m. in the nursing home of the appellant. She was known to be a case of diabetes where she was allegedly administered Glucose without insulin, blood transfusion was also done twice. When the situation did not improve she was referred to Medical College in Patiala for which place she left on 8th February 1999 at 2.30 p.m. but en route from Dhuri to Patiala, the condition of the patient worsened and she was admitted in the hospital of Dr. Singla at about 3.30 p.m. and the deceased expired at 4.30 p.m. on 8.2.1999. The main allegation on the point of medical negligence was that the appellant administered glucose knowing the deceased to be a case of diabetes without the use of insulin and secondly the blood transfusion was done without proper checking the blood group of the deceased. The State Commission after hearing the parties at length and perusing the material brought on record allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to pay Rs. 1,25,000/- as compensation including cost of litigation and expenses incurred in hospital. Aggrieved by this order, this appeal has been preferred before us.
2. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and also perused the material on record. The appellant relies upon the report of the Medical Board, appointed by the SMO of the Government Hospital, comprising three doctors, namely, Dr. R.P. Jindal, Surgical Specialist, Dr. Ramesh Sharma, Dr. N.S. Baliani, Medical Specialist, wherein, as per the report of these three doctors the diagnose made by the appellant was correct “we do not find any negligence in the treatment given to the best of our knowledge”. The second report is of the other Doctor, where he states “line of treatment seems to be more or less on correct lines. So it appears that there is no negligence in treatment”. We are unable to give any credence to these two reports for three reasons. One, that this was not a surgical case, any report of any surgical specialist in any case will not be of any relevance. Secondly, while the report of the two doctors written separately is a bald statement to the fact that there, is no negligence and ends with the dubious/ambiguous words to the best of our knowledge’. We do not know what does it mean? In the second report signed by one Doctor it is stated that the ‘treatment seems to be more or less correct’. In our view ‘lesser said the better’. It is also important to note that these statements were part of the criminal record filed against the appellant and none of the Doctors deposed before the State Commission. In any case these statements are not supported by any affidavit by any one, hence we do not attach any importance to this. The second point made by the learned Counsel for the appellant was as to after discharge at 2.30 p.m. on 8.2.1999, the appellant is not aware as to what was given to the deceased and also the fact that he had been referred to Medical College in Patiala, whereas deceased was taken to Sangrur in Dr. Singhla’s Clinic. This is a negligence on the part of the complainants. We have gone through the material very carefully and in the complaint as well as in the affidavit filed by the complainants before the State Commission, it has been made very clear that they were taking the deceased to Patiala by car but when the Glucose detached itself and the condition of the deceased deteriorating, hence en route they had to find the nearest Doctor/hospital, and in this case they took the patient to Dr. Singla’s Clinic at Sangrur. This affidavit filed by the complainant, has not been rebutted anywhere. We see no merit in this plea of the appellant.
3. The next argument of the appellant is that it is not correct to state that the deceased was administered glucose without insulin. It is the case of the appellant, what, in fact, was administered was ‘fructose’ and not glucose and as per medical record, the patient was administered insulin along with dextrose and also fructose. This is relevant to note that the medical record of the hospital itself is a subject matter of great controversy. We have on record two separate expert opinions. On filed by the complainant, after obtaining the report from Prasad Forensic Science Consultants and the other filed by the appellant one Jassy Anand Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert. While the Prasad Forensic Science Consultant states that there has been manipulation in the medical record, the report of the Handwriting and Finger Prints Expert filed by the appellant states that there has been no manipulation and they have been written in sequence. Even though the State Commission has relied upon the report of the Prasad Forensic Consultant and has reproduced this in the order passed by it, we are not inclined to give much importance as there is a contrary statements/reports available on record and especially when in the given circumstances, none of them have been cross-examined. We will not be able to hold one against the other.
4. Another issue made by the appellant relates to heavy reliance on Dr. Singla’s Affidavit as an expert who has stated in his affidavit the drugs were administered properly “No such symptoms were found present on the body of the patient Babita Rani then she was brought to me from which it may be inferred that wrong blood has been transfused to the patient. In case there is stress and strain to a diabetic patient and patient was in shock, blood sugar and blood urea can rise upto the level found in EK/PW5/B”. We are not inclined to attach any importance to this affidavit which was filed on 20.5.2002, in view of the fact that we have on record a statement in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dhuri made on oath on 22.7.1999, which is reproduced as under:
“I attended the patient in a grievous condition. She came at 3.30 p.m. and Le BP Pube were not recoverable. She was gasping. Her blood sugar was ….. to be 688, B1. Urea 130 & S, cretion 4.6. I tried corrective measures and resuscitation. But the Pt. expired at 4.30 p.m. I do not know her past history and no post mortem report has been shown. So, I cannot say what are the reasons for her death.”
5. We do not wish to attach any importance to an afterthought by way of affidavit almost three years after the event wherein a statement on oath before a Zonal Magistrate at best shows complete ignorance.
6. We also see that in the complaint, the complainant has straight away alleged that the deceased was administered blood transfusion twice, i.e., on 6th and 8th February, 1999. This has not been specifically denied at any stage. On the contrary we have a written statement in the handwriting of the complainant himself which states as under:
“This blood was given to the patient on 6.2.1999 in the evening after transfusion. Again more blood was required the relatives were again asked to call some donors for more blood, for transfusion to the patient. This blood was arranged by them at late hours of 7.2.1999 which was stored by the technician Sh. Jaipal Singh in a refrigerator under proper conditions for further transfusion on 8.2.1999 or whenever required. The same was transfused to the patient on 8.2.1999 in the morning. As the patient was serious and condition was deteriorating, thus, I referred the case to Medical College, Patiala for proper treatment.”
7. What we find more galling is that there is no mention of the second blood transfusion in the medical record before discharge on 8.2.1999. When the Commission specifically asked the learned Counsel for the appellant to explain this ambiguity/contradiction between the medical record and the statement of the appellant, he was unable to give any explanation to this effect except stating that he was administered blood only once on 6.2.1999. It was the plea of the appellant that “Blood transfusion” was done to save the life of the patient as he was brought unconscious. We went through the medical record with the learned Counsel for the appellant and again he was unable to satisfy us as to what were the life threatening conditions which warranted blood transfusion? Lower haemoglobin could be one of the reasons for blood transfusion but there is no such record in the written version filed by the appellant. He has stated in his ‘Written Version’ filed before the State Commission that, “It is not necessary to submit the patient to repeatedly haemoglobin levels”. The question ‘repeatedly’ will be of some relevance only if at any stage haemoglobin had been noted. There is no such thing on record. The learned Counsel for the appellant is also unable to satisfy us why the relatives of patients were asked to arrange blood on 7.2.1999 at 10 a.m. and what after getting it on 7.2.1999 happened to that blood once it was brought? We are inclined to agree with the statement in his own handwriting by the appellant that blood transfusion was done on 8.2.1999 as well. There is no specific denial of the complainants’ case in complaint and in affidavit filed by them that the blood was procured on 7.2.1999 which was kept frozen and then heated up and only after that it was administered. As per the report of the CMO, on record, he states as under:
“It is said about the above subject that no private doctor in his own private nursing home and without obtaining Blood Bank Licence shall administer or obtain blood to any patient while human blood if kept in freezer it get freezed and if it is warmed up it gets spoiled and this blood should not be administered.”
8. We take a very serious view, of the fact that there is no material on record to indicate as to what was the ‘Blood group’ of the deceased and on what basis the relatives of the deceased/patient were asked to obtain the blood? First to completely deny that no blood transfusion was done on 8.2.1999 and then to transfuse the blood even on the 6th February followed by blood transfusion on 8.2.1999 without checking the blood group of the patient, will certainly amount to a case of gross medical negligence. As per the record of the CMO, this private nursing home had ho business to transfuse the blood and nothing has been shown to us that the patient’s life was threatened, hence it had to be transfused. Above will show that the blood transfusion was done in an unauthorised and most negligent manner, which could have resulted in death of the patient/deceased.
First Appeal No. 130 of 2003
9. This appeal has been filed by the complainant for enhancement of compensation. We heard the parties at length and find no merit in this appeal. We will not like to interfere with the award given by the State Commission after due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case.
In the result both the appeals are dismissed.