Medical Negligence, NCDRC’s Revisional Power Is Limited To Illegality, Material Irregularity Or Jurisdictional Error

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench comprising presiding members Dr. S.M. Kantikar and Mr. Binoy Kumar upheld the State Commission’s award in favour of the patient who died due to medical negligence by the doctors while performing an operation to remove the gall bladder stone. While the petitioners argued over different facts, the court held that it was bound by the fact-related findings of the District and State Commissions and in a revision petition, the NCDRC had the authority to interfere only if there had been a case of illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error. Brief Facts: The Deceased named Bal Singh (“patient”) was examined by Dr. Harbinder Singh, owner of Guru Ram Dass Hospital (“hospital”) and subsequently got admitted for surgery of gall bladder stone. Allegedly, in the operation theatre (“OT”), Dr. Rajinder Manchanda did not perform a pre-anaesthetic checkup and gave an IV injection to the patient without a test dose. The patient started trembling immediately and thereafter, Dr. Harbinder Singh pushed the Pentothal injection in one stroke and the condition of the patient worsened. During this emergency, the relatives of the patient were asked to move outside and equipment and doctors from another hospital were arranged. After two hours, the relatives were informed that the patient had expired. Allegedly, the paramedical staff informed the complainant that the doctors did not make any efforts to revive the patient. A few essential facilities were also not available in the OT. The Complainant somehow procured the xerox copy of a report made by the Pathology Department which showed that the death was due to Cardio Respiratory Arrest because of a drug reaction. On that basis, a Consumer Complaint was filed for medical negligence wherein the District Commission partly allowed the complaint and awarded a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- to the patient. Being aggrieved, the Insurance Company, Guru Ramdass Hospital and Dr. Rajendra Manchanda filed a first appeal and the complainant filed an appeal for the enhancement of compensation. The State Commission dismissed the first appeal and enhanced the compensation to the complaint to Rs 7,00,000/- payable by Dr. Harbinder and Dr. Rajinder jointly and severally. Being aggrieved, Dr. Rajinder and the Insurance Company filed the revision petitions. The petitioner argued that the State Commission wrongly enhanced the compensation. Dr. Rajinder further argued that the patient was not directly concerned with him, nor pair any consideration to him, therefore, cause of action does not arise against him. As per him, the OT and the anaesthesia instruments were in working order. Observations of the Commission: The Commission placed special emphasis on the fact that before the operation, no ECG/informed consent of the patient was taken. Only one signature was taken but all other spaces on the consent form, regarding the doctor and patient details were left empty. It was not disputed that Dr. Rajinder was a silent spectator while Dr., Harbinder injected the 10 ml anaesthetic Pentothal Sodium which cause a severe reaction. The evidence on record clearly showed that the equipment was missing. The Commission held Dr. Rajinder accountable on the basis of the findings that he injected the dose without proper monitoring even when he was not competent to do so. Even the patient’s ECG was not done immediately to detect cardiac arrest. Further, the presiding members found themselves bound by the facts which were already established by the District and State Commissions. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269, wherein the court held that the revisional jurisdiction is very limited. The higher forum can only interfere when there is any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting the interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. With the aforementioned observations, the NCDRC did not find any merit in the revision petitions and dismissed the same. The award passed by the State Commission was upheld. Case:Dr. Rajender Manchanda vs Chhinder Kaur and 8 others Case No.:Revision Petition No. 3304 of 2012 Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Mukhija, Mr. Anoop K. Kaushal and Dr. Sushil Kr. Gupta Counsel for the Respondents:Mr. B.R. Arora ClickHere To Read/Download Order

Medical Negligence, NCDRC’s Revisional Power Is Limited To Illegality, Material Irregularity Or Jurisdictional Error

Smita Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Medical Negligence, NCDRC’s Revisional Power Is Limited To Illegality, Material Irregularity Or Jurisdictional Error

Smita Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers