_edited_edited.jpg)
Case Name - M/S. Spring Meadows Hospital and Another vs Harjol Ahluwalia through, K.S Ahluwalia and Another
Case Citation - 7708 and 7858 of 1997
Parties Involved -
Petitioner - M/S. Spring Meadows Hospital and Another.
Respondent - Harjol Ahluwalia through, K.S. Ahluwalia and Another.
Bench -
Hon’ble Justice S. Saghir Ahmad
Hon’ble Justice G.B. Pattanaik
Relevant Acts and Sections -
Facts of the Case
Harjot Ahluwalia (who is a minor) submitted the complaint petition with the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission through his parents, Mrs. Harpreet Ahluwalia and Mr. Kamaljit Singh Ahluwalia.
According to the petition, the minor was admitted to M/s. Spring Meadows Hospital on December 24, 1993, because his health had not improved since his previous admission.
After inspecting the patient, the senior consultant diagnosed him with typhoid and ordered medications to treat him.
On the 30th of December 1993, Miss Bina Matthew, a nurse at the hospital, advised the patient's father to receive the injection "In Lariago," which was supposed to help the patient. The injection was intended to be administered to the patient intravenously.
The nurse administered the injection to the patient once it was purchased. When the patient slumped after receiving the injection, a resident doctor, Dr. Dhananjay, was summoned for assistance.
The doctor examined the patient and determined that he had gone into cardiac arrest. He attempted to resuscitate him by manually pumping his chest. Following that, the patient was placed on a manual respirator.
The minor patient showed no indications of recovery despite being placed on a manual ventilator and receiving the requisite blood transfusion. Following that, the hospital notified the parents that the patient needed to be transferred to a hospital with an ICU and an auto-respirator.
The patient was then sent to AIIMS on January 3, 1994, where doctors determined that the patient was critical and would only survive in a vegetative state because irreversible damage had been done to his brain and that there was no hope of the injured sections being revived.
As a result, he was discharged from AIIMS on January 24, 1994, because the patient's condition had not improved significantly.
The M/S Meadows Hospital volunteered to re-admit the patient in order to do all possible to stabilize his condition, and he was re-admitted. The patient suffered irreversible damage as a result of medical malpractice, according to the complainant, and could only survive in a vegetative condition.
As a result, a compensation of Rs. 28 lakhs was sought. The Commission concluded that the kid suffered cardiac arrest as a result of a high-dose intravenous lariago injection and that the hospital authorities were negligent in their medical care.
The Commission awarded the minor sufferer compensation of Rs. 12.5 lakhs. It also ordered Rs. 5 lakhs in damages to the minor child's parents for the emotional anguish they endured as a result of their only son surviving in a vegetative state that necessitated lifetime attention and care.
The Commission also ordered the insurance company to indemnify the amount of Rs.12,37,500 due to the hospital's liability under the policy, despite the fact that the case was completely covered by the indemnification clause.
As a result of the order issued by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in New Delhi on June 16, 1997, the following appeals to the Supreme Court were filed. The Hospital and the insurance company are the appellants in both appeals.
Issue of the Case
Can the child's parents claim compensation under the terms of the Consumer Protection Act?
Does Section 14 of the Act have power to the Commission to provide compensation to the parents of a child for the mental anguish that is tolerated?
Should the child's parents be considered ‘consumers’ under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act?
If a parent and child fall under section 2(1)(d) of the Act, can compensation be paid to the beneficiary for the services rendered, the child in the current situation or both consumers are eligible for compensation?
Arguments of the Petitioner
The hospital argued that the complainant was a minor and only he could be the sole 'consumer' and that the parents of the minor could not be eligible for compensation under the Consumer Protection Act because of the mental anguish they suffered.
It was argued that the compensation of 5 Lakhs given to the parents of a young child was beyond the ability of the Commission.
It was argued that in terms of Section 12(1)(a) of the Act, only a consumer who has been rendered a service may lodge a complaint. The patient in this service becomes a consumer and therefore, no compensation can be provided in favor of the parents.
It was argued that under the provision of Section 14(d) of the Act, the Commission may not be entitled to award compensation to both parents and child. It can only provide compensation for an injured minor and not the parents.
The hospital authorities had shown ways to assist in re-admitting the patient free of charge after being discharged from AIIMS and in such a case the prize for trauma due to trauma to parents is not entirely appropriate.
It was further argued that under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act, the Commission shall be entitled to compensate for any loss or damage incurred by the consumer.
Judgment of the Case
With regard to the insurance dispute, the court ruled that it was not open to the public to consider as the notice issued by this court only applies to the validity of the compensation granted to the parents of the minor child.
The court in the case acknowledged the difficulties created by the practice of medical negligence and said that there were significant difficulties in linking the injury to treatment that was associated with the difficulty of establishing a standard of careless medical care that could be complained about. The court further stated that "In claiming compensation for medical negligence, a claim for genuine wrongdoing under certain circumstances may be pardoned but an error equal to negligence cannot be pardoned". This means that the court can accept a previous case because of a person's failure to acquit the defendant. However, in the latter case, the defendant's conduct if it exceeds the limits of what is expected of a competent physician will not be excused.
In addition, it was argued that a serious medical error would always lead to negligence and that the misuse of the drug or the wrong gas during the painkillers would be sufficient to impose debt and in some cases, the 'Res Ipsa loquitur' policy can also be used. Delegation may also be negligent in certain situations.
In order to answer the question of whether the parents of the minor child fall under the definition of 'consumer under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, it has analyzed subsection (ii) of the section and stated that this section is broad enough,' consumer 'not only and the beneficiary of those resources which are not available to the tenant. ” Therefore, parents of a minor and a child will be ‘consumers’ in terms of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and may claim compensation in the current situation.
The court in response to a question on whether the Commission could compensate the parents of the minor child rejected the applicant's argument and ruled that the child's parents were employed by the hospital and that the child was a beneficiary of such services. falls within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the Act. Therefore, the Commission will have full reason to provide compensation under Section 14(d), to both parents and the child for their injuries. He also pointed out that such compensation was given to the parents of the minor child because of their trauma and the lifelong care and care they should give the child. Therefore, the court did not see any weakness in the Commission's approach and supported its decision to provide compensation to the parents, in addition to compensation in favor of the minor child.
The court rejected the applicant's argument and ruled that the psychological pain suffered by a parent seeing his or her only child being malnourished due to medical negligence cannot be commended by the Hospital's 'help' approach and that cannot be considered part of the compensation for mental anguish suffered by parents.
Disputes filed by the counsel which appeared to be that the applicants had failed, the appeal had failed and were therefore dismissed at the cost of Rs.5000.
For a more simple understanding, refer to the article " Can The Doctors Be Sued For Their Negligence? " by clicking the button below.
Comments