The complaint filed by Sh. Raj Karan Singh against the Indraprastha Apollo Hospital having been disposed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VII, Delhi, on 17.04.2012 holding the hospital negligent in the matter of treatment to Ms. Anju Rani, complainant’s daughter and awarding the compensation of Rs. One Lakh, the complainant, not being satisfied with the compensation awarded, has filed an appeal before this Commission for short appellant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, the Act, against the said hospital, hereinafter referred to as respondent praying for the enhancement of compensation, the negligence on the part of the OP/respondent having been established by the District Forum. [Para 1]

Whether a minor child born to parents belonging to economically weaker section of the society suffering from a chronic and rare disease, gaucher, is entitled to free medical treatment costing about rupees six lakhs per month especially when the treatment is known, prognosis is good and there is every likelihood of petitioner leading a normal life?

Questions for Consideration: 1. Whether Delhi State Commission has a territorial jurisdiction or not? 2. Whether or not the complaint falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the State Commission at Delhi? 3. On 13.05.2019, after hearing Ld. Counsel for both sides, and after perusing the material on record, and after the due consideration, we recorded the sum and substance of our considered view in the daily Order: Meanwhile, the liberty provided by the State Commission to the complainants “to approach the appropriate Fora to seek their remedy” remains unaffected. [Para 2]

Question for Consideration: 1. Whether or not the patient developed Meningitis due to wrong treatment or procedure of the OP, ENT Surgeon? 2. Is there a nexus between previous treatment of otitis externa and Meningitis after 11 days of procedure? Following issues discussed: Issue of Qualification, Standard Medical Protocol, Investigation, Second Opinion, referral of patient.

Trend of increased filing of medical negligence cases in DCDRCs of various states is an indicator of increasing awareness among consumers, decreasing quality of health care services as few of the reasons. There is urgent need to study the reasons for this increase in number of medical negligence cases and policy making to prevent this trend so that common man availing health care services can be provided with quality of health care services which is their fundamental right protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. There is need for introspection at the level of medical colleges and medical council of India to understand the reasons for increasing trends. There is need for change in curriculum and creating ethical awareness among potential doctors. There is need for increasing budgetary allocations of GDP to create more infrastructures and more investment in training, research, organizing CMEs, Seminars, workshops, conferences etc. in future. High medical negligence cases filed states (State of U.P., State of M.P., etc.) need to be given preference for preventing this filing of more and more medical negligence cases and finding out the reasons for increased filing of medical negligence cases in India.

The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act (MTP Act) is aimed at eliminating abortion by untrained persons and in unhygienic conditions, thus reducing maternal morbidity and mortality. It is in these circumstances that the Act as earlier enacted has been amended. The amendments are aimed at enabling the termination of pregnancy by registered medical practitioners. It is they who are absolved of the consequences that they may have to face, in the event they terminate the pregnancy otherwise than in accordance with this Act. Division Bench of Bombay High Court observed that we cannot be oblivious and unmindful of the Statement of Objects and Reasons leading to the enactment and after its amendment that this MTP Act legalises termination of pregnancy on various socio-medical grounds. [Para 16] It is in these circumstances, it would be highly unsafe to now allow the petitioner to raise an altogether different ground to enable her to terminate her pregnancy. [Para 16] Division Bench of Bombay High Court observed that this petition is really an abuse of the process of this (High) Court for we find that this tendency has to be curbed. Nobody can come to this court as of right to seek a relief of the above nature. Issues Discussed: • Whether she can continue the pregnancy or her mental health is at risk? • No grave injury to the petitioner’s mental health: Ground for Rejection for MTP: Bombay High Court • Issue of Opinion of Private Medical Practitioners was not accepted • Reliance on Medical Opinion of Multidisciplinary Medical Board (Constitution and Composition) • Misuse of Jurisdiction, Heavy Cost for approaching Court without fulfilling ingredients of Section 3 of the MTP Act • Court refused to undertake fresh ground of Rape for MTP at this stage

Background of the Case: This petition was initiated by the Court on its own motion after a news item appeared in the “Syandan Patrika” dated 24th July, 2013 in which it was reported that a mother had lost her son since he was not treated with due care in the G.B. P. Hospital at Agartala. [Para 1] Alleged Medical Negligence: Before initiating these proceedings the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belonia was directed to record the statement of mother, Smt. Marulata Das which was recorded on 6th September, 2013 in which the mother complained that nobody attended to her son, Prasanta Das despite the fact that he was seriously unwell. [Para 2] Facts of the Case: The story of the mother, Smt. Marulata Das is heartrending. According to her, she is a widow and she had one son and one unmarried daughter. Her son Prasanta fell ill on 21st July, 2013. She got her son treated at Belonia by a private doctor who prescribed medicines. Since he did not recover next day she took her son to the hospital at Belonia where some further treatment was given to him but his condition did not improve and on that day itself in the evening the son was referred to G.B.P Hospital, Agartala at about 7.00 p.m. [Para 3]

Background of the Case: This petition was initiated by the Court on its own motion after a news item appeared in the “Syandan Patrika” dated 24th July, 2013 in which it was reported that a mother had lost her son since he was not treated with due care in the G.B. P. Hospital at Agartala. [Para 1] Alleged Medical Negligence: Before initiating these proceedings the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belonia was directed to record the statement of mother, Smt. Marulata Das which was recorded on 6th September, 2013 in which the mother complained that nobody attended to her son, Prasanta Das despite the fact that he was seriously unwell. [Para 2] Facts of the Case: The story of the mother, Smt. Marulata Das is heartrending. According to her, she is a widow and she had one son and one unmarried daughter. Her son Prasanta fell ill on 21st July, 2013. She got her son treated at Belonia by a private doctor who prescribed medicines. Since he did not recover next day she took her son to the hospital at Belonia where some further treatment was given to him but his condition did not improve and on that day itself in the evening the son was referred to G.B.P Hospital, Agartala at about 7.00 p.m. [Para 3]

Following Issues emerged for discussion: Duty of the Hospital: 1. Who is the doctor is the best to conduct the operation on the patient? 2. Who is the Anesthetist to administer the Anesthesia? 3. What drug was given for anaesthesia? 4. What was the dose that was given? 5. Whether the complainants have proved the allegations made by them against the Respondents with cogent and convincing evidence? 6. What are the standard infrastructures prescribed for private Nursing Homes? 7. What are the equipments that are to be installed in the operation theatre? 8. What are the infrastructure and equipments that were lacking in the hospital and operation theatre of the 1sr Respondent? Expert Opinion Standard of Infrastructure Cause of death Vicarious Responsibility Joint and Several Liability Enhanced compensation

This research paper deals with an interesting case of misdiagnosis in early weeks of gestation due to limitation of technology as reported in medical literature. Based on presentation of symptoms and clinical findings attending doctor made diagnosis of incomplete abortion and performed D& C as standard reasonable practice in such case. Questions for consideration before NCDRC: 1. Whether there was deficiency in service from the OP to diagnose the ectopic pregnancy? 2. Whether it was a misdiagnosis? On allegations of medical negligence before DCDRC, which find doctor negligent and awarded compensation for deficiency in service, in appeal decision was affirmed by SCDRC and dismissed the appeal. NCDRC while deciding Revision Petition ruled out medical negligence. There is need for creating awareness among doctors to rule out ectopic pregnancy and among public to understand the limitations of medical professionals in to diagnose ectopic pregnancy.