RAMESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL Vs. REGENCY HOSPITAL LTD
LAWS(SC)-2009-9-25
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
September 11,2009
RAMESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL
Appellant
VERSUS
Regency Hospital Ltd. And Ors.
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
TITLI V. JONES [REFERRED TO]STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION VS. PALI RAM [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. JAI LAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. DAMU S O GOPINATH SHINDE [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
AJAY KUMAR VS. INDU BALA MISHRA [LAWS(NCD)-2020-3-55] [REFERRED TO]TATA CHEMICALS LIMITED VS. KSHITISH BARDHAN CHUNILAL NATH [LAWS(CAL)-2022-9-115] [REFERRED TO]
PANKAJ KUMAR ROY VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2013-1-69] [REFERRED TO]
NATHU RAM AND ORS. VS. PUKH RAJ AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-10-8] [REFERRED TO]
BOSS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD VS. CHENNAI PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD ; M VENKATESAN [LAWS(MAD)-2016-8-292] [REFERRED]
KISHAN PALSINGH VS. G.L. DHARA [LAWS(DLH)-2014-9-191] [REFERRED TO]
INDIRA RAI VS. SHRI BIR SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2010-11-171] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. I.K. MERCHANTS [LAWS(CAL)-2022-4-165] [REFERRED TO]
S.RAMAKRISHNA VS. S.APPAIAH [LAWS(KAR)-2020-3-125] [REFERRED TO]
PAPPU VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2022-2-35] [REFERRED TO]
YOULANDE LOUIS VS. CELESTINE PUSHPARAJ [LAWS(MAD)-2022-7-309] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMAN POOJARY AND ORS. VS. THE STATE AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-3-303] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL RAHMAN (DECEASED BY LRS.) VS. DISTRICT JUDGE, HAMIRPUR (MAHOBA) [LAWS(ALL)-2012-10-222] [REFERRED TO]
PAWAN KUMAR SETHIA VS. SAKALA DEVI THAKUR [LAWS(GAU)-2015-3-55] [REFERRED TO]
MASTER RISHABH SHARMA & ORS. VS. DR. RAMA SHARMA & ORS. [LAWS(NCD)-2016-5-52] [REFERRED TO]
M M YUSUF VS. R L JADHAV [LAWS(MAD)-2012-7-409] [REFERRED TO]
PREM SAGAR MANOCHA VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) [LAWS(SC)-2016-1-18] [REFERRED TO]
NIVRUTTI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2024-9-37] [REFERRED TO]
INDIA TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED VS. MISS SUSAN LEIGH BEER [LAWS(DLH)-2014-5-198] [REFERRED TO]
PRATEEK GARG AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-2-54] [REFERRED TO]
THYSSENKRUPP MATERIALS AG VS. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2017-4-108] [REFERRED TO]
POGULA KAMALAKAR VS. VENUGOPAL REDDY [LAWS(TLNG)-2024-2-15] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. GOVINDASWAMY [LAWS(KER)-2013-12-42] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2017-2-29] [REFERRED TO]
PAWAN TIWARI VS. GANGA SHEETGRIH PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS [LAWS(NCLT)-2016-9-19] [REFERRED TO]
SRI BUNTI ALIAS AJOY BANIK VS. THE STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2016-8-9] [REFERRED TO]
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD VS. PROTECTION MANUFACTURERS PVT LTD [LAWS(SC)-2010-7-97] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYANAN SERVAI VS. SEENUAMMAL [LAWS(MAD)-2012-9-199] [REFERRED TO]
BAJAJ AUTO LTD VS. T V S MOTOR COMPANY LTD [LAWS(MAD)-2017-12-384] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. MAHESHWARI MILLS [LAWS(GJH)-2012-12-247] [REFERRED TO]
THAKORBHAI PRABHUDAS PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2013-4-390] [REFERRED TO]
PADAM CHANDRA SINGHI VS. P B DESAI [LAWS(BOM)-2011-9-24] [REFERRED TO]
RAMKUMAR VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2023-9-35] [REFERRED TO]
TIKA RAM VS. DAULAT RAM [LAWS(ALL)-2013-4-175] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH VS. BAIJNATH SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2013-2-146] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. DEVENDRA KUMAR CHAUDHARY AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-4-568] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY BAHADUR VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-7-146] [REFERRED TO]
KAILAS IYER VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2014-11-131] [REFERRED TO]
CHETANBHAI NATWARLAL SHRIMADI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2019-5-32] [REFERRED TO]
MAJOR GENERAL M.J.S. VIRK VS. HONDA SIEL CARS INDIA LTD. [LAWS(NCD)-2023-7-49] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARAJA AGRASEN HOSPITAL VS. MASTER RISHABH SHARMA [LAWS(SC)-2019-12-63] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. BOSS INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD VS. CHENNAI PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. [LAWS(MAD)-2016-8-3] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF H.P. VS. MEHBOON KHAN [LAWS(HPH)-2013-9-23] [REFERRED TO]
SWETABH SUMAN VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(UTN)-2022-3-150] [REFERRED TO]
DHIRAJLAL ALIAS DHIRUBHAI BABARIA AND ANR VS. NAVINBHAI C DAVE & ANR [LAWS(BOM)-2017-8-298] [REFERRED TO]
MANKESHWAR SHAW VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2024-3-141] [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL STAFF CO VS. REGISTRAR CO [LAWS(DLH)-2013-1-440] [REFERRED TO]
SARDAR PURAN SINGH VS. MADHUR MOHINI AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-7-15] [REFERRED TO]
SANJEEV KUMAR VS. STATE OF H. P. [LAWS(HPH)-2021-3-26] [REFERRED TO]
VIVEK BITHLE @ BITTU VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2013-12-70] [REFERRED TO]
UTTAM SARKAR VS. MANAGEMENT OF TURA CHRISTIAN HOSPITAL [LAWS(MEGHCDRC)-2014-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
PYDIMARRI VENKATESWARLU VS. PYDIMARRI JALAMMA [LAWS(APH)-2023-11-90] [REFERRED TO]
KAMAL KISHORE BHAGAT AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2015-9-109] [REFERRED TO]
SWAMI SATYANAND VS. RAJIV RANJAN KUMAR SINGH [LAWS(CAL)-2012-6-50] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. I.K. MERCHANTS [LAWS(CAL)-2022-4-73] [REFERRED TO]
NATASHA SINGH VS. CBI (STATE) [LAWS(DLH)-2017-8-209] [REFERRED TO]
MANIKA ROY AND ORS. VS. B.L. CHITLANGRA AND ORS. [LAWS(NCD)-2016-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND VS. SARDAR PARWAN SINGH [LAWS(UTN)-2019-11-154] [REFERRED TO]
SAFI MOHD VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(SC)-2013-4-73] [REFERRED TO]
SHABIR HUSAIN VS. CENTRE FOR SIGHT [LAWS(NCD)-2023-6-10] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL SHARMA VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-2018-12-2] [REFERRED TO]
PAL SINGH VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(UTN)-2021-11-94] [REFERRED TO]
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. VS. SHAMSHE ALAM AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2015-11-71] [REFERRED TO]
PRAVEEN KUMAR VS. STATE OF MP [LAWS(MPH)-2012-2-108] [REFERRED TO]
M. RADHAKRISHNAN VS. SURABHI PUBLICATIONS AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2016-7-43] [REFERRED TO]
ADDL. SPL. LAND ACQ. OFFICER VS. ASHWAMEGH (SOLA) CO.OP.HA.SO.LIMITED [LAWS(GJH)-2023-2-713] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
H. L. Dattu, J. -
(1.)This appeal is directed against the order passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Original Petition No. 128 of 1996 dated 23.5.2002. By the impugned order National Consumer Commission has rejected the petition filed by the complainant.
(2.)The facts in brief are as under : The appellant/complainant was a teacher by profession. He was aged about 60 years when he was down with physical ailments such as backache and difficulty in walking as a result of progressive weakness of both his lower limbs. As the problem worsened, on 20.11.1995, the appellant approached Regency Hospital Ltd. (Respondent No. 1), for Medical check-up. On the same day, C.T. Scan was done and he was diagnosed as a patient of "Dorsol Cord Compression D4-D6 Pott's spine" which in simple terms means that T.B. infection has spread till his vertebra. On the same day he was advised to get operated for decompression of spinal cord by Laminectomy D-3 to D-6. The operation was performed by Dr. Atul Sahay (Respondent No. 2) on 25.11.1995. It is asserted, that, after the operation, the condition of the appellant deteriorated further and it was revealed from the MRI scan that the operation was not successful as it was not done at the right level. It is also stated that the case summary and the MRI reports suggest that the problem was aggravated and there was need for another operation. Dr. I.N. Vajpayee (respondent No. 3) was consulted on 12.12.1995 and he performed the operation on the same day. Even after the second operation the infection was not cured and this forced him to refer his case to Vidya Sagar Institute of Mental Health and Neurological Sciences, New Delhi (VIMHANS) for further treatment. It is further stated, that, the third operation was preformed and it provided the appellant some relief, but left him handicapped due to his legs being rendered useless and loss of control over his Bladder movement.
(3.)COMPLAINT BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION : The appellant, being impaired by the treatment, filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred as "National Commission") alleging medical negligence on the part of respondents 1 to 3. The claim of the appellant before the National Commission was as under :
i) That the correct method of operating his infection was the Antero-Lateral Decompression (ALD) and not Laminectomy.
ii) That the complainant/appellant contends that he was kept only for one week on the Anti-Tubercular drugs before the surgery which is a much shorter duration than the accepted medical practice.
iii) That there was no requirement of immediate surgery.
iv) That the respondent no. 2, who was a Neurosurgeon did not consult the Orthopedic surgeon, even though he was not capable to handle the case of complainant/appellant without consulting Orthopedic surgeon.
Hence, it was claimed that there is gross negligence and carelessness on the part of the respondents in treating the complainant/appellant, and therefore, respondents be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 22,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum to the complainant.
(2.)The facts in brief are as under : The appellant/complainant was a teacher by profession. He was aged about 60 years when he was down with physical ailments such as backache and difficulty in walking as a result of progressive weakness of both his lower limbs. As the problem worsened, on 20.11.1995, the appellant approached Regency Hospital Ltd. (Respondent No. 1), for Medical check-up. On the same day, C.T. Scan was done and he was diagnosed as a patient of "Dorsol Cord Compression D4-D6 Pott's spine" which in simple terms means that T.B. infection has spread till his vertebra. On the same day he was advised to get operated for decompression of spinal cord by Laminectomy D-3 to D-6. The operation was performed by Dr. Atul Sahay (Respondent No. 2) on 25.11.1995. It is asserted, that, after the operation, the condition of the appellant deteriorated further and it was revealed from the MRI scan that the operation was not successful as it was not done at the right level. It is also stated that the case summary and the MRI reports suggest that the problem was aggravated and there was need for another operation. Dr. I.N. Vajpayee (respondent No. 3) was consulted on 12.12.1995 and he performed the operation on the same day. Even after the second operation the infection was not cured and this forced him to refer his case to Vidya Sagar Institute of Mental Health and Neurological Sciences, New Delhi (VIMHANS) for further treatment. It is further stated, that, the third operation was preformed and it provided the appellant some relief, but left him handicapped due to his legs being rendered useless and loss of control over his Bladder movement.
(3.)COMPLAINT BEFORE THE NATIONAL COMMISSION : The appellant, being impaired by the treatment, filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred as "National Commission") alleging medical negligence on the part of respondents 1 to 3. The claim of the appellant before the National Commission was as under :
i) That the correct method of operating his infection was the Antero-Lateral Decompression (ALD) and not Laminectomy.
ii) That the complainant/appellant contends that he was kept only for one week on the Anti-Tubercular drugs before the surgery which is a much shorter duration than the accepted medical practice.
iii) That there was no requirement of immediate surgery.
iv) That the respondent no. 2, who was a Neurosurgeon did not consult the Orthopedic surgeon, even though he was not capable to handle the case of complainant/appellant without consulting Orthopedic surgeon.
Hence, it was claimed that there is gross negligence and carelessness on the part of the respondents in treating the complainant/appellant, and therefore, respondents be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 22,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum to the complainant.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.