Arun Kumar Manglik vs Chirayu Health And Medicare Private Ltd ...

3 The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [NCDRC] 1 has set aside an order of the MP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission 2 holding the Reason:

4 The spouse of the appellant, Madhu Manglik, was about 56 years of age, when on 14 November, 2009, she was diagnosed with dengue fever. The report of the pathological laboratory, Glaze Pathology, reported the following state of health:

5 Upon admission at about 7.30 am, basic investigations were carried out. The blood report, together with the accompanying clinical examination indicated the following position:

6 By 6 pm, on the date of admission the patient was sinking, her blood pressure was non-recordable, extremities were cold and the pulse was non-palpable. In the meantime, the patient was placed on a regime of administering intravenous fluids. The administration of 2500ml of fluids was planned over the course of 24 hours. Between 7 am and 6 pm, she was administered about 1200 ml of fluids. The patient developed bradycardia and cardiac arrest. Faced with this situation, the treating doctors administered about 1.5 litres of extra fluids. Fluids and colloids were administered for increasing the blood pressure.

7 Since the blood pressure of the patient did not improve, she was administered ionotropes (dopamine & non adrenaline). At 6.45 pm, the patient suffered a cardiac arrest. Her cardiac levels were monitored. At 6.55 pm she was examined by Dr C C Chaubey.

11 The Ethics Committee of the Medical Council of India came to the conclusion on 20 February 2015 that though the treating doctors had administered treatment to the patient in accordance with the established medical guidelines, the treatment was not timely. The Ethics Committee, prima facie, found that there was professional misconduct on the part of both the Director of the Hospital Dr Ajay Goenka (respondent No. 2) and Dr Abhay Tyagi. The Ethics Committee observed thus:

47 For the above reasons, we are of the view that the judgment of the NCDRC is unsustainable. There was no basis or justification to reverse the finding of medical negligence which was arrived at by the SCDRC.

49 That leads the Court to the question of damages. Finding the hospital and its Director guilty of medical negligence, the SCDRC directed compensation in the amount of Rs. 6 lakhs together with interest at 9 per cent.

50 While quantifying the compensation, the SCDRC was in error in holding that since the son and daughter of the appellant are “highly educated and working” and had not joined as complainants, the complainant himself would be entitled to receive compensation only in the amount of Rs. 6 lakhs.

55 In our view, the interests of justice would be met, if the amount of compensation 16 (2001) 8 SCC 197 17 (2009) 3 SCC 663 18 (2017) 13 SCALE 12 24 is enhanced. We accordingly, direct that the appellant shall be entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs by way of compensation from the first respondent. 56 The compensation, as awarded, shall carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of the institution of the complaint before the SCDRC until payment or realisation. Payment should be effected within two months. 57 The appeals are allowed in these terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

January 9, 2019.

Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 30119-30120 of 2016 ARUN KUMAR MANGLIK Appellant(s) VERSUS CHIRAYU HEALTH AND MEDICARE PRIVATE LTD. & ANR. Respondent(s) WITH SLP(C) Diary No. 44846 of 2018 (IA No.174108/2018-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.174109/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT) Date : 09-01-2019 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :