BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL

FORUM, NORTH EAST DELHI

COMPLAINT CASE NO. 118 OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

OM DUTT SHARMA …

Complainant

VERSUS

YASHODA SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL & Ors …Opposite Parties

INDEX

S.NO PARTICULARS Pg No.

1. Written Submission on behalf of Opposite Parties No. 1, 2

& 3 along with supporting Affidavits

2. ANNEXURE R-1/1

3. ANNEXURE R-1/2

4. ANNEXURE R-1/3

5. ANNEXURE R-1/4

6. ANNEXURE R-1/5

7. ANNEXURE R-1/6

8. ANNEXURE R-1/7
 9. ANNEXURE R-1/8

10. ANNEXURE R-1/9

11. Vakalatnama on behalf of Opposite Party No. 3

Through Counsel(s)

Rishi Raj Sharma, Sonakshi Singh &

Kumar Bhaskar
Advocates for Opposite Party No. 3
E-25, LGF, Jangpura extension, New Delhi 110018
Mob:9650140864
Email: officeuttamdatt@gmail.com

Place: New Delhi

Date: . .2022
BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
FORUM, NORTH EAST DELHI

COMPLAINT CASE NO. 118 OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

OM DUTT SHARMA …

Complainant

VERSUS

YASHODA SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL & Ors …Opposite Parties

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF OPPOSITE PARTIES NO. 4

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

PRELIMINARY OBJECTION

1) That Dr. Aggarwal is a Doctor working with Opposite Party No. 1, Hospital

merely in the capacity of a Medical Superintendent. That he has never

medically diagnosed or advised Ms Neha Sharma, the Complainant’s

daughter and as such has not provided any ‘service’ to the Complainant as

per section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2) That the Complainant has not made any specific allegation against Dr.

Aggarwal throughout his pleadings. Infact, the name of Dr. Aggarwal is not

even referred to in the Complaint case except in the memo of Parties.

3) That it is denied that Hospital or any it’s Doctor were medically Negligent.

That without prejudice to the above mentioned averment it is submitted that

Dr. Aggarwal cannot be held vicarious liable for the acts of the Hospital

when he has never attended the Patient. That the same is evident from the

Master Signature List of the Patient Ms. Neha Sharma which does not

mention Dr. Aggarwal either as a Consultant or a Medical Officer. A copy of

 the Master signature list of the Patient is annexed herewith and marked as

ANNEXURE R-1/1.

4) It is submitted that a medical professional has been needly plunged into a

frivolous litigation with the sole purposes to harass him. Therefore, at the

very outset, the Complaint Case needs to be dismissed qua Dr. Aggarwal.

PRELIMINARY SUBMISSION

PARA WISE REPLY

1. That the contents of Paragraph No. 1 are matters of record and as such need

no reply. The specific allegation of Negligence on part of M/s Yashoda

Super Speciality Hospital, Kaushambi, Ghaziabad is incorrect and hence

denied.

2. That contents of Paragraph No. 2 are denied except to the extent that matters

of record have been pleaded. It is submitted that apart from weakness, head

spinning and loss of balance, the Patient Ms Neha Sharma was complaining

of palpitation, breathlessness, dyspnea on exertion, giddiness, loss of

appetite, and fatigability. Further, these complainants were persistent for 3-4

days before her admission at the Hospital on 20.01.2022 at 17:45 hours.

That according to the tests done at the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital, it is

evident that the Patient had low Haemoglobin.

3. That contents of Paragraph No. 3 are denied except to the extent that matters

of record have been pleaded. It is matter of record that the patient came to

and was admitted to Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital on 20.01.2022. It is

admitted/denied that there was a telephonic conversation with Dr.

Anshuman Tyagi (Opposite Party No. 2). It is denied that the Patient was

‘perfectly fine’ and it is denied for want of knowledge that the Patient was
 video chatting with her friends and making plans for upcoming wedding of

her sister.

4. That contents of Paragraph No. 4 are denied as it is mis-representation of

fact and an attempt to mislead the Hon’ble Commission. That the Patient

was admitted based on her preliminary clinical diagnostics. It’s a matter of

record that Reg. No. allotted to the Patient was 283184. It is submitted that

recording of sex/gender of the Patient as “male” in the “REASON FOR

ADMISSION & SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS” section of

Death Summary was inadvertent and merely a typographical error. Further,

as soon as the same was noticed, the Complainant (father of the deceased

Patient) was issued a Corrected Death Summary. It is amply evident that the

error was inadvertent since all the other documents of the patient including

the hand-written death summary report referred to the sex of the patient as

“female”. Moreover, the use of Query symbol (?) under the “CAUSE OF

DEATH” section is a routine medical practice. The Query symbol (?) is a

standard medical symbol used when no specific single diagnosis for death

has yet been arrived at. Furthermore, medical negligence cannot be inferred

from the aforementioned incidents. That reference made to ‘Severe Anemia

with cardio pulmonary Arrest, Pulmonary Embolism, RV Failure and

Hypothyroidsim’ as diagnosis in the Death Information (ANNEXURE C-3)

is different and distinguished medical parameter from ‘cause of death’

referred in the Corrective Death Summary. That Hypothyroidism has also

been referred in the Death Summary report under “REASON FOR

ADMISSION & SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS” section. A

copy of the corrective Death Summary is annexed herewith and marked as

ANNEXURE R1/1.
5. That the contents of Paragraph No. 5 are denied since it is misrepresentation

of facts. That the medical parameters as highlighted in Paragraph No. 5 of

the Reminder Complaint are caused in case of severe anemia and cannot be

attributed to Acute Coronary Syndrome. It is submitted that High Troponin-

1 plasma Level could be attributed to several diseases causing Anemia. It is

matter of fact that the Patient was referred to Cardiologist by Dr. Anshuman

Tyagi (Opposite Party No. 2) however, it is denied that he was well aware of

her weak heart condition. In the best interest of the Patient, she was advised

for Cardiac ECHO and referred to Cardiologist. Furthermore, it is worthy to

note that Colour Doppler Echo Cardiography report (at Page No. 46 of the

Complaint Case) showing the impression of ‘Gross dilation in right

ventricle and right atrium’ could only be obtained on 21.01.2022 i.e., the

day of the demise of the Patient. The date on the Colour Doppler Echo

Cardiography report is erroneously mentioned as 21.12.2021, the correct

date is 21.02.2022. Further, no definite conclusion can be arrived just from

the report itself and the same should always be considered in correlation

with the clinical and other investigation/findings. It is submitted that the

Patient was undergoing a battery of tests and a number of differential

diagnoses needed to be considered and ruled out one by one which requires

significant time which was not the case in the present matter as the time

between the admission and demise of the Patient was less than 27 hours.

6. That the contents of Paragraph No. 6 are denied in toto as incorrect and/or

misrepresentation of true facts. It is submitted that the Patient was advised

two units of 2 blood transfusion keeping in view of the abnormal parameters

showing severe Anemia. All averments made by the Complainant regarding

‘weak heart’, ‘not able to pump all the additional fluid’ is blatantly incorrect

and denied. It is submitted that all standard protocol were followed for the
 blood transfusion including using Diuretics to prevent any volume overload.

That the two units of PRBC (Packed Red Blood Cell) over a period of 16

hours. The process finished only at 1400 hours on 21.01.2022. It is

submitted that all the vitals of the Patient were completely normal after the

second transfusion. That the two Blood Component Transfusion Monitoring

Performa clearly shows that Patient was actively monitored from before and

after the transfusion. It is denied that the patient collapsed when the second

unit of blood transfusion was about to finish. It is submitted that only after

the second transfusion was successfully completed she was taken to Non-

Invasive Cardiology (NIC) Lab for Echocardiography in a stable condition.

That during the Echocardiography the patient became restless & dyspneic

and collapsed at the ECHO table. It is denied that there was any commotion

or the hospital staff was shifting blame on each other. It is denied that the

Patient was at any moment kept in dark about the condition of the Patient. It

is denied that Dr. Tyagi went home for 1 and a half hour or gave any evasive

replies about the condition of the Patient. The Patient was very well

informed at all times during the course of the treatment and the hospital &

its team did their best in the interest of the patient. That the Patient was very

well informed at all times during the course of the treatment and the hospital

& its team did their best in the interest of the patient. A copy of the Blood

Components Compatibility Report, Blood Transfusion Monitoring &

Reaction Report and consent for Blood & Blood Consent Transfusion

Report dated 20.01.2022 and 21.01.2022 is annexed herewith and marked as

ANNEXURE R-1/2 (Colly).

7. That the contents of Paragraph No. 7 are denied in toto. It is denied that the

relatives of the Patient were not informed about the cause of the death.

Moreover, the same was amply clear from the Death Summary. It is
 reiterated that use of Query symbol (?) under the “CAUSE OF DEATH”

section is a routine medical practice. The Query symbol (?) is a standard

medical symbol used when no specific single diagnosis for death could be

arrived at yet. It is reiterated that recording of the sex/gender of the Patient

as “male” and the date of Colour Doppler Echo Cardiography report as

“21.12.2021” was inadvertent and merely a typographical error. It is

submitted that the Patient Bill summary clearly enumerates the costs for

goods and services provided to the Patient and the same has nothing to do

with her unfortunate demise, despite the best effort of the Hospital and its

staff. The amount mentioned in the Bill summary annexed by the

Complainant is not Rs.1.50 lakhs but Rs. 1,05,357/- (One Lakh Five

Thousand Three Hundred Fifty-Seven Only).

8. That the contents of Paragraph No. 8 are denied in toto. It is denied that the

Patient did not receive any treatment for her heart. It is humbly submitted

that the Complainant is a lay-man and could not possibly have the

knowledge to determine whether the Patient, who admittedly was anaemic,

needed two units of blood transfusion or not. It is denied that the two blood

transfusion were in haste or ‘quick succession.’ That the treatment advised to

the Patient was based on her vital parameters and astute medical diagnosis. It

is reiterated that all standard protocol were followed for the blood

transfusion including using Diuretics to prevent any volume overload. That

the two units of PRBC (Packed Red Blood Cell) over a period of 16 hours.

The process finished only at 1400 hours on 21.01.2022. It is submitted that

all the vitals of the Patient were completely normal well after the second

transfusion. That the two Blood Component Transfusion Monitoring

Performa clearly shows that Patient was actively monitored before and after

the transfusion. It is denied that cause of death of the Patient was due to
 blood transfusion. It is reiterated that High Troponin-1 plasma Level could

be attributed to several diseases causing Anemia and cannot be attributed to

grave cardiological condition. That the doctors came to know about the

gross dilation in right ventricle and right atrium only on later part of

21.01.2022 i.e., the day of the demise of the Patient, further, a battery of

tests and a number of differential diagnoses needed to be considered and

ruled out one by one which requires significant time which was not the case

in the present matter as the time between the admission and demise of the

Patient was less than 27 hours.

9. That the contents of Paragraph No. 9 are denied as it is misrepresentation of

the true facts. It is denied that no doctor was available at the time of Echo

Cardiography of the Patient. The submissions made regarding the 5 medical

parameters and the Patient suffering from Acute Coronary Syndrome are

repetitive in nature and have been adequately replied in Paragraph No. 5 of

the para-wise reply. It is submitted that the contents of Paragraph No. 5 of

the para-wise reply may be read as reply of Paragraph No. 9 as well. It is

submitted that in the best interest of the Patient, Dr. Tyagi did refer to the

Patient to a cardiologist. It is submitted that the Cardiology call was first

attended on 21.01.2022 at 08:30 AM by Cardiology Doctor on duty namely,

Dr. Laxmi who saw the patient in detail and ordered investigations, advised

medications and instructions were given to review the reports. Later on, Dr.

Khanna (Opposite Party No. 3), being the main Consultant-Interventional

Cardiology of the Hospital took over the Patient.

10. That the contents of Paragraph No. 10 are denied in toto. It is submitted that

Troponin Test was one among the many tests advised to the Patient on the

basis of her medical diagnosis. Further, High Troponin-1 level can very well

be seen in variety of disease causing anaemia and cannot be the sole basis to
 form a definitive opinion that the Patient had ‘serious heart related issues.’

More tests are required to come a definite conclusion. Therefore, the Patient

was advised for Echo Cardiography and would have been advised further

tests to confirm her heart condition. That number of differential diagnosis

needs to be considered while investigating and ruled out one by one.

However, this requires time and unfortunately in the present case, the Patient

was barely under the care of the Doctors/Hospital for a day. Therefore, no

further investigations could take place. It is denied that no Cardiologist was

consulted as is evident from the call attended by Cardiology in 08:30 AM on

21.01.2022. Moreover, the Patient was suffering from severe anaemia that

needed immediate medical attention. It is pertinent to mention here that one

of the probable cause of death of the Patient was ‘Severe Anaemia with

cardio Pulmonary arrest’.

11.That the contents of Paragraph No. 11-12 are denied except to the extent

matters of record are averred. It is denied that there was either Dr. Tyagi or

any other Hospital staff had callous and indifferent attitude towards the

Patient. That the answering Opposite Parties did receive the notice by U.P

Medical Council, Legal Notice dated 25.02.2022 and the Reminder

complaint of the Complainant dated 14.04.2022. It is submitted that the Dr.

Khanna replied to the Legal Notice dated 25.02.2022 vide letter dated

15.03.2022. Further, all the Opposite Parties have filed their written replies

to U.P Medical Council on 03.08.2022 and were also present for a personal

hearing before the Council. A copy of the reply dated 03.08.2022 to the U.P

Medical Council is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE R-1/3.

12.That the contents of Paragraph No. 13 and 14 are denied in toto. Without

prejudice to any of the submissions/defenses hereinabove made, it is

submitted that amount of Rs.10 crore as compensation is highly exaggerated,

 unjust, unfair and not objective in the facts and circumstances of the present

case. That the Complainant has only made a bald statement that Ms. Neha

Sharma was working as a guest lecturer at the time of her unfortunate

demise. That no documents are annexed showing either her educational

qualification or her employment as guest lecturer in Delhi Government

schools or her pay-slips. It is denied that Ms Neha Sharma would have been

working till the age of 70 years. Further it is only a remote possibility that

the Complainant will be continuously be employed from the age of 28 years

to 70 years. It is denied that Complainant was entitled to any cost of

litigation. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Commission is not the appropriate

forum and does not have the jurisdiction to cancel any license of the

Opposite Parties.

13. That the contents of Paragraph No. 15 are denied to the extent they are not

matters of record. It is admitted that the value of goods/service is Rs.

1,05,357/- (One Lakh Five Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Seven Only) and

the Hon’ble Commission has the pecuniary jurisdiction to hear the

complaint.

14.That the contents of the prayer clause are denied. It is submitted that the

Complainant is not entitled to any prayer sought by him. That it is prayed

that the Complaint be dismissed qua Opposite Party No. 4 and exemplary

cost be imposed on the Complainant for harassing a Medical Professional.

OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 4

Through Counsel(s)

Rishi Raj Sharma, Sonakshi Singh &

 Kumar Bhaskar
Advocates for Opposite Party No. 3
E-25, LGF, Jangpura extension, New Delhi 110018
Mob:9650140864
Email: officeuttamdatt@gmail.com

Place: New Delhi

Date: . .2022