Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/17/2019

Nand Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Adesh Medical Collage - Opp.Party(s)

Navneet Gupta

09 May 2024

ORDER

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA

 

                                                Complaint No.17 of 2019

                                                Date of institution:14.01.2019

                                                Date of decision: 09.05.2024

 

Nand Rani aged 67 years wife of Shri Waryam Singh, resident of house no.810, Sector-7, Urban Estate, Ambala City.

                                                                                                                                                                        …Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Adesh Medical College & Hospital through its Managing Director/Incharge, village Mohri, NH-1, G.T. Road, Shahabad(M), District Kurukshetra.

2.     Managing Director/Incharge Adesh Medical College and Hospital, village Mohri, NH-1 G.T. Road, Shahabad (M), District Kurukshetra.

3.     Dr. Nishant Setia, Orthopedic Surgeon c/o Adesh Medical College and Hospital, village Mohri, NH-1, G.T. Road, Shahabad (M), District Kurukshetra.’

4.     The Oriental India Insurance Company Limited, O/O AE/14, Azad Bhawan, Jhandewalan Exten. New Delhi 110055 through its Branch Manager.                                                                                                                                                                                                              ....Opposite parties.

 

CORAM:    DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.    

                NEELAM, MEMBER. 

                RAMESH KUMAR, MEMBER.

 

Present:   Shri Deepak Gupta, counsel for the complainant.

                Shri Devi Lal Saini, counsel for the Ops no.1 and 2.

                Shri R.K. Singhal, counsel for the OP no.3.

                Shri Gaurav Gupta, counsel for the OP no.4.

 

ORDER:

 

1.             This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.             It is alleged in the complaint that complainant was unable to walk and squat properly and she has been suffering from acute pain in both the knees. The complainant visited the hospital of Ops on 13.03.2018 with her suffering from problem as OPD patient. OP no.3 had attended the complainant and advised for CT scan of legs including knee joints. Accordingly, CT scan was done in the said hospital on the same day and later on the OP no.3 advised for x-ray of knees. The doctor after going through the reports and case history opined that the condition of both knees are deterrent and left knee is worst in comparative to right knee. The doctor has also told that the bones have outlived its life and the solution is only surgery. The doctors advised replacement of both knees (total knees replacement) to complainant.  The doctor assured that there is no option for complainant to get free from pain and suffering except replacement of knees through open surgery. On the advice of doctor, complainant decided and opted for open surgery. Ops no.2 and 3 offered package of Rs.2,60,000/- in lump-sum including operation charges, hospitalization charges, implant, medicines till discharge, etc. to the complainant except heart test and PAC charges. Complainant was admitted in the hospital on 04.04.2018 and she was operated for both knees and total knees were replaced by OP no.3 on 05.04.2018. After operation, OP no.3 told that the operation/surgery remained successful and there is no need to worry. The complainant was discharged from the hospital on 11.04.2018 and was advised to take medicines as prescribed by doctor for a month. The doctor further advised to the complainant to visit the hospital for the removal of stitches applied during surgery. Complainant visited the hospital on 17.04.2018 for removal of stitches and after re-examination, the stitches were removed. The complainant told the OP no.3 that she is not feeling well rather pain is subsisting in both operated knees. The doctor told that it is case of surgery and as such it takes about one month for cure and recovery and further advised the complainant to take medicines regularly as per prescription for a month. The complainant was feeling acute pain in her right thigh which compelled her to visit the hospital again on 04.05.2018. OP no.3 advised for x-ray of right thigh. The x-ray was done and the doctor prescribed further medicines to complainant. Complainant took medicines regularly but there was no improvement and the pain was still subsisting. The patient did not feel relief. The complainant again visited the hospital on 16.05.2018. The doctor again advised for x-ray of both knees. The complainant was not feeling comfortable and again visited the hospital of OP on 13.06.2018 as she was facing acute severe pain in her left knee. Op no.3 asked for x-ray of both knees again and prescribed medicines for 15 days more but complainant did not feel any relief rather her condition worsened. Complainant was left with no other remedy except for second opinion of medical expert and  contacted the MAX Hospital, SAS Nagar, Mohali on 21.06.2018. The concerned doctor of MAX Hospital after going through the medical history sheet of complainant and examination of the complainant asked for Bone Scan Test and also advised for some blood test to find out any kind of infection. Accordingly, bone scan test was conducted in the Indian Institute of Nuclear medicines and scanning, Mohali and Blood Test was conducted in Max Hospital Mohali. The said reports revealed that tissues have been loosened at left knee prostheses. The complainant incurred a sum of Rs.10,000/- approximately for the said tests.

 3.            It is further alleged that in the report dated 22.06.2018 given by Indian Institute of Nuclear medicines and scanning, Mohali that there is clear deficiency in service of OP in performing his duties as the operation for replacement of knees of complainant was not successfully effected/executed, which amounts to gross medical negligence on the part of orthopaedic surgeon. Thereafter, complainant visited C. Lall, Hospital at Ambala Cantt on 28.06.2018 for her examination. Dr. K.K. Gandotra of the said hospital prescribed certain medicines after examination of complainant. The said doctor offered a package of Rs.2,00,000/- approximately for conducting the re-operation of the left knee based on the same findings/assertion of Max Hospital SAS Nagar, Mohali. Dr. K.K. Gandotra opined that tissues are loose at Tibial part of left knee prosthesis. The said doctor assured to remove the said complication test depends on God. The complainant got admitted herself in C. Lall, Hospital on 16.07.2018 for surgery of left knee, which was conducted and left knee was again replaced. From the day of operation, complainant feeling comfortable and is in a better condition. The complainant discharged from the said hospital on 24.07.2018. The complainant remained bed ridden for a period of six months i.e. from April, 2018 to September, 2018. The complainant had to engage an attendant to look after her for said period and for said services paid Rs.4500/- per month. The complainant has spent total Rs.4,69,407/- on her treatment. Complainant is also entitled for general, special damages from Ops on account of mental harassment, pain and suffering and anxiety amounting to Rs.5,00,000/-. Due to the said act and conduct of the Ops, complainant has suffered mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss, constraining him, to file the present complaint, against the OPs, before this Commission.

4.             On notice, Ops no.1 and 2 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is submitted that complainant visited the hospital of the Ops on 13.03.2018 as she was ailing and she was advised for CT scan of legs including knee joints and on examination, she was advised for replacement of both knees and the complainant gave her willingness for operation. The complainant was operated upon on 05.04.2018 and the surgery remained successful and thereafter, complainant was discharged from the hospital on 11.04.2018 with the advice to take medicines as prescribed by doctor. Thereafter, complainant visited the hospital on 17.04.2018 for removal of stitches and the stitches were removed. The complainant was advised to be cautious and to take medicines properly as after the surgery, it take times to get recover. But the complainant did not visit the Ops after that and instead of visiting the hospital, if there was pain, the complainant opted of his own to visit Max Hospital, Mohali and then to C.Lall Hospital, where she was operated for left knee. The present complaint has been filed without any basis, just to extract money by foul means. Had the complainant come to the hospital and complained about any pain, the Ops hospital must have advised her properly and at the most, medicines would have been given for pain and for recovery. There is no negligence on the part of the operating surgeon and the operation was done successfully. Post operative period was uneventful and patient was discharged on 11.04.2018. Therefore, the present complaint is false and vexatious and same deserves to be dismissed with costs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied by the Ops.

5.             OP no.3 filed its written version stating therein that the complaint is bad for non-assignment and mis-arrangement of parties. The OP no.3 is insured with OP no.4 through its Professional Indemnity policy no.272200/48/2018/16368 effective from 04.11.2017 to 03.11.2018. OP no.3 is well qualified and a reputed doctor, with substantial good will and experience of longstanding successful medical practice and this complaint is full of concocted facts, defamatory language, derogatory words, spirit and tenure. It is further stated that complainant visited OPd in Adesh Medical College in March, 2018 with difficulty in walking due to severe bilateral osteoarthritis of knees with medicines along. Patient had extremely severe pain and was unable to walk for doing daily routine activities. Hence, OP no.3 advised bilateral total knee replacement but no left side x-rays there was a concavity visible on cortex of left tibia. OP no.3 advised CT scan for the left leg which revealed an old united fracture of left leg. Subsequently, patient was admitted on 04.04.2018 and operated on 05.04.2018 for bilateral total knee replacement with Stryker NRG Scorpio knee. The Scorpio knee NRG knee has better id range flexion stability patient was discharge after surgery. Hospital stay was uneventful, post operative x-rays were within normal limits showing optimal positioning of implant. Patient subsequently came in OPD for stitch removal, stitches were removed. Patient was given medications as per protocol and was advised to follow up after one month, patient on next visit reported pain in right thigh for which x-rays were done which were normal and prescription for pain and other medicines was given for around 15 days and patient was advised to stop physiotherapy for a few days. Pain in right thigh subsided after stopping physiotherapy. Patient on his next visit complained of pain left knee increased since last 2-3 days. X-ray knee was done which showed a faint fracture line visible below the tibial component of left knee. Patient did not report any incidence of fall which although looked impossible so by keeping in mind future complications patient was advised to not to bear weight on left leg and advised to follow up after one month with medicines. Patient then came after one month and then x-ray was done which showed displaced tibial component and perprosthetic fracture left tibia. Patient was advised earlier on last visit to no to bear weight, but he did not follow the instructions, which is the sole negligence of the patient. Patient told that left knee would have to be operated again due to fracture, but patient did not agree and went away then patient took opinion from other doctors who checked for infection which was found to be negative. Patient was then operated by some other hospital in Ambala as told by patient’s son. Tibial component was replaced, and a place was put for the fracture after which patient recovered well as mentioned in her complaint. Patient was operated for both knees if she is doing well with one knee and other knee after fracture treatment, it means there was no negligence or deficiency in technique of surgery and the patient suffering developed due to fracture which is obviously not due to surgery but due to some injury or fall details of which are still hidden by patient, which is the sole negligence of patient. The patient did not follow the advice of repeat surgery for knee offered by Ops no.1 to 3 and went to Max Hospital and lateron to C.Lall Hospital for treating her own illnesses and spent money. This is sole negligence on the part of the complainant. The disease was not created by OP no.3 nor was subsequent fracture of tibia, which caused implant loosening, created by OP no.3. Everything the OP no.3 was done diligently, prudently, with utmost due care and caution in treating the said patient. There was no negligence on the part of the OP no.3 in treating the complainant. Therefore, OP is not liable to pay anything to the complainant. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6.             OP no.4 in its reply stated that no claim is reported by the OP no.3, which constitutes gross violation of terms and conditions of the policy. It is further stated that if the Commission comes to the conclusion that the complaint of the complainant is maintainable, then first liability of OP no.3 to pay the award and then OP will pay the same to OP no.3 as OPno.3 has issued indemnity policy. It is further stated that Ops no.1 ad 2 were not insured with OP and complainant was operated in hospital of Ops no.1 and 2. There is no relation between the Ops no.1 and 2. The sum insured of policy is Rs.10 lacs, which has already been availed by Dr. Nishant Setia in DCDRC case decided by Karnal, so no liability can be fastened on the shoulders of OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.4.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C48 and remaining evidence of the complainant was closed by court order dated 08.04.2022.

8.             Learned counsel for the Ops no.1 and 2 has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R4 to Ex.R5 and closed the evidence on 12.06.2023  by suffering separate statement.

9.             Leaned counsel for the OP no.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW3/A and documents Ex.R1 and R2 and closed the evidence on 30.08.2022 by suffering separate statement.

10.           Learned counsel for the OP no.4 has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW4/A and document Ex.R3 and closed the evidence on 30.08.2022 by suffering separate statement.

11.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file as well carefully.

12.           Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant visited the hospital of Ops on 13.03.2018 with her suffering. OP no.3 advised for CT scan of legs including knee joints. CT scan and  x-ray of knees was done. After going through the reports, the doctors advised replacement of both knees. On the advice of doctor, complainant decided for open surgery. Ops no.2 and 3 offered package of Rs.2,60,000/- in lump-sum. Complainant was admitted in the hospital on 04.04.2018 and knees were replaced by OP no.3 on 05.04.2018 and discharge from the hospital on 11.04.2023. Complainant visited the hospital on 17.04.2018 for removal of stitches. But after operation, complainant was not feeling well rather pain was subsisting in both operated knees. Complainant visited the hospital of Ops so many times and every times doctor advised for x-ray and doctor prescribed medicines but there was no improvement and the pain was still subsisting and on 13.06.2018 as she was facing acute severe pain in her left knee. Complainant contacted the MAX Hospital, SAS Nagar, Mohali on 21.06.2018 for second opinion. Bone scan test and Blood Test was conducted in Max Hospital Mohali and the said reports revealed that tissues are loose at left knee prostheses and the operation for replacement of knees of complainant was not successfully. Complainant visited C. Lall, Hospital at Ambala Cantt on 28.06.2018 for her examination. The said doctor offered a package of Rs.2,00,000/- approximately for conducting the re-operation of the left knee based on the same findings/assertion of Max Hospital SAS Nagar, Mohali. Dr. K.K. Gandotra opined that tissues were loose at Tibial part of left knee prosthesis. On 16.07.2018 the surgery of left knee in the said hospital was conducted and left knee was again replaced.  Complainant was feeling comfortable after that operation. The complainant remained bed ridden for a period of six months i.e. from April, 2018 to September, 2018. The complainant had to engage an attendant to look after her for said period and for said services paid Rs.4500/- per month. The complainant has spent total Rs.4,69,407/- on her treatment.

13.           On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops no.1 and 2 has argued that on 13.03.2018 complainant visited the hospital of Ops for the complaint of pain in knees. She was advised for CT scan of legs including knee joints and on examination, she was advised for replacement of both knees. The complainant was operated upon on 05.04.2018 and the surgery remained successful and thereafter, complainant was discharged from the hospital on 11.04.2018 with the advice to take medicines as prescribed by doctor. Thereafter, complainant visited the hospital on 17.04.2018 for removal of stitches and the stitches were removed. The complainant was advised to be cautious and to take medicines properly as after the surgery but the complainant did not visit the Ops after that and instead of visiting the hospital,  the complainant opted of his own to visit Max Hospital, Mohali and then to C.Lall Hospital, where she was operated for left knee. There is no negligence on the part of the operating surgeon and the operation was done successfully.

14.           Learned counsel for the OP no.3 has argued that OP no.3 is insured with OP no.4. OP no.3 is well qualified and a reputed doctor. In March, 2018, complainant visited OPD in Adesh Medical College with difficulty in walking due to severe bilateral osteoarthritis of knees with medicines along. OP no.3 advised CT scan for the left leg which revealed an old united fracture of left leg. Patient was admitted on 04.04.2018 and operated on 05.04.2018 for bilateral total knee replacement with Stryker NRG Scorpio knee. Patient subsequently came in OPD for stitch removal, stitches were removed. Patient was given medications as per protocol and was advised to follow up after one month. Patient on next visit reported pain in right thigh for which x-rays were done which were normal and prescription for pain and other medicines was given for around 15 days and patient was advised to stop physiotherapy for a few days. Pain in right thigh subsided after stopping physiotherapy. Patient on his next visit complained of pain left knee increased since last 2-3 days. X-ray knee was done which showed a faint fracture line visible below the tibial component of left knee. Patient did not report any incidence of fall. The patient was advised to not to bear weight on left leg and advised to follow up after one month with medicines. Patient then came after one month and then x-ray was done which showed displaced tibial component and perprosthetic fracture left tibia. Patient was advised earlier on last visit to no to bear weight, but he did not follow the instructions, which is the sole negligence of the patient. Patient told that left knee would have to be operated again due to fracture, but patient did not agree and went away then patient took opinion from other doctors who checked for infection which was found to be negative. Patient was then operated by some other hospital in Ambala as told by patient’s son. Patient was operated for both knees if she is doing well with one knee and other knee after fracture treatment, it means there was no negligence or deficiency in technique of surgery and the patient suffering developed due to fracture which is obviously not due to surgery but due to some injury or fall details of which are still hidden by patient.

15.           Learned counsel for the OP no.4 has argued that no claim is reported by the OP no.3, which constitutes gross violation of terms and conditions of the policy. He further argued that if the Commission comes to the conclusion that the complaint of the complainant is maintainable, then first liability of OP no.3 to pay the award and then OP will pay the same to OP no.3 as OP no.3 has issued indemnity policy. Ops no.1 ad 2 were not insured with OP and complainant was operated in hospital of Ops no.1 and 2.  The sum insured of policy is Rs.10 lacs, which has already been availed by Dr. Nishant Setia in DCDRF case decided by Karnal, so no liability can be fastened on the shoulders of OP.

16.           In the present case, complainant Nand Rani was unable to walk and squat properly and she has been suffering from acute pain in both the knees. The complainant visited the hospital of Ops on 13.03.2018 with her suffering from problem as OPD patient. OP no.3 had attended the complainant and advised for CT scan of legs including knee joints. Accordingly, CT scan was done in the said hospital on the same day and later on the OP no.3 advised for x-ray of knees. The doctor after going through the reports and case history opined that the condition of both knees are deterrent and left knee is worst in comparative to right knee. The doctor has also told that the bones have outlived its life and the solution is only surgery. The doctors advised replacement of both knees (total knees replacement) to complainant.  The doctor assured that there is no option for complainant to get free from pain and suffering except replacement of knees through open surgery. On the advice of doctor, complainant decided and opted for open surgery. Ops no.2 and 3 offered package of Rs.2,60,000/- in lump-sum including operation charges, hospitalization charges, implant, medicines till discharge, etc. to the complainant except heart test and PAC charges. Complainant was admitted in the hospital on 04.04.2018 and she was operated for both knees and total knees were replaced by OP no.3 on 05.04.2018. After operation, OP no.3 told that the operation/surgery remained successful and there is no need to worry. The complainant was discharged from the hospital on 11.04.2018 and was advised to take medicines as prescribed by doctor for a month. The doctor further advised to the complainant to visit the hospital for the removal of stitches applied during surgery. Complainant visited the hospital on 17.04.2018 for removal of stitches and after re-examination, the stitches were removed. The complainant told the OP no.3 that she is not feeling well rather pain is subsisting in both operated knees. The doctor told that it is case of surgery and as such it takes about one month for cure and recovery and further advised the complainant to take medicines regularly as per prescription for a month. The complainant was feeling acute pain in her right thigh which compelled her to visit the hospital again on 04.05.2018. OP no.3 advised for x-ray of right thigh. The x-ray was done and the doctor prescribed further medicines to complainant. Complainant took medicines regularly but there was no improvement and the pain was still subsisting. The patient did not feel relief. The complainant again visited the hospital on 16.05.2018. The doctor again advised for x-ray of both knees. The complainant was not feeling comfortable and again visited the hospital of OP on 13.06.2018 as she was facing acute severe pain in her left knee. Op no.3 asked for x-ray of both knees again and prescribed medicines for 15 days more but complainant did not feel any relief rather her condition worsened. Complainant was left with no other remedy except for second opinion of medical expert and  contacted the MAX Hospital, SAS Nagar, Mohali on 21.06.2018. The concerned doctor of MAX Hospital after going through the medical history sheet of complainant and examination of the complainant asked for Bone Scan Test and also advised for some blood test to find out any kind of infection. Accordingly, bone scan test was conducted in the Indian Institute of Nuclear medicines and scanning, Mohali and Blood Test was conducted in Max Hospital Mohali. The said reports revealed that tissues have been loosened at left knee prostheses. The complainant incurred a sum of Rs.10,000/- approximately for the said tests.

17.           It is further alleged that in the report dated 22.06.2018 given by Indian Institute of Nuclear medicines and scanning, Mohali that there is clear deficiency in service of OP in performing his duties as the operation for replacement of knees of complainant was not successfully effected/executed, which amounts to gross medical negligence on the part of orthopaedic surgeon. Thereafter, complainant visited C. Lall, Hospital at Ambala Cantt on 28.06.2018 for her examination. Dr. K.K. Gandotra of the said hospital prescribed certain medicines after examination of complainant. The said doctor offered a package of Rs.2,00,000/- approximately for conducting the re-operation of the left knee based on the same findings/assertion of Max Hospital SAS Nagar, Mohali. Dr. K.K. Gandotra opined that tissues are loose at Tibial part of left knee prosthesis. The said doctor assured to remove the said complication test depends on God. The complainant got admitted herself in C. Lall, Hospital on 16.07.2018 for surgery of left knee, which was conducted and left knee was again replaced. From the day of operation, complainant feeling comfortable and is in a better condition. The complainant discharged from the said hospital on 24.07.2018. The complainant remained bed ridden for a period of six months i.e. from April, 2018 to September, 2018. The complainant had to engage an attendant to look after her for said period and for said services paid Rs.4500/- per month. The complainant has spent total Rs.4,69,407/- on her treatment.

18.           The OP No.3 is insured with Op No.4 through its Professional Indemnity Policy No.272200/48/2018/16368 effective from 04.11.2017 to 03.11.2018. The complainant visited OPD in Adesh Medical College in March, 2018 with difficulty in walking due to severe bilateral osteoarthritis of Knees with medicines along. Patient had extremely severe pain and was unable to walk for doing daily routine activities. Hence, OP No.3 advised bilateral total knee replacement but no left side x-rays there was a concavity visible on cortex of lift tibia. OP No.3  advised CT scan for the left leg which revealed an old united fracture of left leg. Subsequently, patient was  admitted  on 04.04.2018 and operated on05.04.2018 for bilateral total knee replacement with Stryker NRG Scorpio Knee. Patient was given medications as per protocol and was advised to follow up after one month, patient on next visit reported pain in right thigh for which X-rays were done which were normal and prescription for pain and other medicines was given for 15 days and patient was advised to stop physiotherapy for a few days. Pain in right thigh subsided after stopping physiotherapy. Patient on is next visit complained of pain left knee increased since  last 2-3 Days. X-ray knee was done which showed a faint fracture line visible below the tibial component of left knee.  Patient did not report any incidence of fall which complications patient was advised to not to ear weight on left leg and advised to follow p after one month with medicines. Patient then came after one month and then X-ray was done which showed displaced tibial competent and perprosthetic fracture left tibia.

19.           The medical negligence of Dr. Nishan Setia is proved in a case decided by DCDRC, Karnal.  Again the medical negligence of Dr. Nishan Setia has been proved in the present case. The patient was admitted in hospital on 04.04.018 and knees were replaced by  Dr. Nishan Setia i.e. the OP No.3  on 05.04.2018 and complainant was discharged from the hospital on 11.04.2018.   Complainant visited C. Lall, hospital at Ambala Cantt on 28.06.2018 for her examination. The said doctor offered a package of T-Rs.2,00,000/- approximately for conducting the re-operation of the left knee based on the same findings/assertion of Max Hospital SAS Nager, Mohali. Dr. K.K.Gandora opined that tissues were loose at Tibial part of left knee prosthesis. On 16.07.2018, the surgery of left knee in the said hospital was conducted and left knee was again replaced. Complainant was feeling comfortable after that operation. The complainant remained bed ridden for a period of six months i.e. from April 2018 to September 2018.  The complainant had to engage an attendant to look after her for said period and for said services paid Rs.4500/- per month. The complainant has spent total Rs.4,69,407/- on her treatment. It is pertinent to mention here that Dr. Nishan Setia i.e. OP No.3 is insured with the Oriental India Insurance Company Limited, O/O AE/14, Azad Bhawan, Jhandewalan Exten. New Delhi 110055 through its Branch Manager i.e. OP No.4. The result of operation done by Dr. Nishan Setia was not successful as Nand Rani was to be operated in Max Hospital, Mohalli. Due to medical negligence of Dr. Nishan Setia had to undergo second operation from C.Lall Hospital, Ambala. Hence, medical negligence of Dr. Nisan Setia is proved to the hilt for which reliance is  placed on the authority laid down in case titled as “Mumtaj Ansari Vs Zubeda 2005(I) CPL 673; Shoda Devi Vs. DDU/Ripon Hospital Shima and Ors. 2019(2) and Harnek Singh and others Versus Gurmit Singh and others 2022(3) page 750”.

        In  Mumtaj Ansari’s case (supra) Hon’ble Uttrakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was mentioned that in this case, operation was done negligently-along with the operation of gall bladder, CBD (Common Bile Duct) also cut down, due to which digestion stopped and jaundice was caused. Complaint was allowed by District Forum. Appeal was filed against contention that it is well known complication in this type of operation and happens in 30% cases was rejected. It was held mandatory for doctor to warn patients about recognized complications. Consumer has right to be informed of possible effects and after-effects of line of treatment or operation adopted by doctor. Evil consequences of operation which complainant suffered were not informed before referring her to Meerut. It was held that doctor failed to perform primary duties deficiency in service and negligence proved from record compensation of Rs. 1 lakh granted by forum was held not excessive appeal was dismissed.

        20.           It is pertinent to mention here that in Shoda Devi’s case (supra) compensation were paid by Hon’ble Supreme Court to the complainant to send message to the professionals that their responsibility and diligence has to be equi-balanced for all human beings. It is also held that in case of medical negligence in which right arm had to be amputated of a village lady of the age of 45 years having rural back ground. Amount of Rs.ten lakhs were awarded towards compensation over and above the amount awarded by the State Commission and National Commission which was Rs.two lakhs compensation and Rs.2.93 lakhs ex gratia by the National Commission.     

 

21.          The medical negligence on the part of Dr. Nishan Setia is proved to the hilt. Complainant had to spent Rs.9,69,407/ on two operations, medical bills and medical attendant. Hence, Rs.10,00,000/- along with 9% penal interest to Nand Rani from the date of first operation within 45 days  from today.

22.          On the score for undergoing mental tension physical trauma be given  Rs.1,00,000/-, which has to be paid by the OPs jointly and severally. The complaint is accepted with costs which is assessed Rs.21,000/-.

23.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.   

 

Announced in open 09.05.2024

 

                                                           (Dr. Neelima Shangla)            

                                                               President,

                                                               DCDRC, Kurukshetra.

 

(Neelam)                (Ramesh Kumar)

Member                   Member