Haryana

StateCommission

A/222/2014

NIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bhale Ram - Opp.Party(s)

21 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.222 of 2014

Date of Institution: 11/25.03.2014

                                                               Date of Decision: 21.11.2016

 

1. The New India Assurance Company Limited,  Pehowa Chowk, Kaithal through its Branch Manager through authorized officer Sh.A.L.Madan, Manager (Legal), The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office,SCO 36-37, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.
2. Dr.D.P.Gupta, Medical Surgeon, Dev Nursing Home, Karnal road, Pehowa Chowk, Kaithal.

….. Appellants

Versus

 

Bhale Ram S/o Gopi Ram, r/o Village Dhos, Tehsil and District Kaithal.

                                      …..Respondent

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:              Shri R.K.Sharma, Advocate counsel for appellants.

Shri Sanjeev Majra, Advocate for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

          It was alleged by the complainant that he was having stomach ache and that is why went  to O.P.No.1/appellant No.2.  He advised ultrasound and thereafter report was handed over to him on 31.03.2007. It was told that there was stone in gall bladder and operation was to be conducted.  During operation, O.P.No.1 was not having  good hyzenic condition in the O.T., but, even then operation was conducted without administering proper anesthesia.  Ultimately he was discharged on 04.04.2007.   His family members spent Rs. 15,000/- on medicine.  It was told to O.P.No.1-appellant  No.2 at the time of discharge  that he was still having pain in his abdomen, but, he replied that everything would be normal after 2-3 days.  Even thereafter there was no improvement.  Actually his blood vessel was damaged during operation. He was again operated without consent and charged Rs.12,000/-.  Though there was no relief, but, he was discharged on 26.04.2007.  Ultimately, he approached so many doctors and had to undergo also so many operations. Ultimately he went to PGI, Chandigarh and was operated upon.  He spent Rs.1,40,000/- on his treatment as there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.No.1, so he be directed to refund that amount alongwith compensation qua mental agony, physical harassment etc.  besides litigation expenses.

2.      O.Ps. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that allegations leveled by complainant were altogether false and frivolous. It was a long standing case  of Chronic cholecystitis and patient had multiple attacks of pain since last  five years.  After ultrasound report it was decided to operate him. During  laparascopic surgery, it was found that gall bladder was very much adherent to omentum, intestine and liver bed, but, even then gall bladder was separated and taken out.  Complete homeostasis was achieved and G.B. Fossa was drained.  He was not having severe pain in the hospital. Mild pain was always expected during post-operative period. On 12.04.2007 he again came to his hospital and ultrasound report had shown some collection in abdomen.  It was a clear case of  secondary hemorrhage which could be due to many causes  beyond surgeon’s control.  Operation was always conducted with the consent of the complainant.  It was never told by Dr. Nalin Sharma that his condition was critical due to continuous bleeding from   damaged blood vessel.  There was no negligence on their part and the complaint be dismissed.

3.      In addition thereto, O.P.No.2 alleged that O.P.No.1 treated the patient with utmost due diligence and care, so he was not entitled to any relief. Complainant tried to put forward a false and concocted story just to severe his own ulterior motive.

4.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 20.01.2014 and directed as under:-

“ In view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP No.1 to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant and on account of his insurance, OP No.2 has vicarious liability to pay the said amount to the complainant and to pay sum of Rs.25,000/- towards harassment and mental agony and further to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges.”

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P./appellant has preferred this appeal.

6.      Arguments heard. File perused.

7.      Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that blood vessel was damaged when operation was conducted by appellant No.2. So learned District Forum rightly granted compensation as mentioned above.  Appeal is without any merit and the same be dismissed.

8.      This argument is devoid of any merit.  During pendency of appeal matter  was referred to PGIMER Chandigarh to opine about negligence. It was opined by the board of PGIMER Chandigarh that there was no negligence on the part of the doctors.  For ready reference, the relevant portion of the report is as under:-

“Members of the board after thoroughly going the records  provided by the Hon’ble court has made following observations:-

.         Patient Bhale Ram 40 yrs/male underwent   Laparoscopic cholecystectomy on 31.03.2007 at Dev Nursing Home, Kaithal.  The patient developed complication from surgery for which he was again operated on 17.04.2007 at the same hospital. During 2^nd surgery patient was found to have blood clots in peritoneal cavity which were evacuated.  After 2^nd Surgery patient continued to have abdominal pain, vomiting and fever for which patient was referred to PGIMER Chandigarh on 02.05.2007.

.         At PGIMER, Chandigarh on investigation it was   found that patient had pseudo aneurysm from replaced Right Hepatic Artery which was successfully coiled and abdominal collections were drained by image guided pigtail catheters.  Patient made an uneventful recovery and was discharged on 25.05.2007.

The board is of the opinion that the bleeding from ® Hepatic Artery & its branches and/or development of Pseudo Aneurysm is a known complication of Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for which patient was initially managed by the treating Surgeon. Since patient did not recover, he was later referred to the PGIMER, Chandigarh.

After going through the record, board is of a unanimous opinion that there is no negligence involved in the management of this patient.”

9.      In view of this report, it is clear that  there was no negligence on the part of the appellant No.2. It has no-where come on the file that he did not follow the proper procedure laid down for this problem, so he cannot be directed to pay compensation. Resultantly impugned order dated  20.01.2014 is set aside. Appeal is allowed and complaint is dismissed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

November 21st, 2016 Urvashi Agnihotri                    R.K.Bishnoi,                                                                           Member                                  Judicial Member                                                                     Addl. Bench                            Addl.Bench                

S.K.