ORDER

DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER

1.      The complainant, Ms. Shilpi Singh, a student of B.Sc. (Computer Science), about 22 years of age, has filed this Complaint under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against M/s Metro Institutes of Medical Sciences Pvt. Ltd./OP (in short, ‘ Metro Hospital’), for alleged victim of medical negligence, deficiency in service and callous approach of the opposite parties, which resulted in the acute weakness of left side of her body and ultimately became physically challenged.

2.      The brief facts of the Complaint are that on 24.5.2016, the complaint consulted Dr. Sanjay Sanadhya/OP 2 for severe headache, recurrent vomiting, pain in the abdomen, low appetite and weakness.  OP 2 advised various tests and prescribed medicines.  On 17.6.2016, when the condition of complainant had become bad to worse, OP 2 advised for hospitalization in OP 1/Hospital.  On 18.6.2016, the complainant got admitted in M/s Metro Hospital (OP-1) where series of investigations, including MRI, CT Scan and Ultrasound of Abdomen were done.  On the basis of investigation, she was diagnosed as Miliary Tuberculosis with TBM (Multiple Tuberculomatous Disease).  As per MRI, it was detected as inflammatory granulomas likely to be tuberculomas but it was alleged that doctor continued the same medication.  The patient was discharged on 27.6.2016 while she was having fever, pain in abdomen and nausea (annexure 2).  On 5.7.2016, the complainant again visited OP 2 in his clinic where he simply advised X-ray Chest and told her to continue same medicines even the symptoms were still persisting.  On 16.7.2016, the complainant rushed to the clinic of OP 2 in emergency but the OP 2 did not change the medication but asked the complainant to come after 40 days.  On 5.9.2016, the complainant again visited M/s Metro Hospital for the new complication of retention of urine.  OP 2 did not care for the said problem and told her to take new injections for 5 days for urinary retention.  On 10.9.2016, the ultrasound of abdomen was performed and strong anti-biotics were prescribed by OP-2 without any basis (The Annexure III, the prescription slips dated 16.7.2016 to 10.9.2016).  On 18.9.2016, the complainant rushed to M/s Metro Hospital in emergency in critical condition,  MRI was performed.  The OP 2 did not reveal the truth in the matter but on 22.9.2016 Dr. Amitabh Goel broke the news that there was a clot in the brain of the complainant and needs immediate surgery which may cost about Rs3 lakhs.

3.      Therefore, the complainant lost faith in the OPs and got discharged herself on 24.9.2016 (Discharge summary annexure 4).  Immediately thereafter, on 27.9.2016  the complainant got herself admitted in Max Hospital, Saket, New Delhi.  On 4.10.2016 she was operated for VP Shunt and discharged on 7.10.2016.  Thereafter, her symptoms like severe headache, generalized weakness and malaise had gone but she did not recover completely.  Thus, it was alleged that OP 2 unnecessarily delayed the diagnosis, performed number of tests from different laboratories for illegal gain by the way of commission.  Heavy doses of medicines and the delay in treatment led to development of clot in the brain which could have been avoided.  The complainant was a young girl having bright future but due to negligent treatment, suffered weaknesses on the left side of her body, her health became in precarious and miserable, thus, became in physical challenged state.   It was alleged that the doctors at Max hospital opined that had the complainant came 15 days earlier, the surgical procedure for VP Shunt could have been avoided.  The complainant being aggrieved with the callous and negligent behavior of the OPs, sent a legal notice calling the OP to pay Rs. 6 lakhs per annum.  Therefore, complainant filed a complaint before this Commission and prayed a sum of Rs.1 crore 80 lakhs, as a compensation.

5.      We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant, perused the medical record and given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by counsel for the complainant.  The prescription slip clearly shows the patient was suffering from fever.  After relevant investigations as advised by OP-2, like X-ray Chest, ESR, SGOT/SGPT, VSG Upper abdomen and Urine (R/M). Patient was admitted on 18.6.2016 and diagnosed as milliary Tuberculosis with TBM.   Thereafter, she was started with anit Koch’s  therapy (AKT 4).  The MRI brain contrast was performed, revealed multiple nodular and ring enhancing focal lesions with mild perifocal edema involving bilateral cerebral hemisphere, brain stem and bilateral cerebellar hemisphere have signs of inflammatory granulomas likely tuberculomas.  Further, the complainant was on ATT and she had symptoms of blurring of vision, headache.  Ophthalmologist was also consulted who performed Fundus examination.  In addition, patient had symptoms of  pain in abdomen, decreased oral intake, nausea, therefore, she was advised for further hospital stay for management but the patient was discharged on her request on 27.6.2016.

6.      The main question for our consideration is that whether the treating doctor (OP 2) failed to diagnose the disease and just continued the medicine without proper diagnosis?  From the medical record, it is clear that after the proper investigations, patient was diagnosed as a case of Milliary Tuberculosis and OP-2 advised for standard ATT treatment.  The MRI of brain report was consistence with Tuberculoma/TBM.  It should be borne in mind that the laboratory and radiology reports are to be interpreted by the treating doctor or the medical professionals of concerned specialty.   Patient or relatives, who are lay persons are not competent enough to understand and interpret report.  It was not a duty of lay person to interpret the scientific medical report.   In the instant case, complainant has neither produced any opinion from doctor of Max Hospital where the patient underwent further treatment and VP Shunt was installed.  VP Shunt operation was needed to reduce the interacranial tension (ICT) and for proper circulation  of CSF.  In our view, the clinical assessment of OP was correct.  The treatment for tuberculosis and advice for ATT was correct.  Therefore, we do not find any fault with the OP 2 in the treatment of complainant.

7.      Secondly, the prayer made by the complainant is highly inflated.  The complainant failed to satisfy us for the prayer of Rs. 6 lakhs per year and seeking compensation to Rs. 1 crore 80 lakhs. 

8       It should be borne in mind that “No cure” is no negligence.  In the instant case, the OP 2 has performed his duty as a reasonable and standard of practice.  Another contention of the complainant was that the patient suffered retention of urine due to heavy doses of medication, but there is nothing on record to prove that the urinary retention was due to previous treatment of the patient.  Max Hospital record also clearly shows that the patient was suffering from Disseminated Koch’s (Pulmonary Tuberculosis and Tuberculosis meningitis) on ATT.  The same treatment, which the OP 2 had prescribed, was continued at Max Hospital.  Thus, OP-2 was justified in treating the patient with ATT.

8.      Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances, in our view, this is no merit in the instant complaint.  It was filed on the presumptions only without any medical basis.  It was just ignorance of medical knowledge about the disease process of TBM.

9.      The complaint, therefore, does not deserve admission, accordingly, it is dismissed in limini.