Punjab

StateCommission

CC/11/60

Renu Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

CMC, Ludhiana - Opp.Party(s)

Parveen Kumar

27 Aug 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,   PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

 

 

                   Consumer Complaint No.60 of 2011

 

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 21.07.2011  

                                                          Date of Decision : 27.08.2015

 

Renu Aggarwal wife of Bhanu Aggarwal, resident of Street No.3, House No.302, Guru Nanak Avenue, Fatehgarh Road, Hoshiarpur.

 

                                                                             …..Complainant…..

                                       Versus

 

1.       Director, Chirstian Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana.

2.       Dr. Anil Luther

3.       Dr. Navdeep Saini

4.       Dr. Ashish Chhabra

5.       Nurse Ms. Jaswinder

6.       Mr. Amarjit, Media Manager

7.       Dr. Amit Luthra

 

All of Chirstian Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana.

 

                                                                             ….Opposite Parties….

 

         Consumer Complaint U/s 17(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended up to date).

Quorum:-

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member.

Present:-

          For the complainant                   :  Sh.Parveen Kumar, Advocate

          For the opposite parties no.1-3 :  Sh. B.L.Saini, Advocate with  Ravison Law Officer

          For the opposite parties no.4-7  :  Ex-parte.

          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

                                     

           The complainant Renu Aggarwal  has filed this complaint U/s 17 (1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short the "Act) against the OPs praying for compensation of Rs.40 lac along with interest @ 12% per annum. Shortly stated, the facts of the case are that complainant was got admitted with OP No.1/Hospital on 04.10.2010 with the diagnosis of intestinal obstruction. The doctors who have been arrayed OPs in this case took her inside the operation theatre of OP No.1 for exploratory laparatomy under G.A.  A foreign body was removed from her abdomen, as per version of the doctors, the affected part of bowel ressected and end to end anastomosis was done. Complete haemostisis was obtained thereby and complainant also received one unit of blood transfusion intra operatively and two units post operatively. The complainant was kept NPO for five days and was given I.V. fluids, antibiotics, injection Clexane and Injunction Albudac. During that period, the dressing was done daily on her. As per the discharge summary, the condition of the patient/complainant improved with the above treatment and she was put on normal diet. Her abdominal suture line was healing satisfactorily and after giving few recommendations, medicines and other things, complainant was discharged on 12.10.2010, despite constant complaint of her pain. When she narrated pain in her body, she was rather snubbed by doctors on frivolous reasons. The complainant experienced continuous pain in her abdomen and pain did not subside even on taking the advised medicines by her by the doctors and her best treatment. She was again rushed to OP no.1/hospital on 25.10.2010 with complaint of pain. The episode of grave negligence towards professional duties of doctors came to the light there. Nobody from the hospital of OP No.1 came forward to attend her, despite her groaning in pain, instead of providing her emergency medical aid/treatment. She was brought to hospital at about 9.00 am on 25.10.2010, where she kept on crying unattended. Ultimately, at about 1.00 am in the midnight of 26.10.2010, she was taken for x-ray of her abdomen, which was earlier operated by the team of doctors. On receipt of report of the x-ray, the doctors and nurse did not disclose anything to complainant, her husband and other family members. The doctors of OP hospital rather advised the complainant to undergo another operation due to change in post surgery without making aware the complainant and her family members about it. The complainant's side smelt a rat in the act and conduct of OPs' doctors and complainant's husband and other relatives wanted to see her x-ray film, which was not provided to them despite strong persuasion. The husband and other relatives of the complainant managed to get the x-ray film by putting pressure on OPs, which was taken by OPs' doctors of hospital of OP No.1. The relatives of the complainant were shocked to find that two scissors like metallic type foreign instruments inside the abdomen of the complainant in the x-ray film were visible, which remained there for seven days and thereby caused constant pain to complainant. The OPs are grossly negligent in not removing these two metallic type objects, which remained inside the abdomen of the complainant. The OPs tried to snatch the x-ray film, which was the basic document of gross negligence on the part of OPs. With the intervention of the media, Dr. Kamal Masih Medical Superintendent of the hospital. OP No.1 hospital gave statement before the press that the scissor type metallic items like clamps remained in the body of the complainant after surgery. The complainant has, thus, filed the present complaint against OPs praying for compensation of Rs.40 lac for medical negligence of the OPs along with interest @ 12% per annum, besides compensation of Rs.50,000/-

2.      Upon notice, OPs no.4 to 7 were set ex-parte, vide order dated 12.10.2011 of this Commission.

3.      OP nos. 1 to 3 appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant vehemently. It was averred in preliminary objections by OP No.1 to 3 that complainant was admitted on 04.10.2010 with the diagnosis of intestinal obstruction and fact of surgery was wrong. It was further averred that she was admitted with the diagnosis of Ruptured Ectopic Pregnancy under Professor Mary Abraham of the Department of Gynecology.  The complainant was admitted in the emergency of OP No.1 on 04.10.2010 with complaint of generalized pain in abdomen and multiple episodes of vomiting. The Blue Gynae oncall Unit of Obstetrics and Gynecology Department diagnosed her  a case of Ruptured Ectopic Pregnanacy based on  :

a) Urine Pregnancy Test      -        Positive

b) Ultrasound : Abdomen and pelvis showing Right Adnexal Cyst with Haemoperitoneum suggestive of Ruptured Ectopic Pregnancy. She was shifted to operation theatre with written consent for exploratory laparotomy and tubal ligation, as she had already two living children. Intra Operatively following findings were noted :

a) 2700 ml of Haemoperitoneum.

b) Left sided ruptured corneal pregnancy.

d) Right ruptured corpus luteal cyst.

So, left partial salpingectomy, right ovarian reconstruction  and right tubal ligation was done. Complete haemostasis was achieved and abdominal closure done of complainant. The complainant was transfused intra operatively three and postoperatively one unit of blood. The complainant kept 24 hours and started on sips of water on post operative day, one morning and proceeded onto soft diet from the evening of the first postoperative day. She was administered IV fluids, antibiotics and analgesics, dressing was changed on postoperative three day. The complainant's condition improved with the above treatment and she was discharged in a satisfactory condition on 12.10.2010 corresponding to 8th postoperative day. It was further averred in the written reply by contesting OPs that the complainant presented for the first time after discharge in gynecology private OPD on 20th postoperative day in the morning of 25.10.2010 with complaint of pain in abdomen and was treated by Dr. Mary Abraham. The complainant presented in emergency with complaint of pain, since four hours prior to presentation with episodes of vomiting. She was admitted on 25.10.2010 under Professor Mary Abraham and was taken for exploratory laparotomy after doing x-ray of the abdomen, which showed a pair of artery clamps in the abdomen. An informed written consent was duly signed by the husband of the complainant, which was taken by OPs. The husband of the complainant and other relatives reacted very strongly and they were restrained by the security staff from creating ruckus at the hospital premises . Dr. Anil Luther and Dr. Navdeep Singh Saini Associate Professor of Blue Surgery team were thereto dealt with the gangrenous bowel and they did ressection anastamosis of the gangrenous part of the small bowel. The patient/complainant was well in the postoperative period and was discharged from the hospital in a satisfactory condition on 08.11.2010. Her second operation was done totally free of cost. The complainant has concealed the fact intentionally, regarding her free of costs subsequent surgery. The complainant has also received insurance claim from Bajaj Allianz regarding which, she got certain forms signed from the OP/Hospital. The OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint by denying the role of Dr.Amarjit Kaur Media Manager in any manner in the episode.

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence, her affidavit, which is taken on record, as per order of this Commission dated 17.05.2012. As against it, the contesting OPs tendered in evidence joint affidavit of Dr.A.G. Thomas Director Christian Medical College & Hospital Ludhiana, Dr.AniL Luther and Dr. Navdeep Saini Associate Professor CMC Ludhiana Ex.R-A, Medical Record Ex.R-1 and affidavit of Kanwal Masih Medical Superintendent CMC Hospital Ex.R-B and closed the evidence.

5.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also examined the record of the case.

6.      The primary point of dispute in this case is that at the time of surgery of the complainant, some metallic substance was kept inside the body of the complainant due to gross negligence of the OPs and resultantly the complainant had to suffer constant pain and had to under another surgery for removal of the above metallic type substance left in her abdomen. The written statement filed on behalf of OP No.1 to 3 has already examined by us on the record,  because OP No.4 to 7 have been set ex-parte in this case. The contesting OPs admitted this fact in the written statement that her second operation for removal of the foreign body was done totally free of cost. The complainant has also received insurance claim from Bajaj Allianz regarding, which she got certain documents signed from the OPs.  The contesting OPs admitted this fact in written statement that on 25.10.2010, the complainant again presented to emergency with complaint of pain in her abdomen, since four hours  prior to presentation with episodes of vomiting. She was seen by the Blue Gynae and the surgical team in emergency and she was admitted in the night of 25th October 2010 under Professor Mary Abraham and was taken up for exploratory laparotomy after doing x-ray of the abdomen, which showed a pair of artery clamps in the abdomen. Thereafter, second surgery was performed upon her for the removal of the foreign body on 25.10.2010 by the OPs. There is no specific denial by the OPs to this contention of the complainant that she was admitted in the hospital of OP No.1 on 04.10.2010 with complaint of pain and was diagnosed of intestinal obstruction and she was operated upon there. She remained admitted in the hospital of OPs, as admitted in the written statement till 12.10.2010 at the time of her first surgery and thereafter she was discharged. Even as per written statement of the OPs, the complainant was not totally free of pain and she again presented before OP No.1 on 25.10.2010 in the emergency with complaint of pain and episode of vomiting, as per own admitted case of the OPs. She/complainant was admitted with the diagnosis of Ruptured Ectopic Pregnancy under Professor Mary Abraham of the Department of Gynecology. There was some pair of artery clamps in the abdomen, as pleaded by the contesting OPs in their written statement on the record. Undoubtedly, second surgery of the complainant was performed free of costs in this case. We have examined the affidavit of the complainant on the record in this case as well. The joint affidavit of Dr.A.G. Thomas Director Christian Medical College & Hospital Ludhiana, Dr.AniL Luther and Dr. Navdeep Saini Associate Professor CMC Ludhiana Ex.R-A is on the record, which has also been examined by us.

7.      From perusal of their affidavit Ex,R-A, it is evident that complainant was firstly operated on 04.10.2010 with the diagnosis of Intestinal Obstruction and multiple episodes of vomiting and was discharged on 12.10.2010 corresponding to 8th post operative day. She again presented in emergency with OP no.1 on 25.10.2010 with complaint of pain in her abdomen and episodes of vomiting, as admitted in this affidavit. The security staff of the OPs put the complainant's husband and his relatives on hold, when they started creating ruckus thereat. It is stated in the affidavit that the complainant was operated upon by competent team of doctors of the OPs. Ex.R-1 is treatment record of the complainant, which has also proved the fact of first and second surgery of the complainant on 04.10.2010 and thereafter on 25.10.2010. The record contained at Page No.105 of Ex.R-1 recorded this that on 25.10.2010, the complainant was again admitted with complaint of pain in abdomen. Her treatment was started to alleviate her suffering. Vide Page no.127 of Ex.R-1 date of discharge is 08.11.2010. It is recorded that previous surgical scar was healthy. The OP's findings are to the effect that foreign body was removed in second surgery. Affected part of bowl loop ressected and end to end anastomosis done. Complete haemostasis obtained. As per patient record Ex.R-1, the foreign body substance was removed from the complainant's abdomen at the time of second surgery performed on 25.10.2010 by the OPs. The removal of foreign substance by the OPs on 25.10.2010 from the abdomen of the complainant is a clear pointer, to gross negligence on the part of the operating team of doctors of OP No.1. Affidavit of  Kanwal Masih Medical Superintendent Christian Medical College and Hospital Ludhiana  Ex.R-B has also been examined by us. He has stated in it that complainant has also taken insurance claim from Bajaj Allianze and got certain documents signed from the OPs in this regard.

8.      From evaluation of the above-referred evidence on the record and hearing the respective submissions of counsel for the parties, we conclude that operating team of doctors of OP No.1 negligently left some foreign metallic substance in the abdomen of the complainant at the time of her first surgery on 04.10.2010. This is pointer to gross medical negligence on the part of OPs. There is no question of leaving any foreign body metallic substance in the body of the complainant by performing team of doctors of OP No.1, had they been diligent and cautious. OPs tried to twist the facts by stating that foreign body, which was removed was not metallic substance and was rather something else.  Even the matter blew up in the media regarding gross medical negligence of the OPs in leaving the metallic substance in the body of the complainant at the time of her first surgery. On this point, there are also certain newspaper clippings on the record to the effect that Scissors was left inside the body of Renu Aggarwal/complainant by the operating team of doctors of OPs. There is no question of leading any expert evidence in this case by the complainant nor any medical literate is required to be cited to prove medical negligence on the part of OPs by the complainant. Leaving the metallic substance inside the abdomen of the complainant at the time of first surgery by the OPs itself points to utter medical negligence on the part of operating surgeon and team of doctors of OP No.1. Principle of res ipsa loquitur applies in this case. The complainant has also filed application for additional evidence to place on record supplementary affidavit of Renu Aggarwal complainant. This application was resisted by OPs. We find that there is enough substance on the record-to-reach the finding qua medical negligence on the part of the performing surgeon and team of doctors of Ops. Consequently, the application will only further delay the matter and it stands rejected accordingly. We, thus, hold that the complainant has been successful in proving the medical negligence on the part of the OPs in this case.

9.      The next point for adjudication is, as to how much amount of compensation complainant is entitled to in this case for medical negligence on the part of OPs. The submission raised by the OPs is that complainant has been sufficiently indemnified by Bajaj Allianze Life Insurance Company and hence her claim in this case is not tenable.. We are of this view that the complainant took insurance policy for indemnification purposes alone and it would not relieve the OPs from their medical negligence in this case. We hold that purpose of the Consumer Protection Act is not to unduly enrich the consumers and is to compensate the consumers for the deficient and negligent services rendered by the service provider.

10.    Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we accept the complaint of the complainant and, thus, hold that complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 3 lac (three lacs rupees only) from the OPs along with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of complaint till the date of actual payment.  The complainant is further entitled to an amount of Rs.20,000/- as costs of the litigation. OP No.1 would be primarily liable to pay the amount of compensation to the complainant and otherwise the liability of OPs shall be joint and several.

11.    Arguments in this complaint were heard on 24.08.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.

12.    The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

                                                           (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM)

                                                                                MEMBER

 

August 27,   2015.                                                         

(ravi)