Delhi

East Delhi

CC/903/2014

SATISH - Complainant(s)

Versus

CMO MAX HOSPITAL - Opp.Party(s)

09 Dec 2015

ORDER

         

                DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM-EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

               CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                                               

Consumer complaint 903/2014                                                                                                

In matter of

Mr Satish Chandra Pasricha, s/o Late Kundan Lal  

R/o - 1/207, First Floor,

Subhash Nagar, New Delhi…110092………………………………………….…………..…….Complainant

                                                                    Vs

1-Chief Medical Officer

Max Super Specialty Hospital

Regd office 108 A, Indraprastha Extn.

 Patpargaunj, Delhi 110092   

2-Dr Vineeta Goel

3-Dr Vidanta Kabra

4-Dr Pankaj Pandey

All at Max Super Specialty Hospital,

Patpargunj, Delhi.110092..……………………………………………………………………..…Respondents

 

                                                                                                                  Date of Institution- 24/09/2014 

                                                                                                                      Date of Decision- 23/02/2016

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                                          

 

Order by  Dr P N Tiwari, Member : 

The brief facts

The complainant’s wife Smt Sunita Rani aged 65 yr was suffering from cervical carcinoma. As per the complaint, complainant’s wife Sunita Rani had post menopausal bleeding per vagina since long. She was admitted at Max Hospital, Peetampura branch of OP hospital.                                                                                                                                                                                   

In this hospital, she had under gone Radical Hysterectomy with Bilateral Adenexa removal on 27/07/2011. The entire removed parts had Uterus, Cervix, bilateral tubes and ovaries besides pelvic lymph nodes. Vaginal parts, Cervix and number of inflamed lymph nodes present around Uterus, Fallopian tube and ovaries were sent for hysto pathological report on 27/07/2011. The report was “Squamous Cell Carcinoma Cervix with Moderately differentiated (Gd II) as (pTN-pT1b1N0). Cancer cells had invaded cervical wall and the size of the tumor was 2cm. 

She was referred to OP 1 hospital for radio therapy on the advice of Tumor board that has senior surgical and medical onco-specialist and other onco experienced doctors. At OP1 hospital, all the modalities were discussed with complainant and later best option in Radiotherapy was chosen which is recent and suitable to the patient. The technique is known as IGRT in which post radiotherapy complications are reduced. Total 25 sittings were adviced. Her first sitting was given on 6th Sept 2011 and second was on 7thSept 2011. The wife of complainant had weakness and respiratory tract allergic reactions, so was admitted and was examined. As she had very low immunity so related symptoms appeared which were treated accordingly. She developed intestinal obstruction and was managed surgically on 15/09/2011. Her treatment was continued. Later she expired on 25/09/2011. After the death of his wife, complainant filed his grievances with every higher Govt official and complaint before Delhi Medical Council for expert medical opinion. In the opinion, It was decided that line of Radiotherapy adopted by OP hospital was as per current guidelines in radiotherapy in such category of patient where Grade II Cervix carcinoma is present. Complainant was not satisfied by the opinion of Delhi Medical council, filed his appeal with Medical Council of India who also confirmed the line of treatment and Radiotherapy given to the patient.

Complainant filed this complaint on 24/09/2014 ie beyond the limitation period. No condonation application has been filed by the complainant. Notices were served to all respondents. Written versions were submitted. Opponent denied all the allegations of complainant and OP said that radiotherapy was given as per the current national guidelines of NCCN 12 and opted for minimal doses of radiotherapy in 25 sittings. As the invasion of Cancer cells was already in surrounding area of lower abdomen which requires repeated sittings to arrest the spread of malignant cells in body as his radiotherapy was opted after removal of cancer affected area. Opponent has submitted written consents taken and indoor treatment records besides OP have filed medical literature pertaining to the diagnosis and line of radiotherapy to be adopted after due consultations by Cancer board of specialist.

 

Complainant has neither asked for Expert Medical Opinion nor submitted any literature supporting his claim of negligence done during the treatment. Parties submitted their written versions and arguments were heard.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

Considering all the facts and merits of this case, we took two points for consideration as-

  • Health Status of patient at 62 yr having Grade II Squamous Cell Carcinoma of Cervix.

 

  • Whether line of treatment adopted by OPs are correct as per the standard guidelines adopted in advanced in Gd II squamous cel carcinoma of Cervix.                                                                                                

Point i- When a patient has malignant cancerous growth in his/her body and detected after a long time, the internal parts of body gets invaded by the cancer cells leading lowering of body immunity which makes good platform for development of  various infections. In this case, she was 62 years and cancer cervix was of advanced stage.

Point ii- The line of treatment in the present diagnosis has been stated to be correct based on the guidelines of NCCN 12 and oncology expert doctors board. The treatment adopted has been duly confirmed by the expert medical opinion.

The complainant has not controverted the line of treatment adopted by OP doctors which is on record.  The matter was dealt with complaint by the medical council of Delhi and thereafter by Medical Council of India. Both the Apex bodies of medical profession have opined that the line of treatment adopted by the treating doctors was in accordance with the standard procedure and they hold that there was no lapse on the part of treating doctors.

The response of treatment may be different in individual patient which depends upon the stage of cancer and the general condition of the patient. In this case the patient was already in the advanced stage of disease/cancer. She was an old aged lady. In such circumstances, if she has not responded well to the treatment, it cannot be said that doctor has not adopted the proper line of treatment.         

By taking the reference of Martin F D’Souza case under para C (a to d ) which says about Medical Practice and Practitioners in ref to medical negligence as –

(a)-Treatment in extremely serious situation successfully saving life although resulting in side effects, held, did not amount to negligence.

(b)- Bolam test as approved in Jacob Mathew case,(2005)6SCC1, held , medical practitioners would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of standard of a reasonably competent doctor.

Harm resulting from mischance or misadventure or through an error of judgment would not necessarily attract such liability. Mere existence of a body of competent professional opinion considering the decision of the medical practitioner to professional opinion supporting his decision as reasonable in the circumstances of the case.

(c)- Standard of care has to be judged in the light of knowledge and equipment available at the relevant point of time. In performing a novel operation or prescribing a novel treatment to save the patient’s life when no other method of treatment is available, even if resulting in death or causing some serious harm, they should not be held liable.

(d)-Simply because a patient has not favorably responded to a treatment given by a doctor or a surgery has failed, the doctor cannot be held straightway liable for medical negligence by applying the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor.                                                                                  

We come to the conclusion that complainant has failed to prove his allegations against the respondents. Hence complaint is dismissed.                                                                                                     

 The copy of this order shall be sent to the parties as per rules.                                                                                                                                                    

                                                            

(Dr) P N Tiwari - Member                                                                                  Mr N A Zaidi - President

 

 

                                                                                                                                                          

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.