DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 785-11
Date of Institution : 13-9-2011
Date of Decision : 29-04-2015
Mrs. Baljeet Kaur W/o Sh. Jaspal Singh R/o 3917, Gali No. 3, Kot Baba Deep Singh, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar.
...Complainant
Versus
- Dhaliwal Hospital, Near Govt. Dental College, Batala Road, Amritsar through its Prop./Partner/Managing Director/Principal Officer.
- Dr. U.S.Dhaliwal C/o Dhaliwal Hospital, Near Govt. Dental College, Batala Road, Amritsar.
- The New India Assurance Company Limited, D.O.Court Road, Amritsar service through its Divisional Officer.
....Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: For the complainant: Sh. Deepinder Singh, Advocate
For the opposite parties: Sh. Vipan Bhasin, Advocate
Quorum:
Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President,
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa,Member
Sh. Anoop Sharma, Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1. Present complaint has been filed by Smt.Baljit Kaur under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that she remained admitted in Opposite Party No.1-Hospital under the direct supervision of Opposite Party No.2-Doctor. The complainant has to suffer a lot and almost reached the clutches of death due to the negligent medical treatment and surgery conducted by Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2. Complainant alleges that she was having the trouble of indigestion and heaviness and got the ultra sonography on 4.1.2011 from Mata Kaulan Ji Bandi Chhod Charitable Hospital, Amritsar and the report shows the impression of CHOLELITHIASIS and the complainant alongwith her husband went to Opposite Party No.1-Hospital and met Opposite Party No.2 Dr. U.S. Dhaliwal, in the morning of 2.2.2011. The Opposite Party No.2 got the complainant admitted at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital on the same day and planned for surgery in the evening the same day. Opposite Party No.2 conducted the surgery at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital for removal of gall bladder, on the complainant on 2.2.2011 without any further ultra sonography probe and discharged the complainant on 4.2.2011 from Opposite Party No.1-Hospital while the complainant was still complaining of abdominal pain and distention. The complainant after discharge went home, but her condition was not normal and she was feeling heaviness, distension, fever and abdominal pain and reported to the Opposite Party No.2, but Opposite Party No.2 put off the matter on the pretext that these are post operative complications for a few days and will be corrected within week time, the complainant followed up with Opposite Party No.2 at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital as advised, but her condition keeps on worsening day by day and she alongwith her husband reported the matter to Opposite Party No.2 at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital , but they keep on giving assurance that all would be well with the complainant as surgery is successful and she will be at her daily chores within few days. The condition of the complainant went on deteriorating day by day with acute pain in abdomen, fever, distension and heaviness, the complainant approached Dr.Varinder Singh at Amritsar who referred the complainant to Dr.Jagdeep Singh Arora who is known gastroenterologist, and the said doctor diagnosed the billary leakage and renal dysfunction and advised MRCP. The complainant got the said investigations including MRCP and the outcome was shocking that there was CBD (common bile duct) injury and renal dysfunction. Said doctor advised the hospitalization and corrective surgery for the damage to the CBD caused by the surgery conducted by Opposite Party No.2 at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital. The complainant again approached Dr.Varinder who after going through the said investigation reports advised the complainant to be referred to PGI, Chandigarh for corrective surgery for the damage to the CBD caused by the surgery conducted by Opposite Party No.2-Doctor at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital. The complainant before shifting to PGI, Chandigarh approached Opposite Party No.2 at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital and showed them the investigation reports and diagnosed made there under, the Opposite Party No.2 admitted his fault and damage caused to the CBD by the surgery conducted by him which further damaged the renal function of the complainant, but showed his helplessness. The complainant, thereafter, was immediately shifted to PGI, Chandigarh and was admitted on 27.2.2011 and the billary fluids were extracted and it was again diagnosed that there is CBD injury caused by Opposite Party No.2-Doctor at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital while conducting surgery for removal of gall bladder on 2.2.2011. The doctors at PGI, Chandigarh after extracting the billary fluids, managed the further collection of billary fluids by using the PIGTAIL technique and discharged the complainant on 11.3.2011 with the continuous follow up advise as the corrective surgery could not be planned at that stage , the complainant keep on suffering with fever, jaundice, abdominal distention and kept regular follow up with the PGI, Chandigarh as advised. The complainant was further managed for the renal dysfunction caused by the damage to the CBD and collection of billary fluids. The complainant was again admitted at PGI, Chandigarh on 13.5.2011 for the corrective surgery of the CBD damage caused by the Opposite Party No.2-Doctor at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital on 2.2.2011, the complainant underwent the corrective surgery on 19.5.2011 at PGI, Chandigarh and was further managed for the renal dysfunction caused by the damage to the CBD and collection of billary fluid due to the damaging surgery conducted by Opposite Party No.2-Doctor at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital on 2.2.2011. The complainant was discharged from the PGI, Chandigarh on 6.6.2011 after the corrective surgery and management by the doctors at PGI, Chandigarh with the advice of follow up. The complainant has to face a lot of trauma and to underwent again the complicated surgery due to the damaging surgery conducted by Opposite Party No.2r at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital. The complainant besides physical suffering has to suffer financially due to negligent and deficient acts of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and the complainant has to spend an amount of about Rs.3 lacs on treatment, medicines, etc. in the entire exercise besides lot of suffering and trauma. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs.3 lacs spent by the complainant on the treatment from 2.2.2011 onwards alongwith interest due thereon from the date of payment till realization. Compensation amounting to Rs.15 lacs and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainant was admitted in Opposite Party No.1-Hospital on 2.2.2011 with the complaint of pain at right abdomen since two months and quite severe since last about 20 days and dyspepsia since last three months. She was diagnosed to be a case of acute Cholecystitis with Choliolithiasis. In Opposite Party No.1-Hospital, the complainant was given best of the treatment as per standard surgical literature and there was no negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 while treating the complainant. The opposite party denied that the complainant was pushed to death bed because of negligence of Opposite Parties. In fact the complainant was discharged in a full satisfied condition. The complainant was diagnosed to be a case of acute Cholecystitis with Choliolithiasis for which cholecystactomy had to be carried out. However, as per standard books on the subject there are known complications to such surgery which include bile leak, bile duct obstruction or stricture and infection and these were duly informed to the complainant and her next of kin (husband) at the time of taking informed consent from them for surgery. After fully investigating and assessing her clinically and considering her suitability for surgery by Dr.A.S.Multani Ex-Prof. and Head Deptt. Of Medicines, Government Medical College, Amritsar, the complainant was operated upon the same day i.e. 2.2.2011. Her post operative recovery was uneventful and on 4.2.2011, she was discharged from the hospital in a satisfactory condition. At the time of discharge, she was not having any pain or distention of abdomen. However, during surgery, the Gall Bladder was found to be badly infected and her attendants were fully informed and explained about bad adhesions with thick walled, inflamed, adherent gall bladder and full of pus as seen on needle aspiration of the Gall Bladder. The gall bladder had acute on chronic inflammation with abnormal anatomy of the bile duct. There was no need for further ultra sonography before discharge of complainant as she never complained of anything. As per the operation notes/ record, the cystic duct was long and was going low around the CBD. The CBD was well defined and cleared off. However, the dissection was difficult and had to be done carefully and slowly taking over one hour with uneventful completion. Cystic Artery and Duct were ligated separately. The pus removed and the badly inflamed gall bladder was shown to the husband of the complainant immediately after the surgery and the same was mentioned in the discharge card of the patient given at the time of discharge. After operation, the complainant came to Opposite Party No.2 only for removal of stitches on about 8th day from her discharge. At that time, wound was healed up well, but was slightly infected which was expected in such an infected gall bladder. Complainant was given necessary treatment for the same. The complainant was never put off saying it was post operative complication for few days and shall be corrected within a week’s time. Her complaints/ problems were properly attended to. The complainant at that time never complained of any abdominal fullness, pain or fever. There was nothing wrong with the surgery and complainant after removal of stitches never met Opposite Party No.2. The complainant after her discharge from Opposite Party No.1-Hospital met Opposite Party No.2 only once when she came for removal of her stitches. The complainant never complained about her alleged deteriorating condition or about the alleged pain abdomen, fever, distention and heaviness. Bile leakage is one of the known complications of cholecystectomy. There was bile leakage which was conservatively managed by putting a pigtail drain. There was no bile duct injury. The PGI, Chandigarh authorities drained off the bile alongwith fluid accumulated in the peritoneal cavity. The complainant never visited Opposite Party No.1-Hospital at all after the stitches were removed, so, no question of any deficiency in service or negligence arises in the management of the complication of bile leakage which was managed in the PGI, Chandigarh. There was nothing wrong with the surgery performed by Opposite Party No.2 upon complainant. Bile leakage and injury to the bile ducts are well established, documented complications of cholecystectomy even in the most expert hands and in the best of hospitals. There is no question of any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.2. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite Party No.3 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the Opposite Party No.3 has been unnecessarily impleaded without any cause of action and even otherwise, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the insurance coverage no liability can be fastened upon the Opposite Party No.3 as such, the present complaint merits dismissal. Moreover, without admitting any liability on the part of opposite parties No.1 & 2, in this case, Opposite Party No.3 has no direct liability towards complainant. Opposite Party No.3 will indemnify insured on their satisfaction of any court award subject to policy terms and conditions. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6, affidavitof S.Jasapal Singh Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
5. Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Dr.U.S.Dhaliwal Ex.R1 alongwith hospital file of the patient Ex.R2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.
6. Opposite Party No.3 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Sunil Mahajan Ex.OP3/1 alongwith documents Ex.OP3/2 and Ex.Op3/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party No.3.
7. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
8. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that complainant suffered problem of indigestion and heaviness and she got ultrasonography on 4.1.2011 from Mata Kaulan Ji Bandi Chhor Charitable Hospital, Amritsar and the report shows the impression of Cholelithiasis. Thus the complainant alongwith her husband approached Opposite Party No.2 in opposite party No.1 hospital on 2.2.2011. Resultantly the complainant was admitted in opposite party No.1 hospital on 2.2.2011. Opposite party No.2 conducted button hole surgery for the removal of gall bladder of the complainant on 2.2.2011 at opposite party No.1 hospital without any further ultrasonography probe and discharged the complainant on 4.2.2011. The complainant alleges that when the complainant was still complaining of abdominal pain and distention. After discharge from the hospital, the complainant went home but she was not feeling normal. She had fever, abdominal pain and she was also feeling heaviness and distention and this fact was reported to opposite party No.2 but he put off the matter on the ground that these are post operative complications for few days and would be corrected within a week time. The complainant followed up with opposite party No.2 at opposite party No.1 hospital, but her condition kept on worsening day by day and she reported to opposite party No.2. But the opposite parties assured that all would be well as the surgery is successful and she would be alright within a few days. However, the condition of the complainant went on deteriorating with acute pain, fever, distention and heaviness. Then the complainant approached Dr. Varinder Singh at Amritsar, who referred the complainant to Dr. Jagdeep Singh Arora a known Gastroenterologist and the said doctor diagnosed billary leakage and renal dysfunction and advised MRCP. The complainant got the said investigations conducted including MRCP as a result of which the report was shocking as there was CBD (Common Bile Duct) injury and renal dysfunctional. Dr. Jagdeep Singh Arora advised hospitalization and corrective surgery for the damage to the CBD caused by the surgery conducted by opposite party No.2 at opposite party No.1 hospital. Then the complainant again approached Dr. Varinder Singh, who after going through the entire investigation reports advised the complainant and referred her to PGI Chandigarh for the corrective surgery for the damage caused to CBD. The complainant before going to PGI Chandigarh approached opposite party No.2 at opposite party No.1 hospital and showed the investigation reports. Thereafter the complainant was immediately shifted to PGI Chandigarh, where she was admitted on 27.2.2011 and the billary fluids were extracted and it was again diagnosed that there is CBD injury. The doctors at PGI Chandigarh after extraction of billary fluids, managed the further collection of billary fluids by using pigtail technique and discharged the complainant on 11.3.2011 with the continuous follow up advise as the corrective surgery could not be planned at that stage. During this period the complainant kept on suffering with fever, jaundice, abdominal pain, distention and kept regular follow up with the PGI Chandigarh, as advised. The complainant was further managed for the renal dysfunction caused by the damage to CBD and collection of billary fluid. The complainant was again admitted at PGI Chandigarh on 13.5.2011 for the corrective surgery of CBD damage and the complainant underwent the corrective surgery on 19.5.2011 at PGI Chandigarh and was further managed for the renal dysfunction caused by the damage to the CBD and collection of billary fluid. The complainant was discharged from PGI Chandigarh on 6.6.2011 after corrective surgery and management of billary fluid with the advice of follow up. During this period the complainant has to face a lot of trauma and underwent the complicated surgery second time due to the damage caused to the CBD and collection of billary fluid as a result of surgery conducted by opposite party No.2 at opposite party No.1 on 2.2.2011. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant suffered physically, mentally, financially due to negligent and deficient acts on the part of the opposite parties.
9. Whereas the case of the opposite parties No.1 & 2 is that the complainant was admitted in opposite party No.1 hospital on 2.2.2011 with complaint of pain right abdomen for the last about two months with severe pain for the last about 20 days and dyspepsia for the last about 3 months. She was diagnosed to be a case of acute Cholecystitis with Choliolithiasis. The complainant was given best treatment as per standard surgical literature. Resultantly Cholecystectomy had to be carried out on 2.2.2011. As per standard books on the subject there are known complications to such surgery which include bile leak, bile duct obstruction or stricture and infection and these facts were duly brought to the notice of the complainant and her husband at the time of taking consent from them for the surgery. After fully investigating and assessing the complainant clinically and after considering suitability for surgery by Dr. A.S.Multani, Ex-Prof. and Head, Department of Medicines, Govt.Medical College, Amritsar, the complainant was operated upon the same day i.e. 2.2.2011. Her post operative recovery was uneventful and on 4.2.2011 she was discharged from the hospital in a satisfactory condition. During surgery, it was found that gall bladder of the complainant was badly infected and this fact was fully informed and explained to her attendants and it was also informed that it had bad adhesions with thick walled, inflamed, adherent Gall Bladder and full of pus as seen on needle aspiration of the gall bladder. The gall bladder had acute chronic inflammation with abdomen anatomy of the bile duct. There was no need for further ultrasonography before discharge of complainant as she did not complain of anything. Opposite parties further submitted that as per operative notes/record, the cystic duct was long and was going low around the CBD. The CBD was well defined and cleared off. However, dissection was difficult and had to be done carefully with uneventful completion. Cystic Artery and Duct were legated separately. The pus removed and the badly inflamed gall bladder was shown to the husband of the complainant after the surgery. All the aforesaid facts were mentioned in the discharge card of the patient. After operation the complainant came to opposite party No.2 for the removal of stitches on about 8th day from her surgery. At that time wound was healed well but was slightly infected which was expected in such an infected gall bladder case. The complainant was given necessary treatment for the same. Her complaints were properly attended to. At that time complainant did not complain of any abdominal heaviness, pain or fever. Opposite parties denied that the condition of the complainant went on deteriorating day by day or that the opposite parties kept on giving assurance to complainant that all would be well within a few days. There was nothing wrong with the surgery and bile leakage is one of the known complications of the Cholecystectomy.. There is nothing on record that there was bile duct injury. There is nothing shocking about this because billary injuries and bile leakage are well documented and known complications of Cholecystectomy.. The record shows that there was bile leakage which was conservatively managed by putting a pigtail drain at PGI. No document has been placed on record by the complainant showing bile duct injury. The PGI doctors drained out the bile along with fluid accumulation in the peritoneal cavity. Opposite parties denied that before shifting to PGI the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 and had shown him the investigation reports. Opposite party No.2 further denied that he had admitted his fault that the CBD of the complainant was injured at the time of surgery conducted by opposite party No.2 on 2.2.2011 with further damage to renal function of the complainant. The injury, if any is a known complication of the surgery performed. Even the record of PGI does not establish any injury to the CBD. This fact established that there was bile leakage but its origin is not known. The leakage of bile is probably from the site of Gall Bladder bed in the liver i.e. Gall Bladder Fossa. Even the HIDDA test conducted in the PGI and the MRI do not establish any injury to the CBD. The renal dysfunction of the complainant was not caused by Cholecystectomy. The PGI is one of the best centers for the management of known complications of cholecystectomy. The PGI doctors have also recorded that bile had leakage from the gall bladder fossa and there was no fever or clay coloured stools which means bile duct injury is ruled out and that after operation CBD was not blocked. The record of PGI falsifies the claim of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the opposite parties submitted that there was nothing wrong with the surgery performed by opposite party No.2 upon the complainant at opposite party No.1 hospital, as such there is no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the opposite parties No.1 & 2 qua the complainant.
10. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant got her ultrasonography done on 4.1.2011 from Mata Kaulan Ji Bandi Chhor Charitable Hospital, Amritsar Ex.C4 and the report shows the impression of Cholelithiasis. Then the complainant approached opposite party No.2 in opposite party No.1 hospital on 2.2.2011 and the complainant was admitted in opposite party No.1 hospital on the same day i.e. on 2.2.2011. Opposite party No.2 conducted the button hole surgery for the removal of gall bladder of the complainant on 2.2.2011 at opposite party No.1 hospital and discharged the complainant on 4.2.2011 as per discharge slip of Opposite Party No.1-Hospital Ex.C2. The complainant alleges that she was still complaining of abdominal pain and distention, but Opposite Party No.2 inspite of that discharged the complainant from Opposite Party No.1-Hospital. After discharge from the hospital, the complainant went home but she wasl suffering from fever and abdominal pain. She was also feeling heaviness and distention. The complainant reported this fact to opposite party No.2, but the Opposite Party No.2 put off the matter on the ground that these are post operative complications for few days and same would be corrected. Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 submitted that at the time of surgery, it was found that gall bladder of the complainant was badly infected and her attendants were fully informed and explained about the bad adhesions with thick walled, inflamed, adherent Gall Bladder and full of pus as seen on needle aspiration of the gall bladder. The gall bladder had acute chronic inflammation with abdomen anatomy of the bile duct. If Opposite Party No.2 came to know at the time of surgery that gall bladder of the complainant was found to be badly infected and it had bad adhesions with thick walled, inflamed, adherent gall bladder and full of pus, then why he performed the button hole surgery which is not recognized by any medical science or MCI (Medical Counsel of India), for the removal of the gall bladder and why he did not prefer open hole surgery as it was a complicated case. As a result of button hole surgery, the complainant suffered various complications which could be avoided by preferring open hole surgery which is proper approved and recognized surgery for the removal of gall bladder. As a result of this surgery conducted by Opposite Party No.2 in Opposite Party No.1-Hospital, the complainant suffered various complications such as damage to bile duct as a result of which, billary fluids collected in the body of the complainant. The complainant also suffered damage to kidney function and pigtail drain was placed in the abdomen of the complainant. 5 litre of billion material was drained out in ES OPD at PGI, Chandigarh as is evident from the record of PGI, Chandigarh. The complainant on follow up course approached Opposite Party No.2 at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital and told Opposite Party No.2 that her condition kept on worsening day by day. This fact has also been admitted by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 in their written version that after operation the complainant came to Opposite Party No.2 at opposite party No.1 hospital after about 8th day from her discharge. Opposite Party No.2 stated that complainant came only for removal of stitches and at that time, the wound was healed well but was slightly infected which was expected in such an infected gall bladder case. The complainant was suffering from so many aforementioned complications after operation and she approached Opposite Party No.2 after about 8 days of discharge from Opposite Party No.1-Hospital. Opposite Party No.2 did not care to admit the patient in Opposite Party No.1-Hospital fully knowing that wounds were infected and condition of the complainant was worse or for correct measure of the aforesaid complications might have referred to higher institute, but he left the patient by saying only that the stitches were slightly infected which were expected in such an infected gall bladder. Even at that time, he did not refer the complainant to some higher institute or super speciality hospital for corrective measure or could have got conducted other tests of the complainant because the condition of the complainant was deteriorating which forced the complainant to approach another doctor i.e. Dr.Varinder Singh, who referred the complainant to Dr.Jagdeep Singh Arora, M.D.D.M (Gastro) who diagnosed billary leakage and advised MRCP. The complainant got those investigations conducted including MRCP as a result of which Dr.Jagdeep Singh Arora advised the complainant for hospitalization for corrective surgery. Then, the complainant approached Dr.Varinder Singh who after going through entire investigation reports, advised the complainant and referred her to PGI, Chandigarh. Consequently, the complainant was rushed to PGI, Chandigarh where she was admitted on 27.2.2011 as per Discharge and Follow Up Card of PGI, Chandigarh Ex.C5. The patient was admitted with history of abdominal distention progressively increasing jaundice, fever and clay colour stool. The authorities in PGI, Chandigarh found that the patient had dearranged kidney function with low urine output abdominal distention. Resultantly, on drain placement 4 liter of billion material was drained out in ESOPD. The patient was kept in recovery for vital monitoring/ hydration. Patient became anemic, but hydration continued, pigtail of abdominal collection placed with initial outpart 1.9 lt. billion via both drain. Then pelvic pigtail drained 250 ml on next day. As per PGI, Chandigarh report, pigtail was drained out 900 ml, 200 ml, 700 ml, 600 ml, 500 ml and 500 ml billion. Patient was discharged on 11.3.2011 with continuous follow up advice. The complainant continued visiting OPD of PGI, Chandigarh. Thereafter, the complainant was again admitted in PGI, Chandigarh on 13.5.2011. She was evaluated and admitted for hepatiojeju Nostomy with billary fistula. She was operated upon for corrective surgery and was discharged on 19.5.2011. Even thereafter, the complainant had to attend PGI, Chandigarh for follow up advice till 6.7.2011 (Ex.C-5). All this fully proves that due to medical negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 by conducting button hole surgery for removal of gall bladder on the complainant on 2.2.2011, the complainant suffered lot. Opposite Party No.2 discharged the complainant from Opposite Party No.1-Hospital on 4.2.2011 despite the fact that complainant did not recover properly and even after about 8th day when the complainant turned up and reported to Opposite Party No.2-Doctor about her abdominal pain, fever, heaviness and distention and there was infection in the wounds, even then, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 did not admit the complainant to remove complications the complainant has suffered due to surgery conduced by Opposite Party No.2 at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital on the complainant on 2.2.2011 nor referred the complainant to any other higher institute/ super specialty hospital for the removal/correction of complications the complainant was suffering and then, she has to approach Dr. Varinder Singh and then Dr.Jagdeep Singh Arora who after getting further tests including MRCP on the complainant, referred the complainant to PGI, Chandigarh where she was admitted on 27.2.2011 and huge quantity of billary fluids was abstracted from the body of the complainant. PGI, Chandigarh authorities further managed the collected billary fluids by using pigtail technology and discharged the complainant on 11.3.2011 with continuous follow up advice. Thereafter, the complainant was again admitted in PGI, Chandigarh on 13.5.2011 for corrective surgery. She was operated upon again and was discharged on 19.5.2011. PGI, Chandigarh authorities have further managed for the renal failure caused to the complainant by damage to CBD and collection of billary fluids with further advice of follow up and the complainant had to attend PGI, Chandigarh upto 6.7.2011 as is evident from the record of PGI, Chandigarh Ex.C5 i.e. for about more than 5 months and during this period, the complainant suffered physically, mentally as well as financially.
11. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties submitted that as per literature pertaining to Biliary Surgery, there are some known complications of cholecystectomy. Most complications following surgical procedures on the biliary system are related to iatrogenic injury. They include bile leak, bile duct obstructions or stricture, and infection. The complications of laparoscopic and open cholecystectomy can be classified as major, typically involving injury to the common bile duct or common hepatic duct, or minor, usually evidenced as a bile leak with ensuring bile peritonitis or biloma. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is associated with a higher incidence of biliary injuries relating to the open procedure. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties also brought the attention of this Forum towards literature relating to complications of cholecystectomy where it is written that in recent studies the rate of billiary injury with laparoscopic cholecystectomy was o.5% to 0.9%. Most significant complication that can arise during open or laparoscopic cholecystectomy is bile duct injury. The incidence of major bile duct injury after open cholecystectomy is between 0.1% to 0.2%. He argued that these complications generally occur in case of cholecystectomy and these complications have been corrected by PGI, Chandigarh in the present case relating to the complainant. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties qua the complainant.
12. We have gone through the entire literature produced by the Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2 relating to complications of cholecystectomy. The Opposite Parties have brought the literature relating to complications of cholecystectomy in case of laparoscopic and open hole surgery, but he could not produce literature relating to button hole surgery of cholecystectomy as was done by Opposite Party No.2 at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital, upon the complainant. Further when the complainant pointed out these complications to Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, they did not make any effort to correct the complications occurred to the complainant nor referred her to higher institute or some super speciality hospital for the correction/ removal of the complications suffered by the complainant, despite the fact that complainant reported the matter that complications being suffered by her after button hole surgery performed by Opposite Party No.2 at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital, upon the complainant on 2.2.2011. The Opposite Party No.2 has simply stated that these complications shall be set right within few days and when there was no other rescue for the complainant, she approached Dr.Varinder Singh and Dr.Jagdeep Singh Arora who after getting various tests including MRCP of the complainant, referred the complainant to PGI, Chandigarh where she had to undergo various corrective management procedure i.e. abstraction of billary fluids, corrective surgery and removal/ correction of renal dysfunction, being suffered by the complainant due to negligence/ deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.2 while performing button hole surgery at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital. Had the complainant not approached PGI, Chandigarh, her life could be in danger and she had to suffer for more than 5 months as is evident from the medical record of PGI, Chandigarh pertaining to complainant Ex.C5.,apart from mentally and financially.
13. Consequently, we hold that the complainant suffered lot due to medical negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 while performing button hole surgery for cholecystectomy upon the complainant on 2.2.2011. As such, the complainant is entitled to compensation. However the complainant did not produce any bills pertaining to her medical treatment at PGI.
14. Resultantly, we partly allow this complaint with costs and Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are directed to pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.1 lac (One lac only). Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are also directed to pay the costs of litigation to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 5000/- (Five thousands only). Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Dated: 29-04-2015. (Bhupinder Singh) President
hrg (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
Member Member
