BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 79 of 2015.
Date of Institution : 22.4.2015
Date of Decision : 23.1.2017.
Urvashi, aged about 7 years, minor daughter of Shri Rishi Kumar son of Shri Ranjit Singh, resident of Patel Basti, Gol Diggi, Begu Road, Sirsa, through her father/ natural guardian.
……Complainant.
Versus.
Dr. J.K. Bishnoi, M.S. (Ex. Medical Civil Surgeon/ CMO Govt. General Hospital, Sirsa), 265, B-Blok, Near Durga Mandir, Sirsa.
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH.S.B.LOHIA………………. ……PRESIDENT.
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ……… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Amit Goyal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Jagwant Singh, Advocate for the opposite party.
ORDER
The present complaint has been filed by Ms. Urvashi minor through her father/ natural guardian Shri Rishi Kumar. The case of the complainant is that she was suffering from hard hearing problem and as such she alongwith her father approached the opposite party and complained about the problem of hard hearing and allergy problem in the right ear. The complainant paid Rs.100/- as OPD charges to op on 16.2.2014. During the examination to detect the problem in the right ear of complainant, the op used some medical instrument and some of the medical instrument was put into her right ear. During medical examination and putting inside the medical instrument in the right ear, she suffered intolerable pain, resultantly she started carrying and she suffered dislocation of the face as well as suffered loss of sight of the eye. However, the op in order to pacify complainant and her father, simply gave the symptomatic medicines and assured them that within a two days the problem of dislocation/bending of the face as well as eye sight would be normalized and gained its original position. In this way, the op did not disclose about the said problem to the complainant and about his negligence and careless examination rather made them foolish by simply giving the medicines for the said serious problem occurred due to his negligence. It is further averred that inspite of taking the medicines there was no recovery in the dislocation as well as in the eye sight problem, therefore, they approached the op and stated him that above said problem has occurred only because of using the medical instrument and placing the same into her right ear. It is further averred that on 18.2.2014, the op out of his cleverness even did not disclose and explain that major problem of dislocation of face and eye sight has occurred due to his negligence, rather he in a clever way referred her to Dr. Mahender Upadhaya and as per his advise they approached the said doctor who after examination detected the dislocation of face as facial paralysis right side and also advised C.T. scan of HRCT Temporal Bone. Accordingly, the complainant and her father approached Ridhi Sidhi Diagnostic and Research Centre, Sirsa for said report. After going through the said report, Dr. Mahender Upadhaya advised for the operation of the right ear of complainant but they detected some thing wrong on the part of opposite party and refused to get the surgery from the said doctor. Thereafter, they approached Dr. Parveen Eye Hospital to take the opinion for the problem occurred in the eye and facial paralysis and after thorough examination, Dr. Parveen advised and referred for the further medical checkup of complainant from the Higher Medical Specialized institution of ENT. On 19.3.2014, complainant visited Mamta ENT Hospital Dabwali road, Sirsa and the doctor of that hospital also detected the problem and advised her father for medical checkup of complainant from higher medical institution of ENT. However, as the father of complainant is very poor person and cannot bear the expenses of private higher medical institution, as such they approached All India Medical Institute at Delhi where she was medically checked up on 21.2.2014 and complainant disclosed the problem in the right side ear, facial paralytic and eye problem. There the penal of doctors of ENT department examined the complainant and prescribed the medicines after getting conducted tests. The complainant remained under treatment from AIIMS Delhi and is still undergoing the same. The complainant and her father since 21.2.2014 till today have taken more than 10 rounds to Delhi for getting medical treatment from said hospital and her father has suffered financial loss of more than Rs.2,00,000/- during these rounds from Sirsa to Delhi on account of medical checkup, tests and transportation etc. It is further averred that all this has happened only on account of gross medical negligence on the part of op due to which future as well as marriage prospects of complainant has been effected adversely and complainant will have to face irritation and shy on account of facial paralytic and eye/ear problem throughout of her life because inspite of best treatment from AIIMS, Delhi the problems have not been cured so far and as such she has been rendered completely permanent disable girl. The complainant is entitled to Rs.16,00,000/- as compensation for loss of future prospects besides the above said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and litigation expenses from the op. The complainant approached op in this regard but he refused to pay any compensation. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written statement taking various preliminary objections regarding maintainability; locus standi; cause of action estoppal; jurisdiction and suppression of material facts etc. It has been submitted that the op doctor carefully examined the complainant as per medical norms with due care and caution and prescribed medicines as per requirement of the patient diseases and also advised her father to consult expert doctors in other hospitals or consult the doctor of higher institutions. It has also been submitted on merits that complainant visited the op with the pain or right ear and on examination the patient was having a problem of facial paralysis and he clearly mentioned on the prescription Ball’s Palsy ®. So far as qualification of op is concerned, the op is a qualified ENT Surgeon, having 40 years of experience and retired CMO from Govt. Hospital. He treated the thousands of patients during his service, so he has rich experience at his credit. The patient Urvashi contacted the op with his father on 16.2.2014 and after examination he prescribed the medicines as per medical norms with care and caution. The treating doctor found impacted wax in the ear and advised waxovict ear drop and it was a proper and prescribed treatment for this purpose and he also prescribed other medicines to the patient and the same treatment repeated by AIIMS doctors. The op doctor advised the patient to consult any ENT Surgeon at Sirsa or from any other higher institution but the advise of op doctor not followed by them. The doctors of other hospital clearly mentioned that the patient was not serious to get the treatment nor she was co-operating, the patient is habitual to ignore the advise of the treating doctors. It is wrong that op doctor has used some medical instrument, the impacted wax and disease of Ball’s palsy is visible through naked eyes. It is also wrong to say that complainant suffered dislocation of face as well as suffered loss of sight of the eye. The op doctor also advised wysoline tablet and other medicines for the relief of pain as well as infection. After 16.2.2014, the patient alongwith her father never visited the op doctor nor obtained any treatment. As per medical record, the patient on 18.2.2014 consulted Dr. Parveen who examined her and clearly mentioned that the patient having complaint facial paralysis ® VII No. Palsy, he further mentioned in the prescription slip that fundus within normal limits, the vision of the both eyes was 6/9 of both eyes and he prescribed eye drops and after 18.2.2014 the patient never visited the hospital of Dr. Parveen. As per the medical prescription record, patient Urvashi visited the Sirsa ENT Hospital and Lesar Surgery Centre, Sirsa and on examination, Dr. Mahender Upadhya, M.S. (ENT) on 18.2.2014 found same problem facial paralysis ® X 7 days, he advised C.T. scan ® Temporal bone to evaluate the cause of MRM complaint with facial Nerve decompression under GA. On the advise of Dr. Mahender Upadhya, the complainant with her father visited Ridhi Siddhi Diagnostic & Research Centre. Dr. Mohit Mahipal, M.D. Radio diagnosis clearly mentioned in his report that Right ear hypo-density noted in the right middle ear cavity abutting the malleolus, incus bone & facial canal. Right middle ear cavity is slightly shallow as compare to left. As per the C.T. scan report everything found normal, there was no complication in the ear drum. After the said report, no treatment was received by the patient from said doctor and he clearly mentioned in his prescription slip that patient not willing for treatment. On 19.2.2014 (instead of 19.3.2014) she visited the hospital of Dr. Mamta ENT Hospital, Sirsa. Dr. Mamta examined her on19.2.2014 and mentioned in the history of case in her OPD slip that patient suffering from Facial Palsy (RT). Dr. Mamta also examined the C.T. scan report of temporal bone and found facial canal normal, it means that facial nerve was intact at the time when Dr. Mamta examined her on 19.2.2014. It has been further submitted that as per the medical treatment placed on file, the patient visited AIIMS Delhi on 21.2.2014 and doctor mentioned the history of right side ear pain on January, 2014. He further mentioned in the history of patient that right ear examined in Pvt. Hospital Sirsa on 16.1.2014. On examination the doctor of AIIMS hospital mentioned that “Developed ® Facial paresis (Parasis means partial) paralysis. The doctor advised tablet wysolone in treatment and on examination found no history ear discharge and on further examination he found that there was no perforation, except thinning of TM (Tympanic Membrane/ eardrum). The report of the AIIMS doctors clearly shows that no complication arose on account of treatment given by op doctor. The thinning of ear drum is not a result of treatment given by op doctor but the ear drum found in intact position. The doctors of AIIMS hospital clearly mentioned that “No further examination at AIIMS because child not cooperative.” In the history of the patient, the AIIMS doctors mentioned “Within normal limit (WNL), there are symptoms of ball’s palsy, facial nerve, right nerve present intact, Deviation of the mouth to (L) present, incomplete closure of right eyes.” The treatment given by the AIIMS doctor was the same as prescribed and given by op doctor. On hearing test, the hearing was found normal on 7.3.2014, the patient was again examined and the doctor mentioned in his report there is improvement. The doctor of AIIMS Hospital has no relation or connection with the op but they no where mentioned in their treatment that the op doctor was negligent in giving the treatment. The expert doctor clearly mentioned that the facial paralysis disease occurred to the patient before the consultation of the doctors. There is no expert opinion on file to prove that the said doctor was negligent in his treatment. With these averments, dismissal of complaint has been prayed for.
3. The complainant has tendered affidavit of Rishi Kumar Ex.CW1, affidavit of Anil Kumar Ex.CW1/B, copy of application Ex.C1, copy of prescription slip Ex.C2, copy of prescription slip dated 18.2.2014 Ex.C3, HRCT Temporal bone report Ex.C4, copy of prescription slip Ex.C5, copy of prescription slip dated 19.2.2014 Ex.C6, and treatment record of AIIMS Hospital Ex.C7, x-ray reports Ex.C8, Ex.C9, treatment record of AIIMS Hospital Ex.C10 and Ex.C11. On the other hand, opposite party has tendered his affidavit Ex.RW1/A and treatment records as also tendered by complainant Ex.R1 to Ex.R11, copy of application moved to S.P. Sirsa Ex.R12, copy of prescription slip Ex.R13, and copies of statements Ex.R14 to Ex.R18.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
5. In the copy of prescription slip dated 16.2.2014 issued by op doctor after examination of the complainant, it is mentioned that complainant was suffering from Ball’s palsy and doctor prescribed waxovict ear drop, wysoline tablet and some other medicines and in this regard, the op doctor claims that such medicines were prescribed for the relief of pain as well as infection. In the copy of prescription slip dated 18.2.2014 of Dr. Praveen Eye Hospital, the doctor found ® VII No. Palsy. Then complainant visited the hospital of Sirsa ENT Hospital, Sirsa on the same day i.e. on 18.2.2014 and complained of facial paralysis from seven days upon which the doctor of said hospital advised for CT scan temporal bone. The HRCT temporal bone report Ex.C4 reveals that the lateral semicircular canal and bony facial canal are normal. The chochlea and semicircular canals are normal. The external auditory canal is normal. The vestibular and cochlear aqueducts are normal. Mastoid air cells are partially scleroosed. Thereafter, Dr. Mahender Upadhya also prescribed tablet wysoline as prescribed by op doctor but thereafter patient refused for further treatment from the said doctor. The complainant complained of facial paralysis to Dr. Mahender Upadhya from seven days from 18.2.2014 i.e. prior to medical examination by op doctor. Then the complainant was examined by Dr. Mamta of Mamta ENT Hospital, Sirsa but she also did not found any negligence on the part of op doctor. In the treatment record of AIIMS Hospital, Delhi from Ex.C7 and Ex.C10, the doctors of that hospital also did not find any medical negligence on the part of op doctor and besides other medicines, tablet wysoline as prescribed by op doctor was also prescribed. The complainant has failed to establish any medical negligence on the part of op doctor on file. There is nothing on file to suggest that complainant suffered above said problems of ear, face and eye due to use of any medical instrument or any negligence of op doctor. In this regard there is no expert/ medical opinion on the file rather the medical treatment records of the complainant of AIIMS Hospital, Delhi reveals that there was no any kind of medical negligence on the part of op doctor and similar type of medicines were prescribed by the doctor of AIIMS Hospital and it is proved on record that patient suffered above said problems before medical examination by op doctor. In these circumstances, complainant has failed to prove her case.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated: 23.1.2017. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
