BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 275 of 2016
Date of Institution : 13.10.2016
Date of Decision : 02.04.2019
Sumitra Devi (aged about 35 years) wife of Sh. Sushil Kumar son of Sh. Tara Chand, resident of village Abubshahar, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus
1. Dr. Manish Kansal, M.S. (General Surgery), J.C.D. Superspeciality Hospital and Trauma Centre, Barnala Road, Sirsa.
2. Chaudhary Devi Lal Memorial Trust, (J.C.D. Superspeciality Hospital & Trauma Centre), Barnala Road, Sirsa through its authorized signatory/ President.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL ………………… MEMBER
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………………………. MEMBER
Present: Sh. Manminder Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. K.S. Mehra, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Sh. A.K. Gupta, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant was married with Sushil Kumar in the year 1999 and out of this wedlock, one male child namely Sanay was born. That the complainant suffered acute pain in the abdomen and the complainant alongwith her husband Sushil visited Dr. Jai Kumar Meel, M.D. (Medicine) in P.B.M. Hospital at Bikaner (Rajasthan) for her treatment on 13.5.2016. The prescription of the doctor is attached, wherein the doctor has advised for ultrasound of abdomen and other blood investigations. Thereafter, the complainant went to Kachhawa Ultrasound, X-ray & Lab situated at 23, Sadul Colony, Bikaner for her ultrasound of abdomen and other blood investigations. After the ultrasound scan conducted by Dr. Manju Kachhawa, it has been revealed that the complainant was suffering from “Cholelithiasis”. That the complainant again suffered acute pain and got admitted in J.C.D. Superspecialty Hospital and Trauma Centre, Barnala road, Sirsa on 29.6.2016 by her husband and various blood tests were conducted at J.C.D. Diagnostic Laboratory, Sirsa on 29.6.2016. The complainant and her husband were told that the complainant will be operated upon by using laparoscopic procedure. But during the laparoscopic procedure, the op went for open surgery of the complainant for the reason best known to him. That the complainant was operated on 29.6.2016 by op Dr. Manish Kansal. It is pertinent to mention here that no ultrasound of the complainant was conducted prior to or after conducting the surgery on 29.6.2016. The complainant remained admitted till 3.7.2016. It is further averred that the discharge summary is incomplete regarding the clinical notes and operative notes. That on 8.7.2016, the complainant again visited the office of op with her husband for follow-up and stitch removal. The complainant informed the op that she is still suffering from pain in her abdomen, whereupon, the op replied that she will be alright in few days and op prescribed the medicines. It is further averred that on 21.7.2016, the complainant again suffered acute pain in her abdomen and visited the office of op, wherein Dr. Sheoran met the complainant, but the op did not come to attend the complainant. Dr. Sheoran advised the complainant to get herself admitted in the hospital immediately. When the op Dr. Manish Kansal himself did not come to see the complainant, the complainant, her husband and other relatives thought of seeking the second opinion and thus, she was taken to Jiwan Jyoti Hospital, Sirsa where she was attended by Dr. Munish Singla, M.S. (General Surgery) on her per-abdomen examination, abdomen was distended and further needle aspiration was done, which revealed signs of bile. It is further averred that the ultrasound examination and blood investigation of complainant was also got conducted as per the advice of Dr. Munish Singla from Ridhi Sidhi Diagnostic & Research Centre by Dr. Mohit Mahipal, M.D. (Radio-diagnosis) and from Samrathal Diagnostic Lab by Mahavir Bishnoi, DMLT respectively. Dr. Mohit Mahipal advised the complainant for CT-scan as the ultrasound report was not conclusive to properly diagnose the condition of the complainant as there was gross free fluid with internal echoes noted. After thorough investigation and consulting the ultrasound report, Dr. Munish Singla referred the complainant to the higher centre. That thereafter the complainant was taken to Delhi Heart Institute & Multispecialty Hospital, Bathinda (Punjab) on 21.7.2016, wherein she was treated by Dr. Harish Raheja, Mch (GI & Lapro Surgeon). Various investigations of the complainant were conducted as per the advice of the doctor and CT-scan of the complainant was also conducted on the same day. On CT-scan report, it was revealed that the complainant had CHD (Common Hepatic Duct/ CBD (Common Bile Duct) injury with severe ascites and biloma in the subhepatic region) and it was further revealed that there were metallic surgical clips seen on the lateral aspect of the CHD and partial transaction of CBD. After obtaining the CT scan report, the complainant was diagnosed as post cholecystectomy biliary peritonitis and thereafter on 22.7.2016 the complainant was operated upon by Dr. Harish Raheja and exploratory laprotomy with levage with controlled fistula with FJ was done, but still the management of CBD/ CHD injury is pending and required to be treated after at least 6-8 weeks as advised by Dr. Harish Raheja. The complainant remained admitted in the said hospital at Bathinda till 28.7.2016. It is further averred that while treatment of the complainant in Delhi Heart Institute & Multispecialty Hospital, Bathinda (Punjab), it was revealed from the diagnose of the disease of the complainant that there has been injury to CHD/ CBD, which was caused during the previous operative procedure of the complainant conducted by the op. On further asking of the complainant and her husband, it was revealed that the injury to CHD/ CBD was not associated with the disease of the complainant in any manner and the same is the result of gross negligence on the part of op. In order to conceal his gross negligence, the op applied metallic stitches and did not inform the complainant or her husband about the same. In this manner, the op has acted in a gross negligent manner and caused deficiency in service. That the complainant has incurred about Rs.30,000/- on her treatment from JCD including medicines, investigation as well as for transportation. The complainant has further spent Rs.2,00,000/- on the diagnose reports of the complainant as well as treatment in Jiwan Jyoti Hospital as well as Delhi Heart Institute & Multispecialty Hospital, Bathinda including transportation. The complainant is still following up the treatment at Delhi Heart Institute & Multispecialty Hospital, Bathinda and is yet to be operated upon for management of CBD/CHD injury. That now the complainant is unable to move as two colostomy bags were in-situ in her abdomen for treatment purpose. The complainant has been deprived off to lead her normal life and to do her normal routine work and also to take care of her minor child. That due to above said gross negligence and deficiency in service of the ops, the complainant has suffered harassment mentally as well as physically, pain and agony, hence the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the ops to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-, besides amounts of above said expenses and litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel. Opposite party no.1 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability; non joinder and mis joinder of necessary party; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts and estoppal etc. It is submitted that the answering op is an experienced doctor and he has treated the complainant in a proper manner and operated complainant with motive to remove her diseases from her body. The answering op cannot think about worst treatment to the complainant or anybody else at any point of time. As per disease as well as blood report, the answering op operated the complainant in a proper manner and the complainant was also discharged from the hospital as per her satisfaction and also her husband was satisfied with the treatment provided by answering op to the complainant. The treatment as well as discharge summary is complete and all the clinical notes and operative notes have been mentioned in the discharge summary. The complainant was discharged from the hospital as per her entire satisfaction and without any complaint of any disease. She was advised for follow up treatment and for taking medicines for some time. The complainant after discharge from the hospital did not visit to the hospital of answering op and she never complained to the answering op for any pain etc. as alleged. It is further submitted that she has narrated entire false and frivolous story. The answering op has conducted operation of the complainant successfully and without any infection from any side. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.
3.Opposite party no.2 filed separate written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability; cause of action; estoppal and that the complainant has not produced any document or any expert opinion showing the deficiency on the part of op in treating the complainant in any way and the complainant has made averments merely on the basis of the hypothetical notions. That the complainant was suffering from multiple stone of gallbladder with distended walls and severe infection. The gall stone is calculus formed within the gallbladder and the small stones may pass distally into common bile duct, parts of the biliary tract etc. and in case of inflammation as in the case of the complainant, the anatomy of the callot’s triangle is not well defined & relationship of the cystic duct, CBD cystic, arty is not clearly visualized even in open surgeries. The most acceptable treatment in such cases is cholecystectomy in which the gallbladder is removed and the cystic duct is clipped well above the junction of cystic duet with CBD and this procedure is highly accepted procedure in the medical practice. There was no negligence or deficiency on the part of op no.1 in any way. It is further submitted that the op is well qualified MS general surgeon and is a laparoscopic as well as open surgery specialist and has been carrying out the surgeries for the last more than 30 years. The hospital is well equipped with the operation theatre and all necessary equipments. All the precautions were taken before conducting the surgery and the hospital is having well qualified staff physician, anesthetist as well as the nursing staff. That the complaint is false, malafide and not sustainable in law as complainant has not been able to prove any negligence against the op by way of any evidence of medical expert or medical literature as to what they did, was not expected by a doctor possessing skills or they did not do what was expected of a surgeon. The op no.1 was a doctor of large experience having such qualification and had done what would have been done by the doctors possessing the similar skills. It is further submitted that op no.2 had appointed the op no.1 as General Surgeon after considering his qualification and experience in their hospital. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant was admitted to the hospital of op no.2 with a diagnosis of cholelithasis and was checked by op no.1and accordingly rightly advised for open surgery as laparoscopic procedure was not advisable as the complainant was having a severe infection. It is further submitted that complainant was told regarding her complications and it was conveyed that the laparoscopic procedure is not feasible or there is highly likely chance of converting laparoscopic surgery into open surgery in such situations. It is incorrect that the complainant or her husband were told that the laparoscopic procedure would be done. The complainant was operated on 29.6.2016 by op no.1 after carrying out the necessary investigations. The complainant had produced all the previous records including ultrasound and the blood investigation reports as well as the complainant was operated upon by op no.1 as per the accepted procedure and with advice for followup. The complainant alongwith her husband came up for follow up treatment and the stitch was removed by that time, there was no complication. It is further submitted that on 21.7.2016, the complainant visited the hospital with pain, at about 3.00 p.m. the physician of the hospital was present who checked the patient and advised her to admit as the abdomen was distended. However, immediately without carrying for getting herself checked from Dr. Kansal who had gone for lunch, the complainant went away and thereafter, did not turn up. The complainant has averred that she was found to be having gross free fluid in the abdomen, due to common bile duct injury. It may be submitted that the common bile duct injury during the removal of gallbladder is a very known complication. The same cannot be detected at the time of operation, it is only after a few days, when there is a problem that the same can be detected. The ops never refused to take care of the problem of common bile duct injury. The complainant herself opted to get herself treated from other hospital. The common bile duct injury during the operation cannot be equated with negligence in any manner. The same is curable with further operation. The op no.1 has conducted the operation of the complainant by using all his experience and according to the accepted procedure under the medical norms. The discharge summary of the Delhi Heart Hospital, Bathinda, no where discloses any negligence in conducting the operation by op no.1. It is further submitted that the CBD injury during the operation is a known complication and the same is not even detectable at the time of removal of gallbladder. This type of injury can only be detected after some days only, when the patient develops jaundice or distended abdomen. The same can be cured with a second operation as has been done in the case of complainant. There cannot be any presumption regarding negligence in conducting the operation of the complainant. It is further submitted that operation was conducted as per the known procedure by an experienced surgeon. It is incorrect that the complainant was not made aware of the complications of the surgery. It is also incorrect that CHD/ CBD injury is not associated with the gallbladder, as alleged and that it is also incorrect that there was any negligence on the part of answering op. It is further submitted that it is a fact that complainant had paid Rs.10,000/- to op no.2 in all including the medicines. Even the complainant was given a discount of Rs.7700/- out of total bill of Rs.17,700/- as per the recommendations of the trustees. It is incorrect that complainant was charged Rs.30,000/- by op no.2 as alleged. It is further incorrect that complainant has spent Rs.2,00,000/- on the diagnosis or further treatment. With these averments, dismissal of complaint prayed for.
4.Thereafter the parties have led their respective evidence.
5.We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
6.Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that it is proved case of the complainant that she was suffering from acute pain in the abdomen and she visited Dr.Jai Kumar Meel, MD (Medicine) in PBM Hospital in Bikaner (Rajasthan) for her treatment on 13.05.2016 and after the ultrasound conducted by Dr.Manju Kachhawa, it was revealed that the complainant was suffering from CHOLELITHIASIS. The complainant again suffered acute pain and she got admitted in JCD Superspeciality, Hospital and Trauna Centre, Barnala Road, Sirsa on 29.06.2016 by her husband and various blood tests were conducted at JCD Diagnostic Laboratory, Sirsa. They were told that the complainant will be operated upon by using Laproscopic procedure but the respondent went for open surgery of the complainant. The complainant was operated on 29.06.2016 by Dr.Munish Kansal, but however, no ultrasound was conducted prior to or after conducting the surgery on 29.06.2016 and she remained admitted till 03.07.2016. Again she visited to the hospital of the respondents on 08.07.2016 and then 21.07.2016 where Dr.Sheoran met the complainant and Dr.Munish Kansal did not come present to see the complainant. The complainant and her husband in order to seek second opinion visited Jiwan Jyoti Hospital, Dabwali Road, Sirsa where she was attended by Dr.Munish Singlaand on her per-abdomen examination, abdomen was distended and further needle aspiration was done, which revealed signs of bile and she was referred to the Delhi Heart Institute & Multispecialty Hospital, Bhatinda where she was treated by Dr. Harish Raheja on 21.07.2016. Various investigations were conducted and CBD injury was found on the person of the complainant. There has been injury, which was caused during the previous operative procedure of the complainant conducted by Dr.Munish Kansal. She had spent Rs.30,000/- on her treatment in JCDand further spent Rs.2,00,000/- in other hospitals for taking the treatment. She suffered injuries due to negligence on the part of Dr.Munish Kansal who was serving with Op No.2 at that time. The complainant is entitled for Rs.2,50,000/- on account of treatment charges, Rs.2,00,000/- for future treatment charges, Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation on account of pain, mental agony and Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.
7.On the other hand, learned counsel for the Op No.1 has contended that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainableand bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. Neither the complainant has cause of action nor has come to this Forum with clean hands and he is estopped to file the present complaint by her own act and conduct. Respondent No.1 is an experienced doctor and he has treated the complainant in a proper manner and operated the complainant with motive to remove her diseases from her body.The complainant was operated and discharged from the hospital as per her satisfaction and the satisfaction of her husband. No act of negligence on the part of Dr.Munish Kansal are recorded in the discharge summary issued by Dr.Harish Raheja. It is altogether a concocted story made by the complainant in order to grab money from the Op No.1.
8.Learned counsel for the Op No.2 has contended that the complainant was operated upon by an experience doctor of the institute namely Dr.Munish Kansal. The case of the complainant is that she was suffering from multiple stone of gallbladder with distended walls and severe infection. The gall stone is calculus formed within the gallbladder and the small stones may pass distally into common bile duct, part of the biliary tract etc. and in case of inflammation as in the case of the complainant, the anatomy of the callot’s triangle is not well defined & relationshiop of the cystic duct, CBD cystic, Arty is not clearly visualized even in open surgeries. The most acceptable treatment in such cases is cholecystectomy in which the gallbladder is removed and the cystic duct is clipped well above the junction of cystic duet with CBD and this procedure is highly accepted procedure in the medical practice. There is no proof of any negligence on the part of Dr.Munish Kansal. The complainant was told regarding her complications and it was conveyed that the laparoscopic procedure is not feasible and there are high chance of converting laparoscopic surgery into open surgery in such situations. The complainant was operated upon by the Op No.1, as per the accepted procedure and with advice for follow up. It is incorrect that the Dr.Munish Kansal did not attend the complainant after surgery on her visit to the hospital on 08.07.2017 and 21.07.2017. Learned counsel for the OP No.2 has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission reported as Tilat Chaudhry and another Vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and another 2013 (2) Andh LD 12 wherein it was observed that As regards, the procedure of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the procedure adopted to correct the CBD injury, no fault can be found with the same as has been opined by the body of medical experts (supra). Once it is shown that due medical protocol was followed, no case of medical negligence is made out against the opposite parties.
- We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the record as well as judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission relied upon by learned counsel for the Op No.2 very carefully.
10.Perusal of the record reveals that in order to prove her case the complainant has tendered her affidavit Ex.CW1/A wherein she has reiterated all the contents mentioned in the complaint and Sh.Sushil Kumar, husband of the complainant, in support of the version of the complainant, has also tendered his affidavit Ex.CW2/A. The complainant has also tendered documents copy of prescription slip dated 13.5.2016 Ex.C1, copy of ultrasound report dated 13.5.2016 Ex.C2, copy of laboratory test report dated 29.6.2016 Ex.C3, copy of bill Ex.C4, copy of OPD prescription Ex.C5, copy of laboratory test report Ex.C6, copy of discharge summary Ex.C7, copies of treatment record Ex.C8 to Ex.C31, copies of bills Ex.C32 to Ex.C34, copy of receipt Ex.C35, copy of test report Ex.C36, copy of liver function test report Ex.C37, copy of prescription slip Ex.C38, copies of cash receipts Ex.C39 to Ex.C42, copy of application for taking necessary action Ex.C43, copies of medication form Ex.C44 to Ex.C48, copy of discharge card Ex.C49, copy of observation chart Ex.C50, Ex.C51, copy of intake and output chart Ex.C52, copies of prescription slips Ex.C53 to Ex.C56. In support of the version of the complainant, Dr. Jai Kumar Meel has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW3/A, Dr. Manju Kachhawa has tendered her affidavit Ex.CW4/A, Dr. Harish Raheja has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW5/A, Dr. Munish Singla has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW6/A and Dr. Mohit Mahipal, Radiologist has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW7/A. The complainant also produced copy of prescription slip dated 13.5.2016 Ex.C57, copy of aadhar card Ex.C58, copy of ultrasound report Ex.C59, copy of blood examination report Ex.C60 and copy of aadhar card Ex.C61, copy of discharge summary Ex.C62, copy of prescription slip Ex.C63 and Ex.C64 and copy of adhar card Ex.C65. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered his affidavit Ex.R1 wherein he has reiterated all the contents mentioned in the reply whereas OP No.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Vikram Joshi, Superintendent Ex.R2 wherein he has reiterated all the contents mentioned in the reply.
11.It is an undisputed fact between the parties that the complainant was suffering from acute abdomen pain and after getting the ultrasound scan, she approached the Op No.1 who advised that she will have to undergo operation for removal of the stone by using laparoscopic procedure, but however, the Op No.1 during the laparoscopic procedure went for open surgery She was operated upon on 29.06.2016 by Dr.Munish Kansal, and the complainant remained admitted till 03.07.2016 and thereafter, she was discharged.
12.That as per the version of the complainant, she went to the hospital of Ops on 08.07.2016 for follow up treatment and stitch removal and thereafter, she went on 21.07.2016 where Dr.Sheoran met the complainant, but the Op No.1 did not come to attend the complainant and she was again feeling pain in her abdomen, as a result of which, she approached to Dr.Munish Singla, in order to get second option, who referred the complainant to Delhi Heart Institute & Multispecialty Hospital, Bathinda (Punjab) where she was attended by Dr.Harish Raheja. After various investigations, it was revealed that the complainant had suffered CHD/Common Hepatic Duct/CBD (Common Bile Duct) injury with severe ascites and biloma in the subhepatic region and it was further revealed that there were metallic surgical clips seen on the lateral aspect of the CHB and partial transaction of CBD.After CT Scan, the complainant was diagnosed as POST CHOLECYSTECTOMY BILIARY PERITONITIS. The complainant was operated upon by Dr. Harish Raheja on 22.07.2016 and she remained admitted in that hospital till 28.07.2016.
13.As per the version of the complainant, she was told by Dr.Harish Raheja that she is suffering with CHB injury on her person due to negligence of Dr.Munish Kansal while conducting operation in JCD, Hospital, Sirsa. On the other hand, there is specifically denial of Ops No.1 & 2 that any injury was suffered by the complainant on her CHB during the operation conducted by Dr.Munish Kansal and the Ops had charged Rs.30,000/- from the complainant.
14.The perusal of the bill Ex.C4 reveals that a total gross amount of Rs.17700/- was claimed by the JCD authorities, but however, a discount of Rs.7700/-was given by Dr.Munish Kansal and therefore, net amount of Rs.10000/- was paid by the complainant, which itself falsify the claim of the complainant.The discharge summary Ex.C7 issued by the JCD, Hospital reveals that there is nothing on record which leads to the conclusion that any CBD injury was caused by Dr.Munish Kansal during the operation conducted by him on the person of the complainant.
15.The perusal of Ex.C17, discharge summary issued by Delhi Heart Institute & Multispecialty, Hospital, Bhatinda reveals that there is no mention of any negligence of the Dr.Munish Kansal, who conducted the operation on the person of the complainant at JCD, Sirsa. Though it found mention that she was diagnosed as a case of Post Cholecystectomy Biliary Peritonitis. Emergency Exploratory Laprotomy with levage with controlled fistula with FJ done on 22.07.2016, Two drains was placed. Post operatively she was managed with i/v fluids, i/v antibiotics, ryle’s tube feeding & other supportive measure. Patient responded well to the treatment. Her subsequent stay in the hospital was uneventful. She is being discharged in stable condition with two colostomy bags in-situ. She was advised for hepatojejunostomy or ERCP- stenting after 8 weeks but it is nowhere mention that this was result of any negligence on the part of doctor who previously conducted operation on the person of the complainant. It also does not find mention that due medical protocol was not followed by Dr.Munish Kansal.
16.The complainant has strongly relied upon the affidavit of Dr.Harish Raheja, Ex.CW5/A, in which, he has deposed in support of the complainant. He has deposed that on CECT abdomen there was CHD/CBD injury with severe ascetics and biloma in the subhepatics region. After various investigation of the patient Sumitra were conducted on advice of the deponent. On CT-scan report, it was revealed that the patient had CHD (Common Hepatic Duct/CBD (Common Bile Duct) injury with severe ascitesand biloma in the subhepatic region and it was further revealed that there were metallic surgical clips seen on the lateral aspect of the CHD and partial transaction of CBD. After obtaining the CT Scan report, the patient was diagnosed as POST CHOLECYSTECTOMY BILIARY PERITONITIS and thereafter on 22.07.2016 the patient was operated upon by him and exploratory laprotomy with levage with controlled fistula with FJ was done, and thereafter she has also been treated by the him. The claimant remained admitted in the said hospital at Bhatinda till 28.07.2016.It was revealed from the diagnose of the disese of the patient that there has been injury to CHD (Common Hepatic Duct/CBD (Common Bile Duct) which was caused during the previous operative procedure of the patient as conductedby Dr.Manish Kansal. The said injury to CHD/CBD was not associated with the disease of the patient at in any manner and the same is the result of gross negligence on the part of the Dr.Manish Kansal. In this manner, Dr.Manish Kansal has acted in a gross negligent manner in conducting the surgery of the patient. But while facing cross-examination, this witness has deposed that he had seen only those documents which the patient had brought at the time of examination by him.He had only seen the report ultrasound alongwith copy of picture of ultrasound. He has further deposed that he has executed this affidavit Ex.CW5/A in the month of December, 2017 and thereafter handedover the same to the complainant. At the time of execution of this affidavit I was not having any record relating to the treatment of the patient and he had executed the affidavit on the basis of his personal knowledge about the treatment of patient. The patient was referred to him by Dr.Munish Singhal of Sirsa.Dr.Munish Singal had referred the patient on a slip to Delhi Hospital, Bhatinda but that slip is not on the file. He has admitted that on the reference slip it was not mentioned that the injury was due to negligence of the doctorvolunteered deposed that CHB was mentioned on the referral slip. The CBD is not a general complication but incidence is .4 % as per literature. ERCP is not necessary in all cases but it depends upon the case to case.He has further admitted that surgery which has been conducted on the person of patient was as per recognized technique commonly used for this type of disease. He has also admitted that he has not mentioned in the discharge summary as well as on the patient notes that the injury was due to the negligence of the doctor who had conducted the previous surgery on the patient.He has also admitted that there is no reference of the word negligence in the report of ultrasound and CT scan. He does not know whether a medical board was constituted in every district in order to deal and ascertain the cases of negligence on the part of surgeon who perform surgery on the patient.So, it appears from the cross-examination of this witness that he has totally smashed the case of the complainant qua the alleged negligence of the Dr.Munish Kansal. This material witness of the complainant himself has admitted in the cross-examination that he did not make any reference regarding negligence of the Dr. Munish Kansal in his summary notes and discharge summary nor he found anything in the report of investigations.He has also admitted that he has furnished his affidavit without any record in favour of the complainant, so testimony of this witness does not appear to be reliable and trustworthy and cannot be considered as a conclusive proof of negligence of the Ops.
17.The complainant has also furnished the affidavit of Dr.Munish Singal Ex.CW6/A, who has simply deposed that on 21.07.2016 the patient namely Sumitra was brought in the hospital, with the alleged history of surgery (open Cholecystectomy) done in local hospital and complaining of abdominal distension. On examination, the patient was referred to higher centre. But while facing cross-examination he has deposed that he has not treated this patient in case of CHB. It wasa known complication as was detected in the case of patient after the operation. In case of stone in the gall bladder, this procedure is to be followed and is expected procedure.He has not uttered a single word about any alleged act of negligence on the part of Op No.1/ Dr.Munish Kansal.
18.The complainant has further examined Dr. Jai Kumar Meel, who has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW3/A, Dr. Manju Kachhawa who has tendered her affidavit Ex.CW4/A, and Dr. Mohit Mahipal, Radiologist who has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW7/A but all these witnesses have not uttered any wordabout any negligence on the part of Dr.Munish Kansal- OP No.1. So, it appears from the evidence of the complainant that the complainant has miserably failed to prove any negligence on the part of Ops in treating and operating upon the complainant by leading cogent and convincing evidence, in order to prove her allegations against the Ops. We also find force in the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission reported in Tilat Chaudhry and another Vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and another (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the Op No.2.
19.In view of above discussion, the complaint is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:02.04.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member Member
DCDRF, Sirsa DCDRF, Sirsa
