DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No. 523/2006

SH. SURRENDER KUMAR

4/126, AMBEDKAR NAGAR,

NEW DELHI.                                                                 ….Complainant

Versus

DR. (COL) V.K. MEHTA

DR. MEHTA UROLOGY & SURGICAL CENTRE

H-16B, SAKET,

NEW DELHI-110017.                                              ….Opposite Party

                                                  Date of Institution      :      13.09.2006         Date of Order    :      03.11.2017

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

ORDER

Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant was operated upon for treating stones in the left side of kidney by OP-1 in Mehta Urology and Surgical Centre on 07.08.2006 Due to medical negligence on the part of the OP, he started feeling severe pain in his stomach and there occurred profuse bleeding and consistent pain due to which he suffered and had to take treatment from other hospitals. Hence, he has filed the present complaint for issuing directions to the OP to pay to him Rs. 1,45,000/-towards medical and ancillary expenses incurred by him due to medical negligence on the part of OP and also to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation on account of medical negligence resulting in physical loss, mental agony and huge financial loss in business and also Rs. 50,000/- towards litigation expenses.

In reply OP has denied the averments made in the complaint and has inter-alia pleaded that the complainant was duly explained about the complications of the procedure and the operation was carried by a qualified surgeon who has ample experience in this field. It is denied that there was medical negligence on the part of the OP. The averments made in the complaint have been denied. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.  

The complainant has filed rejoinder to the reply of the OPs.

Parties filed their evidence by way of affidavits.

On application moved by the complainant, matter was referred to the Safdarjung Hospital New Delhi for medical expert opinion. The said hospital sent a report bearing No. 2-19/11-MR dated 12.11.2010. The matter was again referred to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi for medical expert opinion. The said hospital has also provided the opinion bearing No. 13-79/2015-RMLH(H.A.-I)/4907 dated 31.03.2016.

The complainant has filed objections against the medical expert opinion dated 31.03.2016 twice. OP has not filed any reply to the application.

We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties on objections and also final arguments and have gone through the file very carefully.

In order to decide the objection petition and also the complaint, we reproduce the relevant portion of two medical expert opinions as follows:-

Relevant portion of the report of the Safdurjung Hospital, New Delhi reads as under:–

“The Patient, Mr. Surender Kumar had a left lower Ureteric stone and the treatment option chosen i.e. Left URS is in accordance with standard practices. Bleeding is a known complication of the procedure which was explained to the patient (as per consent form). Further, the said complication was managed as per standard practices. In view of the medical board there is no medical negligence on part of treating surgeon.”

Relevant portion of the report of the Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi reads as under:-

“HOD(Urology)

In the case under review, the patient has undergone URS for (Lt) impacted stone in the uretor which had shown on endoscopy/ cystoscopy as bulge and edema. Post operation hematuria after use of collin’s knife and laser (HO) is a complication and not negligence, which were covered in the informed consent. Patient as per records was discharged on request to follow the management at PSQI with PCN + antegrade stenting, as reterograde was not possible at that stage. Thereafter patient recovered with conservative management. No case of negligence is made out in this case.”

Therefore, the objections raised on behalf of complainant that RML Hospital gave opinion without examining the record is devoid of merits and is rejected. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to cost.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 03.11.17