DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.683/2008
Mrs. Manju
W/o Sh. Joginder Singh
R/o Lado Sarai
New Delhi ….Complainant
Versus
1. Dr. (Mrs) Arti Mittal
R/o F-320, M.B. Road
Lado Sarai, New Delhi-110030
2. Dr. (Col) V. K. Mehta
3. Dr. P. S. Surender Nath
4. Dr. Mehta Urology & Surgery Centre
(through its proprietor)
S.No.2 to 4 R/o :
Dr. Mehta Urology & Surgery Centre
H-16-B, Saket,
New Delhi-110017 ……Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 17.10.08 Date of Order : 02.07.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Sh. S.S. Fonia, Member
O R D E R
Initially the complaint was filed before the State Commission and registered as complaint No.C-08/143. Vide order dated 04.09.2008, the State Commission sent the matter to this Forum by observing that the compensation will not exceed Rs.20 lacs.
Briefly stated, the case of the Complainant is that she visited OP No.1 Dr. Arti Mittal’s clinic on 09.11.06 for abdominal pain and after check-up she was referred to OP No.4 Dr. Mehta’s Urology and Surgery Centre. On 10.11.06, the surgery for LT ovarian cyst was done by surgeon Dr. P. S. Surender Nath, OP No.3 and assisted by OP No.1 & 2. The Complainant has stated that during the operation both the kidneys were damaged due to ureteric stricture. She visited to Moolchand Hospital on 26.10.07 for treatment and from there she visited to Sitaram Bharatiya Institute of Science & Research. The institute after investigation found that her left kidney was longer in size with differential function (integral method) of right kidney- 60% and 40% left kidney. Before the operation, she had undergone ultrasound. According to the ultrasound report, both the kidneys were normal. On 27.10.07, left ureteric mobilization with Uretervesical Anastomosis was done under general anaesthesia at Moolchand hospital. Prior to surgery while investigation was in process it was revealed that during earlier surgery with the OP No.4 the attending doctor had wrongly stitched the left ureter. Due to the said stricture as shown in retrograde urography (i.e. non-reaching of left uretericstent beyond S2 level and above the stint upper tip very tight stricture in length) and due to defective surgery she had terrible time till the present surgery. Due to the wrong operation, her both the kidneys were damaged, damage of health in total and permanent disability. Hence, there is a negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The Complainant has filed the present complaint with the following prayers:-
- Direct the OPs to pay a compensation of Rs.50 lacs along with interest @ 24% p.a. to the Complainant from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization of the award.
- Direct the OPs to pay cost of litigation to the Complainant.
OPs in their written statement have inter-alia stated that the OP No.1 is a qualified doctor and doing the practice of Gynecologist, OP No.2 is a qualified Consultant Surgeon having M.S., M.N.A.M.S., M.C.H. (Uro) AIIMS, F.I.C.S. (U.S.A.) degrees and having ample experience in his field. OP No.3 is a qualified Gynae Surgeon and OP No.4 is a Govt. approved fully equipped centre. The Complainant reported with the OP No.4 with acute pain in lower abdomen on 10.11.06 and her condition was not stable at that time. She was examined by the OP No.1 and diagnosed as twisted ovarian cyst (left) as mass was seen in left lower abdomen. The Complainant had previous history of hysterectomy (removal of uterus) at the age of 28-30 years due to pain and bleeding. The ultrasound showed to mass of 10 cms. X 8 cms. X 6 cms. with fluid collection in the pelvis in the pouch of Douglas. After due investigation, pre-anesthetic check up and after due consent immediately laprotomy was done left sided ovarian cystectomy was done for twisted ovarian cyst. The surgery was uneventful and she was recovering post operatively and was discharged on the next day in a healthy condition with advise to review after 4th and 8th day for follow up. The specimen was sent for histopathological examination. The report dated 14.11.2006 pointed out “findings were consistent with chocolate cyst of ovary.” The Complainant never reported for follow up even once to any of the OPs. The bill was for Rs.10,000/- out of which the Complainant promised to pay the balance of Rs.2,000/- but inspite of insistence of OP No.1 she failed to pay the balance amount. The Complainant requested for the record of medical treatment vide her letter dated 06.11.07 i.e. after a gap of one year. The histopathology report confirmed that the surgery was perfectly performed by the OPs and hence there was no negligence on the part of OPs. The Complainant has filed the complaint with a motive to avoid balance payment of Rs.2,000/- and also to defame the OPs and to extract money from the OPs. As per the record filed by the Complainant she was admitted in the Moolchand Kharaiti Ram Hospital on 26.10.07 i.e. after a lapse of one year. Therefore there was no negligence on the part of OPs. The Complainant has filed the ultrasound report which has no evidencary value as it does bear the proper signature of ultrasonologist and the photographs of the ultrasound are not attached with the report. Therefore, OPs cannot rely upon the report of the ultrasound. It is further stated as under:-
“ 11…… causes of stricture of ureter are many, but common one is surgery/pelvic surgery and endometriosis (a condition in females) which is caused by endometrium at ectopic sites. Both these conditions existed in the case of the complainant as she had undergone hysterectomy (removal of uterus) at the age of 28-30 which itself could lead to fibrosis and repeated surgery for ovarian cyst may have precipitated. Other condition she suffered was chocolate cyst (endometriosis) proved by the Biopsy Report. It may cause stricture. But in the present case she suffered this problem after a lapse of one year; therefore, there is no negligence on the part of the answering respondents.”
OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OPs.
Complainant has filed her own affidavit in evidence
Separate affidavits in evidence have been filed by OPs No.1 and 3, OP No.2 for self and as Proprietor of OP No.4.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the file very carefully.
The Complainant has filed the ultrasound report of KUB dated 04.11.06 (Copy annexure-E) issued by Rural Medicare Centre, Mehrauli, New Delhi wherein it was mentioned that:
Both the kidneys are normal in size, shape and position and smooth in outline. No evidence of stone or hydronephrosis seen.
Urinary bladder is normal in size and shape with normal echotexture
It measures:
No free fluid seen in the peritoneal cavity.
Opinion: normal scan of KUB.”
In view of the above, it is evident that the Complainant was admitted with the OPs on 10.11.06 with acute pain in lower abdomen and it was diagnosed as twisted ovarian cyst and immediate operation of laprotomy was done by the OPs. The Complainant’s ultrasound was done by the Rural Medicare Centre on 04.11.06 and both the kidneys were normal. The Complainant was discharged from the hospital on the next day. The Complainant never visited to the OPs with any problem.
The Complainant has filed prescription slip dated 09.11.06 issued by OP No.1 (copy Annexure-A) wherein she was advised admission for ovarian cyst. Annexure-B relates to the operation done by the OP No.4 with the assistance of other OPs. The Complainant has filed a discharge summary of Moolchand Hospital (Copy annexure- C) dated 26.10.07. Annexure-D was issued by Sita Ram Bhartia Institute of Science & Research wherein the finding was given as under:-
- Right kidney is normal in size and perfusion, parenchymal uptake is uniform. Cortical outline is regular.
- Left kidney is larger in size. It is hypoperfused with mild diminished but uniform parenchymal uptake. Cortical outline is regular. Pelvicalyceal system seen as a photopenic area and appeared dilated.
- Differential function (integral method):-
Right kidney -60%
Left kidney - 40%
Impression:
- Normal functioning right kidney; no scan evidence of cortical scarring.
- Enlarged left kidney with mildy impaired function; no scan evidence of cortical scarring.
- Suggested DTPA scan to rule out obstructive hydroephrosis of left kidney.”
She was admitted in the Moolchand Kharaiti Ram hospital on 26.10.07 i.e. after a lapse of one year. The Complainant has not filed any documentary proof of negligence on the part of OPs or that during earlier surgery at OP No.4 centre the attending doctor had wrongly stitched the left ureter. She has also not filed any medical expert opinion nor there is no evidence to prove that her left kidney had damaged due to any medical negligence on the part of OPs. Therefore, the Complainant has failed to prove unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Therefore, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
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.
(S. S. Fonia) (Naina Bakshi) (N. K. Goel)
Member Member President
Announced on 02.07.16.
