DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 15th day of January, 2018
C.D Case No. 56 of 2015
Smt Parbati jena
W/o Rajkishore Jena
Vill/Po – Baro
P.S- tihidi
District-Bhadrak
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
- Dr. Pravash Kumar Mohanty
Medical officer Tihidi C.H.C
At/P.o- Tihidi, Dist- Bhadrak
At Present- At/Po – Gelpur
Ps- Bhadrak (R) Dist- Bhadrak
- The Managing Director
Salandi Hospital Pvt. Ltd.
At- Motel Chhak (Mathasahi)
Po/Ps/Dist-Bhadrak
…………………………..Opp. Parties
For the Complainant: Sri Giridhari Nath Advocate, & Associates
For the O.P No-1: Sri Aditya Narayan Mishra Advocate, & Associates
Date of hearing: 23.05.2017
Date of order: 15.01.2018
SRI BASANTA KUMAR MALLICK, MEMBER
This dispute arises out of a complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service.
The complainant is a lady belongs to afore mentioned address felt pain in her uterus and contacted/consulted OP No-1 who was posted at Tihidi community Health Centre as a surgery specialist to treat the patients. OP No-1 examined/diagnosed the patient (Complainant) on 13.08.2014 and advised the patient for a surgical operation on 15.08.2014 at Salandi Hospital Bhadrak which is a private concern being managed by it’s Managing Director. The complainant, being financially not so sound, could manage to arrange some amount of money to meet the treatment expenses and met the OP No-1 on 17.08.2014. OP NO-1, the treating doctor, prescribed different pathological tests and OP No-2 (Salandi Hospital Pvt. Ltd.) conducted the pathological test which are practically possible there and collected blood sample to send the same to Arogya Thyro Care Technologies Ltd for necessary examination and received the report on 19.08.2014. In this manner, OP No-2 (Hospital) conducted several pathological tests & finally on the advice of OP No- 1, the complainant was admitted in OP No-2 Hospital on 14.09.2014 on the advice of OP No-1 as an indoor patient at about 11.30 AM. On 15.09.2014, OP NO-1 conducted/taken up surgery for removal of uterus which was done successfully as declared by the treating/operating doctor (OP No-1). After some hours of the operation was completed, complainant felt pain on the left thigh which intensively went on increasing and became unbearable for the patient. The attendants of complainant reported the fact of acute/severe pain to OP No-1 who consoled that the pain will reduce gradually and prescribed some medicines which helped the patient to feel better. The complainant was discharged from the Hospital on 24.09.2014 after payment of treatment cost out of the claim of Rastriya Swasthya Bima Jojana. Three days after the date of discharge from the Hospital, the pain persisted on the left thigh of the patient which was immediately reported to the treating doctor who advised to wait for a fortnight and the pain of the patient would disappear. When the pain, instead of decreasing, went on increasing day by day, the complainant (Patient) with the support of her husband met OP No-1 on 12.10.2014 and narrated all about her difficulties before Op No-1 who advised for further treatment. As was advised earlier, complainant met OP No-1 for treatment on 12.10.2014 and 21.10.2014 in Salandi Hospital, Bhadrak. Despite further extended treatment, no positive result was yielded and the pain on the left thigh and leg persisted which compelled the complainant to avail treatment from proof Dr. Balakrushna Kuanr at Cuttack and has undergone various/several pathological tests as per instruction of the said Professor Neurology. After completion of a series of pathological tests, the treating doctor Opined that the problems of the patient cropped up due to defective operation for removal of uterus which affected the left leg adversely. In this manner, the patient sustained huge financial loss for the treatment. Inspite of all the treatments availed from the afore mentioned professor, the complainant could not recover from the sufferings and her left leg is still not functioning properly although the pain sustained by the complainant disappeared. The complainant has also been spending huge amount for medicines along with pathological tests in every month. Moreover the O.Ps are not handing over the bills/ cash memo for medicines purchased from Hospital counter which is owned by O.Ps but have received the full payment towards the cost of medicines. Because of wrong treatment and faulty operation conducted by O.Ps, the patient has been suffering from financial loss and physical deformity which is the outcome of improper treatment, deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Being aggrieved with the treatment, attitude and behavior of O.Ps, the complainant took shelter in this Forum and filed a dispute seeking justice and relief whatever would be awarded by the Forum in accordance with the provisions of Act.
OP No-2 neither appeared before the Forum nor submitted any written version in it’s defense to resist the claim of the complainant and therefore OP No-2 was set ex-parte.
OP NO-1 raised the claim of the complainant and contested the case in engaging Advocate prior to submission of written version, the said OP filed a petition challenging the maintainability of the case with reference to the decision of Honorable Supreme Court of India in civil appeal No 3541 of 2002 wherein it is clearly mentioned by justice M. Katjoo as “we therefore direct that whenever a complaint is received against a doctor or a Hospital by consumer Fora (whether District, State or National) or by the criminal court, then before issuing notice to the doctor or Hospital against whom the complaint was made, the consumer Forum or criminal court should first refer the matter to a competent doctor or committee of doctors specialized in the field treating to which the medical negligence is attributed………..” the answering OP claimed to refer the matter to a committee of doctors specialized in the relevant field and after receiving the report, the Fora may take the step whether to hear the case if there is primafacie of medical negligence.
With due regards to the above noted decision of Honorable Apex court, this Forum took a decision to refer the matter to AIIMS, Bhubaneswar vide Forum’s Letter No- 41/CF, Bhadrak, dt.03 February, 2017. In response to the said letter of the Forum, the medical superintendent of AIIMS, Bhubaneswar has communicated the opinion of Expert committee consisting of three members vide letter No. AIIMS/BBSR/AMS/PTCOMP/02/24/2017 dt 08th March 217. After receipt of the said report, the complainant and O.Ps were intimated to peruse the report.
After perusal of Expert opinion, the hearing of the case was taken up. In course of hearing the complainant stated that there was no need of obtaining opinion from AIIMS as the CDMO Bhadrak along with three other Doctors have already given their opinion on the physical impairment/disability is the outcome of post surgery which was submitted to the Collector Bhadrak vide certificate No-21041536814 dt. 02.11.2015. When four doctors are of opinion that the physical impairment is the result of faulty and improper treatment/operation done by O.Ps in the Hospital. Hence there is nothing to doubt about the certificate issued by CDMO Bhadrak which reflects the physical impairment is the outcome of defective surgery done by OP No-1, the treating doctor.
On the contrary, the advocate for OP No-1 challenged in stating that the letter issued by CDMO Bhadrak as mentioned above is nothing but a certificate, containing the physical impairment up to 50% which is called as post surgery paresis in medical language, supported by Eye-specialist, ENT specialist and orthopedic specialist, of DHH Bhadrak who are not specialized in the relevant field. Hence the observation of the group of doctors signed such disability certificate is based on presumption and therefore cannot be said a case of medical negligence. Hence the complaint may please be dismissed due to lack of merit.
Heard the parties to this case and perused materials on record. It is evident that the C.D.M.O Bhadrak has issued a disability certificate and has recommended to Collector Bhadrak for financial Assistance for batter treatment which is signed by other three specialists of DHH Bhadrak who are not specialized in the relevant field. The doctors have presumed the disablement is the post operation effect. This provided ample opportunity to the complainant to presume that the physical impairment has occurred after a surgery done by OP No- 1 in the Hospital of OP No- 2. We cannot rely on the submission of the complainant which is based on presumption. As such the treatment given by OP No-1 & 2 does not attribute to any medical negligence.
OP NO-1 submitted, in course of hearing that the report containing opinion of experts issued by superintendent of AIIMS Bhubaneswar reveals that “The pain of lower legs is because of the spinal pathology and a relationship to the surgery undertaken could not be established”. The said committee was consisting of Associate professor General Medicine, Associates professor surgery and Dr. B.K Patro professor cum-chairman Medical Board who have also consulted/sought opinion from Dr. Soubhagya Kumar Jena, obst & Gynae specialist and Dr.Sanjeev Kumar Bhoi, neurology specialist, both are of AIIMS, who are in agreement with the observation of Medical Board. The professor Associate professors and specialists who have given their opinion are, no doubt, having adequate knowledge and skill in the relevant field and better than the specialists of D.H.H Bhadrak who have signed the disability certificate issued by the CDMO Bhadrak. Secondly according to the opinion of the Board, the disability of the complainant is purely temporary and such disability certificate is obtained after one year from the date of surgery and whatever reason for disability is reflecting in the certificate may not be taken as correct. It is clearly mentioned in the certificate that the surgery has no relation with the pain in lower legs. The complainant, in his turn, argued that in Para (b) of the report, it is written as “The investigation carried out for evaluation of pain in the legs done at Cuttack on 22nd October, 2014 (NCV of both legs and MRI, LS spine) revealed spinal pathology probably responsible for the pain in lower legs”. The doctors in the expert committee have opined basing on probability which cannot be held that the opinion of the Board (AIIMS) is correct. It can also be said that the surgery conducted by OP No. 1 probability responsible for pain in the lower legs and requested the Forum to reject the opinion of the Medical Board of AIIMS in this score as the report has been prepared under the influence of another doctor who is a party to this case.
Heard the complainant and OP No. 1 and perused materials on record. The expert committee consisting of Associate professors and specialists, having reasonable knowledge and skill in the relevant field with reference to case in hand, have opined clearly that the surgery conducted by OP No. 1 in the Hospital of OP No. 2 is not responsible for the pain in lower legs and disability. The learned president and members of the Forum are not having knowledge in medical science and hence no option is left before them other than to believe whatever opinions have been given by the expert committee. Such report makes everything clear that there is no deficiency of service from the opposite parties and therefore the O.Ps are not responsible for the disability of the complainant. Hence it is ordered;
ORDER
The complaint be and the same is dismissed and in the circumstances without cost.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this 15th day of January, 2018 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
