DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.372/2011
Mrs. Nazra
W/o Mohd.Aslam
R/o F-II/197, Madangir Khanpur,
New Delhi-110062 ….Complainant
Versus
Dr. Sandhya Bansal
Bansal Hospital
A-1, New Friends Colony,
New Delhi-110025 …Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 13.10.11 Date of Order : 24.02.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
The case of the complainant is that she visited the OP hospital and they assured that after operation, the problem will get cured and she will be able to conceive pregnancy. The staff of OP got signed number of blank forms from them, as they wanted to get the treatment but they were not informed about the procedure of treatment. OP did not give proper treatment, therefore, the disease was enhanced and some complication arose due to operation. She visited the AIIMS hospital where her life was saved by the Doctors, otherwise she could have died. She had spent approx. Rs.3 lakhs on her treatment including medicines and tests but OP had issued a receipt of Rs.25,000/-. Hence, OP has committed negligence and deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint for direction the OP to pay Rs. Three Lacs to the complainant as compensation.
In the written statement OP has stated that the Complainant visited her on 03.04.10 alongwith a report dated 14.09.09 which showed that there was a large tumor in the uterus. Since the report was old, so she advised the Complainant to go for a fresh check up and get a CT scan done which would give much clear picture in relation to tumor. Complainant again visited the OP on 06.04.10 alongwith report of CT scan which she carried out from other place as advised. On examination, the report of CT scan stated that “large multi-lobulated heterogeneously enhancing soft issue mass like lesion measuring 19.1 X 9.6cm in the lower abdomen and pelvis extending on either side of the uterus in the region of bilateral adenexa the mass is aberting the uterus with ill defined plains and both ovaries are not separately visualized from the mass posteriorly the mass is aberting the vertebral Colum at the level of L5, the Bowel loops are displaced superiorly free fluid in punch of the douglus. No lymph node enlargement. The pelvic muscular and vascular structure are bilateral symmetrical. The pre-diagnosis carried out by them and the conclusion that there can be root cause for the same:-
- Large uterus mass grown over the period; or
- Large mass structure could be ovarian in nature (large ovarian cyst which ca-125 was ordered which was normal.
OP has further stated that in the presence of such big mass which corresponded to 8 months’ pregnancy, complainant could not become pregnant. Accordingly, OP advised the Complainant to get admitted for exploratory laparatomy whereby the OP would open the abdomen to explore the cause for the growth of the mass and the reason for infertility and growth of mass. On 10.04.10 at about 9 p.m. the Complainant got herself admitted in the hospital and on examination it was found that there was a big mass in the abdomen corresponding to 8 months/32 weeks of pregnancy. The exploratory laparotomy was carried out by a team of doctors (Surgeons) on 11.04.10 with the consent of the complainant and her husband. While conducting laparotomy, it was found that there was a large mass extending from pelvic going above the umbilicus where the uterus and ovary could not be separated out because of massive adhesion. The bladder was raised higher from its position and the intestines were badly attached to the soft mass. The mass was inoperable without damaging the important structure such as urine bladder and intestine. The exploratory laparotomy was conducted by the OP after due consent was given by the Complainant and her husband. During the operation itself after looking to the condition of the abdomen and looking to the serious condition/badly in-operable condition of the patient the husband was called and shown the condition of the abdoment and explained the actual condition of the patient. The OP explained the further course of the action and its consequence to the complainant’s husband and advised that the OP should not continue with the surgery as it may lead to injury to other vital parts of the abdomen/viscera. Ultimately after the consent of the husband it was decided that few injections like GnRh analogue should be first administered to the patient to avoid injury to vital structure and by the application of the same first the OP should reduce the size of mass and then only carry out the operation which would be in the interest of the patient. The Complainant/ patient was discharged on 14th April, 2010. During the post exploratory laparotomy stage she was given all the medical facilities necessary including antibiotics and hospital bed was also subsidized. OP has further stated that from the date of admission till she was discharged she had paid only Rs.25,000/- against the total bill of Rs.35,000/- by giving a discount of Rs.10,000/-. After the discharge from the hospital, she visited the OP for getting injection GnRh analogue injected and she was again advised to take about 4-5 injections as only then the size of the tumor would reduce and only then there would be possibility of performing the surgery on her. The Complainant after getting another injection showed her inability to have any further injection on account of high cost. Since the injection was necessary and the same was in the interest of patient/Complainant, OP advised the Complainant to approach AIIMS where such injection would be injected free of cost. As per the documents of AIIMS, it is clear that the treatment given by the AIIMS was the same which was given and advised by the OP. Since the size of mass had reduced to a considerable size i.e. 18 weeks the same was comfortably operated by the AIIMS which OP had advised and the injections were taken by the Complainant over a period of 7 months. The allegation of the Complainant that she was operated upon due to the emergency in AIIMS is false as she approached the AIIMS after a period of 7 months. The prescription of the AIIMS itself proves that her condition was stable at the time of admission. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP.
Thereafter none appeared on behalf of the OP. OP has been proceeded exparte vide order dated 14.09.12 passed by our predecessors.
Complainant has filed her own affidavit in evidence and written arguments. We have heard the arguments on behalf of the Complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.
The documents filed by the complainant herself rather fortify the case of the OP. The complainant has not filed any medical evidence or expert opinion on the record to show that medical treatment given by the OP to her was not according to as per the settled norms or guidelines under the medical jurisprudence.
In order to establish deficiency in service and negligency on the part of the medical professionals, we are reminded of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Jacob Methew Vs State of Punjab, 2005 (6) SCC 1 where the Supreme Court observed that “a simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident is no proof of negligence on the part of a Medical Professional. So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the Medical Profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because of a better alternative course or method of treatment was also available or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort to that practice or procedure which the accused followed. A Professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings : either he was not possessed of the requisite skills which he professed to have possessed, or he did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case the skill which he did possess. The standard to be applied for judging, whether the person charged has been negligent or not, would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession. It is not possible for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise or skills in that branch which he practices. A highly skilled professional may be possessed of better qualities, but that cannot be made the basis or yardstick for judging the performance of the professional proceeded against, on indictment of negligence”.
Complainant was given medical treatment by the OP i.e. exploratory laparotomy through a team of doctors (Surgeons) on 11.4.2010 and was discharged by the OP on 14.4.2010. The medical papers filed by the complainant show that thereafter she had gone to the AIIMS and got admitted herself on 23.11.10 and discharged from there on 23.11.10 (Annex. C). There is no mention in the discharge summary issued by the AIIMS that the medical treatment given by the OP was not proper or was not called for in the circumstances of the case. Therefore, we are left with no other alternative but to hold that the complainant has failed to prove it to be a case of medical deficiency on the part of the OP.
According to the complainant, the OP had charged Rs. 3 Lacs from her but only a receipt of Rs. 25,000/- was issued to her. On the other hand, according to the document marked as mark AA (colly) filed by the complainant herself, the total bill of Rs. 35,518/- was given to the complainant, out of which the complainant was given a discount of Rs. 10518/- and only an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was charged from her. Therefore, the complainant has tried to build an untrue story.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it 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.
Announced on 24.2.2016.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
Case No. 372/11
24.02.2016
Present – None
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
