BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 4 of 2017
Date of Institution : 3.1.2017
Date of Decision : 4.4.2018.
Rekha Rani wife of Pawan Kumar son of Nihal Singh, resident of Near Jagdish Depot Holder, Chattargarh Patti, Ward No.1, Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Dr. Snigadha Khurana, Khurana Nursing Home Dabwali Road, Sirsa.
- Janta Maternity and General Hospital, through President/ Manager, Janta Hospital Road, Sirsa.
- Dr. Shikha Goyal, Janta Hospital, Sirsa.
- United India Insurance Company Limited through Branch Manager, near OBC Bank, City Thana Road, Sirsa, Insurer of op no.1 vide policy No.041200/46/14/35/00005025 w.e.f. 22.10.2014 to 21.10.2015.
- The Oriental Insurance Company Limited through Branch Manager, in front of Janta Bhawan, Sirsa, insurer of op no.3 vide policy No.272200/48/2015/8378 w.e.f. 3.2.2015 to 2.2.2016.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE …… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. P.K. Kochar, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. J.D. Garg, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 & 3.
Opposite party no.2 exparte.
Sh. Kapil Sharma, Advocate for opposite party no.4.
Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for opposite party no.5.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant belongs to a poor family and they are maintaining themselves very hard. That as she was not conceiving, she went to Janta Hospital alongwith her husband on 23.5.2015 for checkup and at that time her ultrasound was got conducted and her treatment was started by Dr. Shikha Goyal. Then on 8.6.2015, she again visited Janta Hospital alongwith her previous reports and went to Dr. Shikha Goyal and the said doctor called Dr. Snigadha Khurana who was also working in Janta Hospital at that time and Dr. Snigadha Khurana told to them after two days that to know the exact cause, she has to use telescope camera and asked to come in the morning. Then they visited the doctor in the morning of 12.6.2015 and she was admitted and at about 11.00 a.m. she was taken to operation theatre and at that time, her husband was also with her. At that time both the doctors told them that there is waste in her both the tubes due to which, she is not conceiving and at that time Dr. Snigadha Khurana asked that after removing both the tubes, she will be all right and then she will do IVF due to which, she will conceive. It is further averred that they told them that they do not know anything in this regard and to do at their own which they deem proper and they only want a baby on which the doctor gave guarantee of a baby. Thereafter, on 12.6.2015, Dr. Snigadha Khurana removed her both the tubes by operation and they spent an amount of Rs.50,000/- approximately on operation, medicines and testing etc. and the receipt of amount of Rs.8830/- as operation fee is enclosed. It is further averred that after the operation, she started having pain in his abdomen and they made several rounds to both the doctors but did not receive any result. She visited both the doctors on 19.6.2015, 10.7.2015, 15.7.2015, 12.10.2015, 20.10.2015 and on 28.11.2015 and thereafter she visited Dr. Shikha Goyal in Janta Hospital on 4.12.2015, 11.12.2015, 15.12.2015, 16.12.2015, 22.12.2015 and on 29.12.2015 but the pain increased and many times pus was also removed from her abdomen and ultrasound was also got conducted but the pus was continuously increasing and there was no result of any type due to which, she was not only feeling physical harassment but was to spend more money which they were spending after taking debt. That due to negligence of both the doctors, the complainant was suffering physical and mental agony and was also suffering financial loss but despite treatment taken from both the doctors, the disease was increasing instead of decreasing. In the meantime, doctor Snigadha Khurana left Janta Hospital and started her own hospital in the name of Khurana Nursing Home at Dabwali road. That as her problem was increasing continuously, so she got check up from Dr. Snigadha Khurana on 29.12.2015 in her hospital and on 6.1.2016 she sent her to Jeevan Jyoti Hospital where doctor Mamta after check up refused to give treatment to her and told that problem has been increased and she is unable to give treatment to her. Then Dr. Snigadha Khurana sent them to Surgeon Azad Singh on 13.1.2016 but he also refused to give any treatment. Then on 14.1.2016, Dr. Snigadha Khurana started removing pus but to no effect. On 11.3.2016, she was sent to Apex Hospital but the doctor refused to give any treatment. Meanwhile, doctor Snigadha Khurana got conducted ultrasound for several times and also prescribed tablets of 600 MG, due to which her condition was deteriorated. That the complainant got treatment from both the doctors as told by them but due to their negligence in treatment and wrong operation, both the doctors are responsible as they not only caused negligence in her treatment but also did not disclose truth and gave continuous wrong treatment to her due to which, her problem continuously increased. It is further averred that both the doctors in order to conceal their mistake and negligence and in order to fetch more money done all this intentionally and whenever she visited them, she prescribed expensive medicines and without any reason got conducted ultrasound and did not treat her properly. It is further averred that wrong operation was conducted due to which pus started becoming in the abdomen and continuous pain started in the abdomen due to which, her husband Pawan Kumar was also suffering and became patient of blood pressure and a huge amount has been spent on his treatment and they have to take debt as they have already spent an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- on the asking of both the doctors. It is further averred that behavior of both the doctors towards the complainant was not well and due to negligence of both the doctors she was feeling much pain and her condition deteriorated. An amount of Rs.50,000/- was spent by the complainant in Janta Hospital and about Rs.four lacs were spent during the treatment by Dr. Snigadha Khurana which included fees of the doctor, medicines etc. It is further averred that thereafter on 9.5.2016, they visited Dr. Malik in Hansi for treatment where doctor conducted her operation again and she became well and there an amount of Rs.50,000/- was spent and the ops are liable to pay the said amount to her as due to their negligence she had to go Hansi for treatment. That complainant moved applications against the ops to the Chief Medical Officer and at CM Window but she did not get any justice and both the doctors started saying that the reason of the pus was tuberculosis to the patient whereas she suffered the disease of tuberculosis in the year 2010 and after treatment she became all right and the ops started saying this to conceal their negligence. The ops were giving wrong treatment to her for one year after pus and did not remove whole pus and when she visited the doctor at Hansi after one year, she became alright and therefore it is clearly established that ops did not treat the complainant properly and caused negligence in the treatment due to which the complainant had to suffer harassment and mental agony. The complainant is entitled to refund of an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- which has been spent by the complainant on her treatment and is also entitled to further amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of physical and mental harassment and further entitled to an amount of Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that patient Rekha came to Janta Hospital, Sirsa on 23.5.2015 for treatment of primary infertility about 13 years. She went to Dr. Shikha for the treatment and was advised diagnostic hysteroscopy and laparoscopy (DHL). She was a known case of bilateral hydrosalpinx for which she had already taken ATT at Hisar from Dr. Bishnoi, national infertility centre and had already undergone hysteroscopy showing no blocking at corneal ends. Hydrosalpinx should be removed ideally before planning IVF. The patient underwent IVF there and it was a failure. So, now she planned for IVF treatment after removal of hydrosalpinx by laparoscopy for bilateral corneal ligation if removal of hydrosalpinx seems unsafe due to adhesions. So on 12.6.2015, after taking informed consent, DHL was done at the Janta Hospital, Sirsa and patient’s husband was shown as well as informed well that there are dense adhesions in the pelvis, so one hydrosalpinx was removed safely and the other one was legated at the corneal end as a pre-requisite for IVF. The patient again started ATT afterwards. But patient’s created umbilical port was not healing for approximately two months. Recurrent sinus formation is seen in the patient suffering from tuberculosis even after ATT is over, which was cleaned locally. Even surgical opinion was advised and surgical specialist told to wait till the completion of the ATT. Afterwards, she was lost from treatment continuity. The patient was healing and was fit till she was taking treatment from op no.1. After this, patient lost to follow up and never came back. Everything the op no.1 has done was done diligently, prudently with utmost due care and caution in treating the said patient and there was no negligence at least from their side. It is further submitted that complainant should be directed to produce the bills, receipts, cash memo, vouchers etc. of the alleged expenditure of Rs.four lacs alongwith bank passbook, ITR and proof of loan documents. The treatment taken with Dr. Malik is as such not connected and any hint of any allegation is wrong and denied with respect to the op no.1. The patient was not ready to complete ATT treatment with op no.1, hence it is the sole negligence of the patient herself of changing the doctor. No doctor at anywhere has pointed out any negligence on the part of op no.1. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied.
3. Opposite party no.2 did not put appearance despite service and was proceeded against exparte.
4. Opposite party no.3 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections that there is no cause of action with respect to op no.3 since she has only referred the patient to op no.1 and that complaint is bad for non arraignment and mis arraignment of parties and that op no.3 is a well qualified and a reputed doctor with substantial good will and experience of long standing successful medical practice since 2014. It is submitted that op no.3 is working as gynecologist at Janta Hospital, Sirsa. On 23.5.2015, patient Rekha came to op no.3 only once for consultation regarding some gyanae problem. On taking history, the patient had primary infertility and was willing for IVF for which the op no.3 referred her to Dr. Snigdha Khurana, the senior gynecologist at the same hospital. Thereafter, the patient was revived and consulted by Dr. Snigdha Singh and after this the patient lost to follow up and never came back to her. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.
5. On being impleaded, United India Insurance Company Limited as op no.4 appeared and filed written statement to the effect that policy No.041200/46/14/35/00005025 w.e.f. 22.10.2014 to 21.10.2015 has been issued to Dr. Snigdha Khurana granting indemnity limit during the policy period, any one year Rs.10,00,000/-, any one accident Rs.10,00,000/- but the liability of the answering op is subject to terms and conditions as laid down under the policy. It is further submitted that no specific, scientific and justified allegations with regard to the negligence or deficiency in service has been made by complainant against op no.1 and complainant has totally failed to explain as to how she is involved and op no.1 was negligent. It is also submitted that Janta Hospital is a charitable hospital and as such complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer.
6. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited i.e. insurer of op no.3 on being impleaded as op no.5 appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections and asserting therein that Dr. Shikha is a qualified and reputed doctor and she has not committed any negligence in this case while providing the treatment to the complainant as no operation was conducted by her. The complainant has filed this complaint with false allegations of negligence claiming exorbitant amount without any basis just to waste the valuable time and harass the ops no.3 and 5. That the policy no.272200/48/2015/8378 w.ef. 3.2.2015 to 2.2.2016 has been issued to Dr. Shikha Aggarwal granting indemnity limit during the policy period, any one year Rs.10,00,000/-, any one accident Rs.10,00,000/- but the liability of the answering op is subject to terms and conditions as laid down under the policy. It is further submitted that there is no proof regarding negligence on the part of op no.3, hence answering op is not liable to pay any compensation at all.
7. The parties then led their respective evidence by way of affidavits and documents. The complainant has furnished her affidavit Ex.CW1/A and has also placed on record copies of treatment record as Ex.C1 to Ex.C43, postal receipts Ex.C44 to Ex.C46, copy of application Ex.C47 and copy of certificate of Malik Hospital, Hansi as Ex.C48. On the other hand, opposite party no.4 produced affidavit of Sh. K.R. Jain, Divisional Manager Ex.R1 and copy of insurance policy Ex.R2. OP no.3 produced her affidavit Ex.R3 and also produced copy of degree of Master of Surgery Ex.R4, copy of prescription slip dated 12.6.2015 Ex.R5, copy of admission notes Ex.R6, copy of admission card Ex.R7, copy of estimate advance and medical sheet Ex.R8 and copy of consent form Ex.R9. OP no.1 produced her affidavit Ex.R10, copy of degree of master of surgery Ex.R11, copy of degree of Bachelor of Medicine & Bachelor of Surgery Ex.R12. Op no.5 produced affidavit of Sh. Sushil Kumar, Senior Manager Ex.R13, copy of policy schedule Ex.R14. Ld. counsel for ops no.1 and 3 also tendered copy of letter dated 29.11.2016 written by Civil Surgeon Sirsa to Managing Director, Health Services, Haryana, Panchkula Ex.R15, copy of inquiry report Ex.R16 and copies of statements Ex.R17 to Ex.R20, copies of literatures Ex.R21, Ex.R22 and copy of statement of Dr. Snigdha Khurana Ex.R23.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
9. Learned counsel for complainant has strongly contended that it is proved case of the complainant that the complainant was not conceiving and she approached the doctor of Janta Hospital, Sirsa namely Dr. Shikha Goyal on 23.5.2015 for checkup and ultrasound was got conducted and treatment was started by said Dr. Shikha Goyal. It is also proved that thereafter Dr. Shikha Goyal and Dr. Snigdha Khurana were attending the complainant and had given treatment. They advised the complainant to go for operation and ultimately on 12.6.2015 she was admitted and then the surgery was performed on 12.6.2015 by Dr. Snigdha Khurana and tubes were removed in order to make her fit for conceiving as there was waste in the tubes as advised by the doctors. It has further been argued that after the operation, the complainant was having pain in her abdomen and they made several visits to both the doctors on different dates but however pain increased and many times pus was also removed from her abdomen and ultrasounds were also got conducted for a number of times but however, pus was continuously increasing. It has further been contended that due to negligence of both the doctors, the complainant was suffering from physical and mental agony and suffering financial loss despite the treatment taken from both the doctors namely Shikha Goyal and Dr. Snigdha Khurana. The complainant was referred to Jivan Jyoti Hospital on 6.1.2016 and then she was referred to Surgeon Dr. Azad Singh on 13.1.2016 and in this way while acting upon the advice of Dr. Snigdha Khurana, the complainant had been getting treatment for such a long time but she did not get any relief and ultimately she approached Dr. Malik at Hansi who performed the surgery and she got relief from pain. Learned counsel for complainant has further contended that complainant suffered due to negligence and treatment given by Dr. Shikha Goyal and Dr. Snigdha Khurana and it also amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of aforesaid doctors who charged heavily and in this way the complainant’s husband spent about Rs.five lacs on her treatment. He has also relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Jyoti Devi Vs. Suket Hospital & Ors. II (2016) CPJ 109 (NC).
10. On the other hand, Sh. J.D. Garg, learned counsel for opposite parties no.1 and 3 has strongly contended that the complainant has failed to prove the negligence of the ops no.1 and 3 badly. No doubt, the complainant approached Dr. Shikha Goyal on 23.5.2015 for her treatment and after giving treatment for few days, she referred to Dr. Snigdha Khurana op no.3 who was also working in the Janta Hospital, Sirsa at that time and they gave the best treatment to the complainant to the best of their knowledge and operation was performed on the person of complainant on 12.6.2015 by which one of the tube was removed and follow up treatment was also given to the complainant, but however, there was pus formation which was not due to negligence of the doctors but it was due to fact that complainant was suffering from tuberculosis and had taken treatment of ATT prior to the surgery and said complication was due to the T.B history of the patient and not due to any lapse or negligence on the part of doctors. The complainant has alleged false and fabricated allegations against the doctors. The version of op no.1 and 3 also finds corroboration from the report of the Chief Medical Officer, Sirsa who forwarded the report of the inquiry officer Dr. Jagdeep Aggarwal and Kanchan Aggarwal to the M.D. Health Services, Haryana Panchkula. The Inquiry Officer had also observed that there is no negligence on the part of doctors namely Dr. Shikha Goyal and Dr. Snigdha Khurana.
11. Learned counsel for opposite party no.4 has contended that there is no negligence on the part of op no.1 and that liability of op no.4 is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. Similarly, learned counsel for opposite party no.5 has contended that there is no negligence on the part of op no.3 and that liability of op no.5 is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.
12. We have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record and judgment relied upon by learned counsel for complainant carefully.
13. Admittedly, the complainant was not having any issue and she approached Janta Hospital, Sirsa and contacted Dr. Shikha Goyal to get treatment for conceiving a child. Further, it is an admitted fact that Dr. Shikha Goyal gave treatment to the complainant but however during the course of treatment, she advised the complainant to contact Dr. Snigdha Khurana who is her senior and seek her opinion. It is also proved fact on record that Dr. Shikha Goyal and Dr. Snigdha Khurana were treating the complainant jointly and put her on treatment knowing well about the history of the patient qua her disease for which she was suffering earlier.
14. As per the opinion formed by both the doctors, they advised the complainant to go for operation for removal of both tubes as they are full of waste and under these circumstances, the complainant is not in position to conceive until and unless the tubes are not removed. On the advice of both the doctors, the complainant and her husband made up their mind to go for the surgery and for removal of aforesaid tubes with intention to get an opportunity to conceive through method of IVF after removal of the tubes. It is also proved fact on record that on 12.6.2015, after taking consent of the patient and her husband, DHL was done at Janta Hospital, Sirsa. During the course of operation, the patient’s husband was called in the operation theatre and was shown as well as informed that there are dense adhesions in the pelvis, so one hydrosalpinx was removed safely and the other one was legated at the cornual end as a pre-requisite for IVF. It is also proved fact on record that after 12.6.2015, complainant continued to get treatment from both the doctors till December, 2015 and thereafter the complainant had been visiting to doctor Snigdha Khurana time and again for her follow up treatment till 29.12.2015.
15. It is also proved fact on record that after the surgery, there was pus formation in the body of complainant which caused pain and agony and also caused tension in the mind of complainant as even after getting the regular treatment from the doctors, she could not get relief from the abdominal pain due to the pus formation in the body. This fact is also evident from the copies of ultrasound reports.
16. It is also proved fact on record that on 6.1.2016, Dr. Snigdha Khurana referred the complainant to Jeewan Jyoti Hospital. Thereafter, she referred the complainant on 13.1.2016 to Dr. Azad Singh Surgeon for getting his opinion. On 11.3.2016, she referred the complainant to Apex Hospital, Sirsa but the doctor of that hospital refused to give treatment keeping in view the health condition of the complainant.
17. It is also proved fact on record that on 9.5.2016, complainant visited to Dr. Malik at Hansi who operated upon her for the second time and she was discharged on 11.5.2016 and thereafter she did not suffer any pain in her abdomen and she got relief. It is further proved fact on record that complainant faced the long journey of treatment from 23.5.2015 when she approached for the first time Dr. Shikha Goyal in Janta Hospital, Sirsa and lastly she got operated in Dr. S.S. Malik’s Hospital at Hansi on 9.5.2016 and was discharged on 11.5.2016 after getting herself treated from that hospital. It is also proved fact on record that she spent lot of money on her treatment and wasted her money, energy and suffered physically and mentally during this long period of treatment in order to get relief from the disease.
18. Though, during the course of arguments learned counsel for opposite parties no.1 and 3 has strongly contended that complainant was suffering from tuberculosis since the year 2010 and she had already taken course of ATT and further she had already got done IVF previously but the same was failure as a result of which she was feeling uncomfortable and approached the Janta Hospital and Maternity Hospital, Sirsa. Since the complainant had already taken the ATT course and there was every possibility that after DHL, she was supposed to face problem of pus formation as one of the complications which she was facing and that was root cause for abdomen pain. He has also relied upon literature of Berek & Novak’s Gynecology Fourteenth Edition (page no.1219) and Te Linde’s Operative Gynecology Eleventh Edition (page No.653). No doubt, she was suffering from tuberculosis since year 2010 and she had taken course of ATT in the year 2011. It is also undisputed fact that she had already got IVF prior to the DHL conducted by Dr. Snigdha Khurana which was failure but all these facts categorically reveal that both the ops doctors were well known to the history of the patient qua the diseases from which she was suffering prior to treatment taken from both the doctors namely Dr. Shikha Goyal and Dr. Snigdha Khurana. Presumably they were well aware about the history of the patient qua her suffering from T.B and taken treatment of ATT, secondly about the IVF which she got conducted prior to the DHL conducted by Dr. Snigdha Khurana at Janta Hospital at Sirsa on 12.6.2015, in that case the doctors must have applied their mind and have taken due precautions while giving treatment to the complainant. They should have advised the patient before proceeding towards DHL about the complications which may come and arise and for which, she may face problem or suffering as an effect of tuberculosis. But perusal of the prescription slips placed on record by complainant to which the ops no.1 and 3 have not denied reveal that they never made any effort to give reference about the history of the patient qua her earlier diseases nor they made any reference qua the complications which she may face after the DHL which was conducted on 12.6.2015 nor they have made known to the complainant or her husband about the complications which may come across during the post operative period. The perusal of the evidence of the ops no.1 and 3 also reveals that they have not placed on record any such document from which it could be presumed that they have ever explained all these facts to the patient and her husband prior to conducting DHL nor they have placed on record any statement of the patient or her husband which was duly recorded by the doctors before proceeding to conduct the DHL.
19. The perusal of the evidence of complainant reveals that in order to prove her case, the complainant has furnished her affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which she has deposed qua each and every sequence of her sufferings which she faced during her long treatment in the hands of aforesaid doctors and the way in which she was behaved by the doctors. The perusal of the evidence of complainant reveals that complainant has placed on record copy of the report of USG whole abdomen dated 23.5.2015 Ex.C1 in which it is mentioned that “Uterus & Adenexa (TVS):- The uterus is anteverted & normal in size. Endometrial echoes are normal (et- 10 mm). No e/o free fluid seen in cul-de-sac. Complex right ovarian cyst of size- 31 x 30 mm with internal sepatation. Then in the ultrasound report dated 28.11.2015, it is mentioned that ‘An illdefined hypoechoic tract is noted in superficial planes with signs of inflammation communication with suture line is noted in anterior abdominal wall? Inflammatory.” In the report of USG whole abdomen dated 4.12.2015 Ex.C12, it is mentioned that “ There is ill defined anechoic area seen inferior to umbilicus of size 31 x 17 mm. It is 1.9 cms deep from the skin surface & shows surrounding inflammatory changes. It contains low level internal echoes. It has deeper intra abdominal communication via tract of size 3.8 cms in length & 0.9 cms in diameter. In the report of USG whole abdomen dated 11.12.2015 Ex.C16, it is mentioned that “There is ill defined anechoic area seen inferior to umbilicus of size 31 x 17 mm. It is 1.9 cms deep from the skin surface & shows surrounding inflammatory changes. It contains low level internal echoes. It has deeper intra abdominal communication via tract of size 3.8 cms in length h & 0.9 cms in diameter.” In the report dated 15.12.2015 Ex.C19, it is mentioned that “A well defined collection noted in the left adnexa measuring 4.8 x 3.0 cm, the collection extends superiorly to lie in the subcutaneous plane in infraumbilical region measuring 3.8 x 2.0 cm. Then in the report dated 1.3.2016 of Dr. Abhishek Khurana of Khurana Nursing Home, Sirsa it is mentioned that “Well defined collections in the subcutaneous plane measuring 4.4 x 1.8 cm at the level of umbilicus and another collection with internal echoes inferior to it measuring 4.5 x 2.2 cm with a small track extending inferiorly into the abdominal cavity? Atypical mycobacterial infection needs to be ruled out.” Then in the report of USG (whole abdomen) dated 15.4.2016 Ex.C38 it is mentioned that “Infective localized collection in subcutaneous plane inferior to umbilicus.” Again in the report of USG (whole abdomen) dated 6.5.2016 Ex.C41, it is mentioned that ‘Thick walled cystic lesion of size 3.4 x 2.2 cm seen in subcutaneous plane inferior to umbilicus. It contains internal echoes. Infective localized collection in subcutaneous plane inferior to umbilicus.” All these reports reflect that her problem was increasing day by day and treating doctors did not take notice of deteriorating health condition of the patient due to reason best known to them. It is also proved fact on record that Dr. Snigdha Khurana had referred patient to Apex Hospital on 11.3.2016 for taking opinion qua her problem but they refused to give any opinion and treatment to the patient keeping in view the condition of the patient. No doubt, the perusal of the record reveals that when Dr. Snigdha Khurana came to know about the increasing deterioration in the health of the patient, she put her on ATT treatment at later stage whereas she was required to put her at an early stage in order to avoid complications which the complainant was facing in the post operative period.
20. The perusal of the evidence of the ops reveals that op no.3 Dr. Shikha Goyal in order to prove her defence plea has furnished her affidavit Ex.R3 in which she has deposed in terms of her written statement. She has deposed that on 23.5.2015, patient Rekha Devi came to op no.3 only once for consultation regarding some gyanae problem. She has further deposed that on taking history, the patient had primary infertility and was willing for IVF for which the op no.3 referred her to Dr. Snigdha Khurana senior gynecologist at the same hospital. She has also deposed that thereafter the patient was revived and consulted by Dr. Snigdha Khurana. The patient lost to follow up and never came back to her. There is no cause of action with respect to op no.3 since whatever relief asked from op no.3 is wrong. It is proved from the evidence of complainant that patient Rekha approached Janta Hospital, Sirsa on 23.5.2015 and she was attended by Dr. Shikha Goyal and she gave the prescription. It is also proved fact on record that she had been attending the patient alongwith Dr. Snigdha Khurana till 4.12.2015 when the patient visited to Khurana Hospital of Dr. Snigdha Khurana which was started by Dr. Snigdha Khurana independtly. Ex.C2 (dated 8.6.2015) to Ex.C9 and Ex.C13 (dated 4.12.2015) are prescription slips which were issued by Dr. Shikha Goyal and are duly signed with seal by the said doctor meaning thereby that she has furnished a false affidavit qua this fact that she attended the complainant only once on 23.5.2015 and thereafter she did not turn up for follow up treatment. So, this contention of learned counsel for Dr. Shikha Goyal is devoid of any merit.
21. Learned counsel for ops no.1 and 3 has also contended that there is no negligence on the part of Dr. Snigdha Khurana as she had given best treatment to the complainant to the best of her knowledge and ability. The perusal of the evidence of op no.1 reveals that in order to prove her defence plea, she has furnished her affidavit Ex.R10 on file in which she has deposed that she rely upon her written statement. She has further deposed that patient Rekha came to Janta Hospital, Sirsa on 23.5.2015 for treatment of primary infertility about 13 years. The patient had visited Dr. Shikha for the treatment and was advised diagnostic hysteroscopy and laparoscopy (DHL). Patient was a known case of Bilateral hydrosalpinx for which she had already taken ATT at Hisar from Dr. Bishnoi, national infertility centre and had already undergone hysteroscopy showing no blocking at cornual ends. Hydrosalpinx should be removed ideally before planning IVF. Patient underwent IVF there and it was a failure. She has further deposed that she was planned for IVF treatment after removal of hydrosalpinx by laparoscopy for bilateral cornual ligation if removal of hydrosalpinx seems unsafe due to adhesions. She has further deposed that on 12.6.2015, after taking informed consent, DHL was done at Janta Hospital, Sirsa and patient’s husband was shown as well as informed well that there are dense adhesions in the pelvis, so one hydrosalpinx was removed safely and the other one was ligated at the cornual end as a pre-requisite for IVF. Patient was again started ATT afterwards but patient’s created umbilical port was not healing for approximately two months. Recurrent sinus formation is seen in the patient suffering from tuberculosis even after ATT is over, which was cleaned locally. She has also deposed that even surgical opinion was advised and surgical specialist told to wait till the completion of the ATT. She has also deposed that afterwards, she lost from treatment continuity. She has also deposed that patient was healing and was fit till she was taking treatment from op no.1. After this patient lost to follow up and never came back. She has categorically deposed that no guarantee, warrantee or any assurance was given to the patient party. Everything was done diligently, prudently with utmost due care and caution and there is no negligence, unfair trade practice or deficiency of service on the part of op no.1. She has also deposed that patient was not ready to complete ATT treatment with respect to op no.1, hence it is the sole negligence of the patient herself of changing the doctor. So, it appears from this deposition of op no.1 Dr. Snigdha Khurana that she has not denied the history of the patient qua her treatment prior to conducting DHL and in the post operative period. It also appears from the affidavit of op no.1 that she was well aware about the treatment taken by the complainant qua tuberculosis and IVF which was got conducted by her prior to DHL got conducted from ops no.1 and 3 on 12.6.2015. The perusal of the affidavit Ex.R10 also reveals that Dr. Snigdha Khurana has not denied about seven ultrasounds got conducted on the abdomen of the complainant from time to time in order to ascertain the health condition of the complainant. She has never deposed in her affidavit that she was not known to these reports Ex.C10, Ex.C12, Ex.C16, Ex.C19, Ex.C29, Ex.C38 and Ex.C41 while giving regular treatment to the complainant. Rather it is proved from these reports that the ops doctors did not take seriously about the cause of the disease which she was facing and pus formation in the body of the complainant nor they advised well in time to get opinion of an another surgeon or specialist and to get treatment thereafter. Rather the medical record which has been placed on record by the complainant proves that the condition of the patient continued to deteriorate from time to time even by getting long treatment from the aforesaid doctors and the doctors continued to put her on the long treatment without taking into consideration the deteriorated condition of the patient. It is undisputed that DHL was got conducted on 12.6.2015 but after lapse of more than six months, Dr. Snigdha Khurana referred the patient to Jeevan Jyoti Hospital for their opinion on 6.1.2016 and then she referred her to Dr. Azad Singh Surgeon on 13.1.2016 and thereafter patient was referred to Apex Hospital on 11.3.2016, but however, the complainant could not get any relief from her problem for which she remained under treatment of the aforesaid doctors for a period of more than 11 months. It is further undisputed fact between the parties that complainant visited to Dr. S.S. Malik at Hansi on 9.5.2016 who operated upon her and discharged her on 11.5.2016 in satisfactory condition
22. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for ops no.1 and 3 has strongly relied upon the literatures which he had referred in his arguments and placed on record alongwith statements of doctors before the Inquiry Officers. No doubt, as per the literatures referred as Ex.R21 and Ex.R22 on record, there is possibility of complication of pus formation after conducting of DHL in case patient is suffering from tuberculosis but there is no specific opinion of the doctor that in the present case also, the complication is due to old history of the patient being a T.B. patient. So, these literatures relate to the cases general in nature but it is not a general rule that in each and every cases of tuberculosis if DHL is conducted, it results in the sinus formation. So, this contention of learned counsel for ops no.1 and 3 also appears to be devoid of any merits.
23. Learned counsel for ops no.1 and 3 has relied upon report of the Civil Surgeon Ex.R15 and has contended that no negligence is proved on record on the part of treating doctors as per report of Civil Surgeon, Sirsa Ex.R15 and the Inquiry Officers Ex.R16. The perusal of Ex.R15 reveals that it is only a forwarding letter written by Civil Surgeon, Sirsa to the Managing Director, Health Services, Haryana, Panchkula dated 29.11.2016 qua the report submitted by Inquiry Officers Dr. Jagdeep Aggarwal and Dr. Archna Aggarwal. The perusal of the report Ex.R16 of Dr. Jagdeep Aggarwal and Dr. Archna Aggarwal reveals that they have reported to the Civil Surgeon, Sirsa that they recorded the statements of the parties and there is complaint of the complainant that operation has been conducted wrongly but as per guidelines of Gynecology/ books, reference of which is given and as per statement of Dr. Snigdha Khurana, operation IVF which is one of the indication for treatment of primary infertility. As far the pus in the wound after operation is concerned, this complication in the patient of T.B. is possible and this is one of the complication (sinus) after the operation and it is also mentioned in the medical books, copy attached. This patient had already taken medicines of T.B. and now also was taking medicines of the T.B. after operation. The perusal of this report also reveals that Inquiry Officers have attached the statements of the doctors as well as of the patient and her husband. The perusal of the statement of Dr. Shikha Goyal reveals that no question qua the role played by her during the treatment given by Dr. Shikha Goyal from 23.5.2015 to 4.12.2015 was put to her by Inquiry Officers nor they ever made any effort to test the veracity of the statement of Dr. Shikha Goyal which was allegedly written by her. It does not bear signatures of any of the Inquiry Officers rather it appears that it is self written statement of Dr. Shikha Goyal and statement has not been attested by any of the Inquiry Officers. The perusal of statement of Dr. Snigdha Khurana reveals that only two normal questions have been put to Dr. Snigdha Khurana by Inquiry Officers and they did not put any relevant question to her qua the treatment given by doctors to the patient and for treatment given by doctors for such a long time if they were well aware about the history of the disease prior and after the post operative period of DHL and no questions has been put to the doctors by Inquiry Officers that they ever made known to the patient about the complications which patient may face during the post operative period of DHL if the patient is already suffering from tuberculosis or the patient has already undergone for IVF. The inquiry report further reveals that the inquiry officers did not take into their possession the relevant treatment record of the patient. So, it appears that the report submitted by the inquiry officers appears to be only an eye wash and same cannot be relied upon and ops no.1 and 3 cannot derive any support from the inquiry report.
24. It is further proved fact on record that the attending doctors took a long period of more than 11 months in treating the complainant/ patient in order to redress her problem which she was facing. Dr. S.S. Malik of Hansi diagnosed the problem and treated the complainant and conducted the second operation on the person of complainant as a result of which she got relief from her persisting problems of sinus and abdomen pain within period of four days. So, it appears from all the above discussion that the doctors namely Dr. Shikha Goyal and Dr.Snigdha Khurana treated the complainant in a very ordinary and casual manner and did not make their best efforts to diagnose her disease properly and to give her proper treatment rather dragged her in long treatment of more than 11 months while acting negligently and unethically which clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of ops doctors and it also amounts to unethical and unfair trade practice of the treating doctors ops no.1 and 3.
25. Now coming to the point of quantum of compensation to be awarded to the complainant and liability of the opposite parties to pay the same, it may be mentioned here that complainant has alleged that total amount of rupees five lacs have been spent by her husband on her treatment. The complainant has placed on record receipt of the amount of Rs.8830/- charged by Janta Hospital, Sirsa as Ex.C43. But however, in absence of the bills/ receipts of amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, it cannot be said that she actually spent this amount on her treatment yet it can easily be said that she has spent enough money on her treatment. In our view, the complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.8830/- from Janta Hospital, Sirsa i.e. opposite party no.2, the receipt of which is placed on file by complainant as Ex.C43 and except that amount in our view no other liability for the negligence of ops no.1 and 3 can be fastened on op no.2. Besides this, an amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of expenses of undue long treatment and amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation would be just and proper amount to be paid to the complainant for the negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of ops no.1 and 3 to be paid by ops no.1 and 3 jointly and severally. The ops no.1 and 3 are also liable to make payment of Rs.15,000/- due to second operation of the complainant at Hansi.
26. In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties no.1 and 3 to pay a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- ( Rs.50,000/- on account of expenses of undue treatment, Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.15,000/- due to second operation of the complainant at Hansi) to the complainant jointly and severally within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum on the above said amount of Rs.1,15,000/- from the date of this order till actual realization. We also direct the ops no.1 and 3 to further pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- jointly and severally as litigation expenses to the complainant. Thus, the ops no.1 and 3 will pay total amount of Rs.1,25,000/- to the complainant jointly and severally. The ops no.4 and 5 who are insurer of ops no.1 and 3 respectively will reimburse the above said amount to the ops no.1 and 3 if same is found payable as per terms and conditions of the policy. We also direct the opposite party no.2 to refund an amount of Rs.8830/- to the complainant within above said period, failing which the complainant will also be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. 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:04.04.2018. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
