Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 30.10.2017
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite parties:-
- To direct the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/- ( Rs. Seven lakh only ) which is the cost incurred in Kidney Transplant, medical and medical advice.
- To direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- ( Rs. Five lakh only ) as physical harrasment.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- ( Rs. Three lakh only ) Mental harrasment.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that he is a minor aged about 11 years and as such he has filed his case under his natural guardian his father.
It is further case of the complainant that he was having pain in his left knee and thereafter on 04.06.2010 he consulted opposite party no. 1 with his father. Opposite party no. 1 after examining the complainant advised ESR and CRP and also prescribed two medicines i) Arachetol 3 Lacs/ml weekly and Surcal M (1Phile). As per advise of opposite party the complainant had done his ESR and CRP at Akshat Diagnostics on 04.06.2010. Thereafter the complainant approached opposite party no. 1 with his test report referred above and the opposite party advised skin traction and Akurit 4 two tablets every morning as will appear from annexure – 1 and 2. When the pain of the complainant did not subside then he with his father visited opposite party clinic on 09.07.2010 and thereafter opposite party again advised him TC, DC, Hb%, CRP, SGPT and X-ray. After going through all the test as advised by the opposite party, the complainant consulted opposite party who after perusing the report on 12.07.2010 again advised him Akurit 4 along with two other medicines for a period of one and half month. On 25.07.2010 the complainant came in the stage of convulsions and thereafter he was rushed to PMCH. The doctor on 26.07.2010 advised some medicines but there was no recovery in the condition of the complainant and as such the complainant was rushed to Kurji Holy Family Hospital on 29.07.2010 and upon diagnosis it was found that his kidney was found not functioning and hence the doctor advised dialysis which was done on 30.07.2010 in Sri Ram Hospital as will appear from annexure – 3. The complainant was also treated at S.K. Sinha memorial Hospital on 17.11.2010 and the doctor who was treating him observed that the complainant had received Akurit (ATT) without investigation as will appear from annexure – 4. The complainant had to undergo Kidney Transplant at PGI Lucknow on 01.02.2011 which was possible because the Kidney was donated by the mother of complainant.
The complainant has asserted that because of medical negligence on the part of opposite party the complainant had to suffer and undergo Kidney Transplant because without proper diagnosis the opposite party had diagnosed TB and prescribed medicine of TB resulting him to Kidney failure.
On behalf of opposite party a written statement has been filed denying the allegation of the complainant. The opposite party has admitted in his written statement that on 04.06.2010 the complainant visited his clinic with his father with complain of pain in his left hip. The complainant was examined as an outdoor patient and after careful clinical and basic examination he advised for some test. The complainant again came on 08.06.2010 along with the report of certain test and after careful examination of patient the patient was diagnosed a case of “Kochs left hip.”
It has been further asserted by opposite party that after diagnosis of Tuberculosis ( Left Hip) on 08.06.2010 the patient was advised to keep his left lower limb on skin traction and also prescribed Anti Tuberculosis drug TAB-AKURIT 4 2X1 per day which is essentially a non nephrotoxic drug which cannot damage the Kidney as alleged and thereafter the patient did not turn up to opposite party no. 1 again and he knew about the rest development from the notice received from this Consumer Forum on 04.12.2011. In 7D of written statement the opposite party has stated as follows, “that it is relevant to mention here that the Tab- Akurit 4 contains Isonex, Rifampicin, Pyrazinamide and Ethembutol. None of these drugs are nephrotoxic, hence the allegation that TB – Akurit 4, caused Kidney damage resulting in renal failure is baseless.”
The opposite party has prayed to dismiss the case for being malicious, baseless.
On behalf of complainant a rejoinder has been filed stating therein that the statement in written statement has not been supported by any valid documents. In the rejoinder the complainant has stated the same fact which he has already stated in complaint petition.
-
The fact asserted by the respective parties has been narrated in the forgoing paragraphs. Hence the same are not being repeated in order to record finding.
It appears from the record that the matter was referred to medical board and the report of medical board has been received which is as follows, “Master Akash Kumar ( Minor), complainant reported to Dr. Amulya Kumar Singh, opposite party on 04.06.2010. The complainant was having limping Right lower limb with clinical shortening of Right lower limb and wasting of left thigh. He was investigated and was diagnosed as a case of Tuberculosis left hip. He was advised accordingly skin traction and anti tuberculosis medicine. On 29.07.2010, the patient was admitted in Kurji Holy Family Hospital, Patna for renal failure ( Kidney Failure) and Kidney transplant was done at PGI, Lucknow on 01.02.2011. The complainant is aggrieved and accusing the anti tuberculosis medicine for such debacle. Here we have to say that the diagnosis and treatment by opposite party was in proper manner. The anti tuberculosis drug prescribed were in correct dose too – and none of these medicines harm Kidney. So such change is baseless. There is no deficiency in service and no evidence of professional negligence as well on part of opposite party.”
From bare perusal of medical report which was constituted of four doctors it is crystal clear that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
It has been also stated in the medical report that diagnosis and treatment by opposite party was in proper manner and Anti Tuberculosis drug which was prescribed by opposite party was not harmful for Kidney.
No any cogent evidence has been brought on the record which force us to disbelieve the report of medical board and as such we have no option but to rely on the report of medical board which does not support the allegation of complainant and as such this complaint stands dismissed but without cost.
Member President
