STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Bihar Patna
Appeal No. 330 of 2018
Raj Kishore Sahni, Son of Bindeshwari Sahni, resident of Bhataha, P.S.- Muffasil, Motihari, District- East- Champaran.
.... Appellant
Versus
Dr. Arun Kumar Singh (Ujjawal Seva Sadan), Chhitauni, Bangali Colony, Gali No.5, Motihari, P.S.- Chhitauni, District- East-Chamaparan.
.... Respondent
Counsel for the appellant: Dharmesh Kurmar. Srivastav
Counsel for the respondent: Bipin Bihari
Before:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, President
Mr. Ram Prawesh Das, Member
Order
Date-21.08.2023
Per: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, President
The present appeal has been preferred for setting aside the order dated 30.07.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, East Champaran, Motihari in Complaint Case no. 137 of 2017 whereby and where under the District Consumer Forum dismissed the Complaint case.
Briefly stated the facts of the case as disclosed in complaint petition is that on 08.02.2016 complainant visited Ujjawal Seva Sadan with complain of abdomen pain and opposite party prescribed some medical test and Ultrasound and said tests were performed on the same day in the Apna Clinic.
Complainant thereafter approached opposite party with all medical reports and after examining medical reports opposite party advised operation of appendix and complainant gave his consent for operation and was admitted in Ujjawal Seva Sadan where he deposited Rs.22,000/- as operation fee and other Medical expenses and also medicine worth Rs.7,000/- was purchased and operation was performed in the night on 08.06.2016 and he was discharged on 16.06.2016 from clinic and was advised to continue some medicines as prescribed.
Complainant again felt pain in his abdomen and he consulted opposite party who said that pain was due to gas and he will soon get relief after taking medicine but pain persisted even after lapse of 9 Months and complainant thereafter consulted Dr. Arsad Kamal who advised for ultrasound on 04.04.2017 and prescribed some tests and he consulted him on 05.04.2017 with ultrasound reports and other reports and he told that present ultrasound report is same as that of ultrasound report done prior to operation.
It is alleged that due to negligent Act of Opposite party operation of appendix performed by opposite party was not successful and appendix was not removed even after operation and problem and pain continued as a result of which he is unable to perform hard work causing pecuniary loss to him.
Complainant send a legal notice to opposite party, which was replied and thereafter he filed consumer complaint case in the District Consumer Forum, East champaran, Motihari for grant of adequate compensation due to medical negligence as well as cost of litigation upon which notices were issued to opposite party for their appearance and to file their written statement.
In support of his claim case complainant submitted evidence on affidavit, medical treatment reports and ultrasound reports.
On receipt of notice opposite party appeared and filed his written statement stating therein that complainant consulted him on 08.02.2016 and ultrasound of his abdomen was done which was suggestive of appendicular Pathology with excessive bowel and gas for which medicine was prescribed and complainant was called after 7 days but he came after 4 months with complain of abdominal pain and was examined by Dr. D.N.P Verma and Ultrasound was advised and on seeing the ultrasound report complainant was advised to consult a surgeon.
Dr. Amit Kumar (MBBS MS) checked complainant and advised to admit complainant for surgery and accordingly complainant was admitted and on 08.06.2016 surgery was performed diligently with utmost care and caution and complainant was discharged in healthy condition and thereafter he never reported.
The District Consumer Forum, after hearing the parties and considering the materials available on record, held that complainant was operated on 08.06.2016 for appendix and he was discharged from Hospital on 16.06.2016. Complainant thereafter consulted Dr. Arsad Kamal for abdomen pain on 04.04.2017 who recommended for ultrasound which was done by Dr. Huldhar Prasad and on examining the ultrasound report no appendix was found.
During pendency of complaint case on direction of District Consumer Forum complainant got ultrasound done in Sadar Hospital, Motihari and report dated 09.04.2018 showed recurrent appendicitis.
The District Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint case after recording a finding that if appendix has been removed by operation and there is no sign of appendix then there cannot be recurrent appendix against which complainant has filed present appeal on the following ground:-
- Learned District Consumer Forum failed to appreciate the documentary evidences produced by the complainant.
- Three contradictory reports were produced as such consumer forum ought to have called for expert medical opinion.
Heard the parties
From the record it appears that complainant was operated on 08.06.2016 for appendix and was thereafter discharged on 16.06.2016. Complainant thereafter consulted Dr. Arsad Kamal on 04.04.2017 for abdomen pain i.e. after 10 months from the date of operation. Ultrasound was done on 05.04.2017 and report was normal, however as complainant suffered abdominal pain even thereafter as such filed a complaint case in the District Consumer Forum for medical negligence. During pendency of complaint case ultrasound was done in Sadar Hospital, Motihari on 09.04.2018 i.e about 2 year after operation of appendix and reports suggested recurrent appendicitis.
According to Medical literature recurrent appendicitis is rare entity being reported one in Fifty Thousand appendectomy. It is typically caused by inflammation of appendicial stump. Stump appendicitis is defined by the recurrent inflammation of the residual appendix after the appendix has been removed, as such the finding recorded by the District Consumer Forum that there cannot be recurrent appendicitis after removal of appendix by operation is not correct and medical science recognises such rare phenomenon, however, such happening is not attributable to any medical negligence.
A doctor can be held liable for medical negligence, if either he did not possess the requisite skill which he professed or he did not exercise reasonable competence. In present case doctor who operated was well qualified and he followed standard medical practice. There is no allegation that doctor had not attended the complainant with due care and caution. As long as doctor treating the patient acts in a manner which is acceptable to the medical profession a doctor cannot be said to have acted negligently. There is no allegation of any preoperative or post operative lack of care and caution.
For the reasons as stated above complainant has failed to make out any case of medical negligence against the respondent and accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act. The order be uploaded forthwith on the confonet of the Commission.
Let the file be consigned in the record room along with copy of this order.
Ram Prawesh Das Sanjay Kumar. J
(Member) (President)
Mukund
