Haryana

StateCommission

A/1021/2014

Dinesh Joshi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Geeta Jindal - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Deepak Sonak, Advocate assisted by appellant in person.

10 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      1021 of 2014

Date of Institution:        07.11.2014

Date of Decision :         10.05.2016

 

Dinesh Joshi, A.C. Mechanic, HTC, Red Bishop Panchkula, Tehsil and District Panchkula.

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.      Dr. Geeta Jindal Aarogya Clinic 1303-P, New Grain Market Road, Sector-21, Panchkula.

2.      Dr. Dev Batra, Batra X-Ray and Ultrasound Scan Centre Clinical Laboratory, SCO No.11, Sector-10, Opposite Bus Stand, Panchkula.

3.      The New India Assurance Company Limited having its Branch Office at SCO No.54-55, 1^st Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh.

4.      United India Insurance Company Limited, 54, Janpath, Connaught Place, New Delhi.

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                                                                         

Present:              Shri Deepak Sonak, Advocate assisted by appellant in person.

                             Shri Sanjeev Trikha, Advocate assisted by respondent No.1 in person.

                             Shri Vaibhav Narang, Advocate for respondent No.2.

                             Shri Vipul Sharma, proxy counsel for Shri P.S. Saini, Advocate for respondent No.3.

                             Shri Satpal Dhamija, Advocate for respondent No.4.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal has been preferred by complainant against the order dated September 16^th, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint was dismissed.

2.      Dinesh Joshi-complainant/appellant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 averring that on 02.10.2011 he suffered pain near anus. He visited General Hospital, Panchkula where he was examined by Dr. Sanjeev Trehan, Surgeon. Some medicines were prescribed to the complainant.

3.      On 04.10.2011 at about 7:30 P.M., the complainant again  suffered severe pain. He visited Dr.Geeta Jindal-respondent/opposite party No.1. After examining, the respondent No.1 prescribed medicines and told the complainant to be suffering from fissures. The complainant did not get any relief despite taking medicines. On 07.10.2011, the complainant again visited the respondent No.1 and was admitted in the hospital. It was stated that the respondent No.1 gave him baked treatment with ironed cloth which was unbearable. A sum of Rs.36,450/- was charged from the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant was charged for false, fictitious and baseless bills. No facilities of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) were there in the clinic of the respondent No.1.

4.      After discharge from the above said hospital, the complainant visited Gokul Hospital, Sector-15, Panchkula where he was examined by Dr. Subhash Sharma, Surgeon and was advised for ultrasound. The complainant got the ultrasound test from Dr. Dev Batra-respondent No.2. After going through the report of ultrasound, Dr.Subhash Sharma, admitted the complainant in his clinic on 13.10.2011 and by conducting operation, drained 600 ml pus and discharged the complainant on 14.10.2011. Thereafter, the complainant got relief from the pain suffered by him. Alleging medical negligence, the complainant approached the Director General Health Services, Haryana. A Medical Board of Doctors was constituted and inquiry was conducted in the matter on 12.04.2013 in the office of Civil Surgeon, Panchkula but the said board gave opinion in favour of the respondent No.1. Hence, the instant complaint was filed before the District Forum.

5.      Dr.Geeta Jindal-respondent No.1 filed reply admitting that the complainant was admitted in her hospital on 07.10.2011. He was diagnosed as a case of cellulites, which either resolves with anti-biotic or it ends into pus formation and if pus is formed, it requires minor surgical incision and drainage and accordingly the patient was admitted and was given anti-biotic and hot fomentation, which helps in resolving cellulites.  In case patient did not respond to routine anti-biotic, then patient is to be suggested for higher anti-biotic, which are expensive. Since the complainant/patient was not responding to routine anti-biotic, he was advised for higher anti-biotic. The bills were raised as per actual consumption, treatment and as per prescribed rates. There was no pus formation till the complainant remained with the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 is having fully equipped ICU with air conditioned and modern gadgets are available and it is approved for various TPAS. On complaint being made, the Director General of Health Services, Haryana, Panchkula, had conducted an inquiry by constituting a specialist board to look into the matter and the board gave report (Exhibit C-16) observing as under:-

“To conclude the board is unable to comment on the allegation made in point number 4 and 6. However it is evident from above that the line of treatment for cellulites (conservative) adopted by Dr. Geeta Jindal is in concurrence with medical books and literature. The cellulites is a precursor of abscess, the treatment of which is incision and drainage. Hence the board is of the opinion that there is no medical negligence on part of treating doctor (Dr.Geeta Jindal).”

6.      Dr. Dev Batra-respondent No.2, in his separate reply stated that a thorough and complete ultra sound examination of the complainant was conducted and the report revealed distortion of normal echo-texture of the subcutaneous tissue in the perianal region with no significant localized collection of fluid.  Denying other allegations of the complainant, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

7.      After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum finding no substance in complainant’s version dismissed the complaint. Hence appeal.

8.      What constitutes medical negligence, based on the touchstone of Bolam Vs. Friern Hospital Management Committee, (1957), 1 WLR, 582 (the Bolam’s test), is well settled through a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (2005) 6 SCC 1, Indian Medical Association Vs. V.P. Shantha and Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 651 and Kusum Sharma & Ors. Vs. Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre & Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 480.  

9.      In Hucks v. Cole (1968) 118 New LJ 469, Lord Denning observed that a medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field.

10.    In Dr. Laxman Balkrishna Joshi v. Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godbole, (1996) 1 SCR 206, it has been held that if a doctor has adopted a practice that is considered “proper” by a reasonable body of medical professionals who are skilled in that particular field, he or she will not be held negligent only because something went wrong. 

11.    In MARTIN F. D’SOUZA versus MOHD. ISHFAQ, I(2009) CPJ 32 (SC), Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:-

“From the principles mentioned herein and decisions relating to medical negligence it is evident that doctors and nursing homes/hospitals need not be unduly worried about the performance of their functions. The law is a watchdog, and not a bloodhound, and as long as doctors do their duty with reasonable care they will not be held liable even if their treatment was unsuccessful.”  

“When a patient dies or suffers some mishap, there is a tendency to blame the doctor for this. Things have gone wrong and, therefore, somebody must be punished for it. However, it is well known that even the best professionals, sometimes have failures. A lawyer cannot win every case in his professional career but surely he cannot be penalized for losing a case provided he appeared in it and made his submission.”

 

12.    In the case in hand, indisputably the complainant had complained to the Director General of Health Services, Haryana, Panchkula, who conducted an inquiry by constituting a specialist board to look into the matter.  The board consisted of Dr. Navjot, Senior Medical Officer; Dr. Ashwani Bhatnagar, Medical Officer and Dr. Vinish Narang, Medical Officer and gave report (Exhibit C-16) observing that “there is no medical negligence on part of treating doctor (Dr.Geeta Jindal)”. It has been clearly mentioned in the report that the line of treatment for cellulites (conservative) adopted by Dr. Geeta Jindal-respondent No.1 was in concurrence with medical books and literature.  So, the report (Exhibit C-16) is the best piece of evidence. No evidence has been led by the complainant contrary to the above said report or that how the report of Board is wrong. In view of this, it cannot be said that there was any negligence on the part of the respondents while treating the complainant. No case for interference is made out.

13.    Hence, the appeal is dismissed. 

 

Announced: 10.05.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

CL