Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/96

Ashok Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Kamlesh Garg - Opp.Party(s)

Mandeep Chanana

24 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

 

 C. C. No. :                 96 of 2019

 Date of Institution:     05.04.2019

 Date of Decision :      24.07.2023

 

Ashok Kumar aged about 33 years son of Ram Karan resident of Kacha Thande Wala Road, Guru Nanakpura Basti, Gali No.3, Sri Muktsar Sahib, now resident of Nehru Basti, Ward No.8, Mandi Bari Wala, Tehsil and District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Dr Kamlesh Garg, Kumar Hospital & Ultra Sound Scan/Kumar Divine Hospital, Fauji Road, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.
2. Dr Sandeep Singh Sandhu, Sandhu Hospital & Advance Surgical, Maternity and Trauma Centre, Near Bus Stand, Sri Muktsar Sahib.
3. Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Faridkot.

.....Opposite Parties

 

4. Dr Dinesh Gupta, Medicine, Daya Nand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana.

....Proforma Party

 

‘cc no.-96 of 2019’

5. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd 4E/14, Azad Bhawan Jhandelwalan Extension, New Delhi-110005 (Insurer of OP-1)
6. National Insurance Co. Ltd 3 Middleton Street Post Box No. 9229, Kolkata Branch Office at Sri Muktsar Sahib ( Insurer of OP-2).

.....Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(Now, Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)

 

Quorum: Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member,

       Sh Vishav Kant Garg, Member.

 

Present: Sh Mandeep Channana, Adv. Ld Counsel for Complainant,

              Sh Atul Gupta, Adv.  Ld Counsel for OP-1,

              Sh Ashu Mittal, Adv.  Ld Counsel for OP-2,

              Sh Manmohan Singh, Adv.  Ld Counsel for OP-4,

              Sh Vinod Monga, Adv. Ld Counsel for OP-5,

              Sh Ashok Monga, Adv. Ld Counsel for OP-6,

             OP-3 Exparte,

ORDER

(Param Pal Kaur,  Member)

                                       Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to pay  Rs.19,50,000/-as compensation on

‘cc no.-96 of 2019’

account of medical negligence and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.20,000/- as  litigation expenses.

2                                     Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that wife of complainant was in family way and she was under regular treatment with OP-1 hospital. On instructions of OP-1, she got conducted all tests on 16.09.2017 from City Computerized Laboratory, Kotkapura which is in hospital and OP-1 got deposited Rs.40,000/-from complainant. She was taken to operation theatre which was on first floor, but there was no lift or ramp and even stretcher was also not provided to her and she had to go upstairs through stairs. On 17.09.2017, she gave birth to a child through caesarean and thereafter, she was taken out of operation theatre, she was feeling severe pain and was in semi conscious condition. Her condition was not good and her abdomen started enlarging and urine was not passing. On 18.09.2017, complainant told about the condition of his wife to OP-1, who said that she is making hue and cry without any reason, she is psycho and inserted two injections, but no fruitful result came and then, doctor transfused 4 units of blood to his wife, but still her condition did not

‘cc no.-96 of 2019’

improve and then OP-1 got admitted his wife into hospital of OP-2 where she was treated by Dr Sandeep Singh Sandhu/OP-2, Dr Raminderjit Kaur Sandhu and Dr. Harsimran Sidhu, but again there was no improvement. Complainant spent about Rs. 2,50,000/-in OP-2 hospital and then, OP-2 referred his wife to D.M.C., Ludhiana. On 28.09.2017, she was admitted in D.M.C. Ludhiana and he spent about Rs,5,50,000/-, but she did not get any relief. At DMC, complainant came to know that while conducting caesarean of his wife, her urinary bladder  was damaged due to cut by OP-1, but neither OP-1 nor OP-2 disclosed this fact to complainant. His wife remained admitted there till 16.10.2017 and doctors there told that there was no use of keeping his wife in hospital and ultimately, she was discharged on 16.10.2017, but while discharging, she expired in the way to home. It is alleged that both OP-1 and OP-2 neither gave any receipt for amount received from complainant nor gave any report regarding treatment of his wife to him and he procured the report with the help of Police. Complainant sent a complaint regarding all this to Chief Medical Officer, Faridkot on 06.03.2019 and to SSP, Faridkot but  till date no action is taken on OPs

‘cc no.-96 of 2019’

nor any report was called from doctor. Further averred that while conducting operation of his wife, no pre anaesthesia check up or premedication tests were conducted and she was unlawfully declared psycho by OP. All this happened due to negligence on the part of OP-1 and OP-2 that amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. Complainant has sought compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him on account of improper treatment given by them and Rs.20,000/-as cost of litigation.  Hence, the present complaint.

3                              The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 09.04.2019, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                   On receipt of the notice, the opposite party no. 1 filed wherein it has denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless, frivolous and is unsustainable in the eyes of law and it has been filed only to defame the answering OP. It is

‘cc no.-96 of 2019’

further averred that answering OP has not committed any negligence and no cause of action arises against the same. Complaint filed by complainant is false, fabricated and is filed only to extract illegal sum of money from answering OP. It is further averred that answering OP is a well qualified and a reputed doctor holding 30 years of experience of long standing successful medical practice and has done thousands of caesareans. However, it is admitted that Anita Rani wife of complainant was admitted in their hospital on 16.09.2014 at 7.00 p.m. with 8.5 months pregnancy. She already had one caesarean and that was also done by OP-1 in March, 2011. It is further averred that on 17.09.2017 at 5.00 a.am. patient had leaking her vagina and decreased foetal heart rate. Caesarean section was done prudently with due care. Bladder was adherent, it was separated by fine dissection and abdomen was closed after ensuring full homeostasis. Urine was clear without any tinge of blood. It is averred that every precaution was taken during operation.  Ld counsel for OP averred that before operation, patient told answering OP that she wanted a female child and does not want any male child as her brother beats her mother, but a male child was

‘cc no.-96 of 2019’

born and after 2-3 hours of operation, patient became upset, aggressive and she was trying to get up time and again. Her attendants pressed her from arms, legs and abdomen. By the time, sedative had its effect and thereafter, she remained normal and her vital parameters remained stable. Urine output was 700 ml and it was clear. Her tissues were very soft and catheter was put in. On 18.09.2017 in the morning, her vitals were normal but some distension was noted in abdomen. She was kept under strict observation and by 1.00 pm, distension increased by 1 cm and it was not obvious distension. Thoug vitals were normal, but ultrasound showed some fluid in abdomen. It is averred that due to her aggressive behaviour, intra-abdominal bleed was suspected and then, two units of blood were transfused over next 6 hours and re-exploration was planned in consultation with Dr Sandeep Sandhu in his hospital at Muktsar. Patient was shifted to his hospital with consent of attendants and Dr Sandhu was requested to be ready before arrival of patient. Re-exploration was done under Spinal anaesthesia on 18.09.2017. Small injury was noted in the urinary bladder and it was repaired. It is asserted that before, during and after the operation, she

‘cc no.-96 of 2019’

remained stable and her vitals were well maintained and patient was shifted to recovery room. It is stated that injury to the bladder might have occurred due to aggressive behaviour of patient. It is known complication in subsequent caesareans. The perforation of bladder was detected with great care and was repaired diligently. Bladder injury is never a fatal complication and it never causes pain. Urine is sterile and does not cause infection. It is further stated that it is a well documented complication in medical literature and can occur anywhere in the best institutes of the world, this complication is not negligence. It was diagnosed immediately and referred to Dr Sandhu, who repaired the bladder injury. On the date of referral from Kumar Hospital i.e 18.09.2017, patient was afebrile. On 3^rd post operative day in Sandhu Hospital, Dr Sandhu told OP-1 that patient is not able to maintain oxygenation properly and patient was given oxygen by C-pap. Dr Sandhu was immediately cautioned that knowing the exact cause low oxygen patient may kindly be referred to DMC, Ludhiana and this problem was not related to surgery. Dr Sandhu kept the patient for 7 days more and then, referred her to DMC, Ludhiana where cause of

‘cc no.-96 of 2019’

low oxygen was detected to be post partum cardiomyopathy which is a heart problem and can occur to any pregnant patient any time in 3^rd to 6 months after delivery. It is a fatal complication and it has nothing to do with the surgery. Moreover, Civil Surgeon, Faridkot also did not take any action because there was no negligence on the part of answering OP. All the other allegations and the allegation with regard to relief sought too are denied being wrong and incorrect and it is reiterated that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of answering OP. Prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs is made.

5                                 In reply, OP-2 averred that complaint against answering OP is not maintainable as there is no negligence on their part in treating the patient Anita Rani. Complainant has concealed the material facts from this Commission and has filed the present complaint only to harass, defame and to extort money from them. However, on merits, OP-2 averred that patient was admitted in their hospital on 18.09.2017 in emergency as a case of post LSCS with abdominal distension with suspected case of hemoperitoneum with 3 unit blood transfusion. Exploratory laparatomy was done and 2-3 litres

‘cc no.-96 of 2019’

of urine drained from abdomen and urinary bladder. Urinary bladder was immediately repaired and patient was shifted to ICU where she was regularly checked and her condition improved. Tracheostomy was done after explaining to complainant and her family and she was referred to Daya Nand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana for further management as patient was not getting off ventilator support. During stay of patient in their hospital, her vitals were monitored regularly and her condition was improving gradually. Answering OP performed his duty with due care  and he did his best efforts that were medically possible and necessary. Ruptured urinary bladder of patient was repaired taking the case in emergency and thereafter, patient survived for about one month and there was no defect in the repair of urinary bladder and urine used to pass properly. Patient remained admitted in DMC, Ludhiana from 28.09.2017 to 16.10.2017 and no defect of any kind was reported by said hospital in treatment given by OP-2. All the other allegations and the allegation with regard to relief sought too are denied being incorrect and wrong and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.   

‘cc no.-96 of 2019’

6                                          In response to notice issued by this Commission, OP-3 sent letter dated 21.05.2019 wherein revealed that as per guidelines, every case of maternal death should be scrutinized by a four member committee consisting of Assistant Civil Surgeon, 2 Gynaecologists one each from Medical College, Faridkot and Civil Hospital, Faridkot and a doctor from Department of Forensic Medicine, Medical College, Faridkot. Above said committee has been formed and on receiving the report therefrom, it would be submitted in the Commission, but thereafter, nobody appeared in this Commission on behalf of OP-3 either in person or through counsel and therefore, vide order dated 10.06.2019, OP-3 was proceeded against exparte.

7                                   OP-4 filed reply taking preliminary objections that OP-4 has been impleaded as proforma party. No cause of action arises against answering OP and complainant has clearly stated that death of his wife occurred due to negligent act of OP-1 and OP-2. However, on merits, OP-4 submitted that patient was admitted in DMC & Hospital on 28.09.2017 as a case of Hypothyroidism with post Lower Segment Caesarean Section with post laparotomy  with urinary

‘cc no.-96 of 2019’

bladder rupture with post partum Cardiomyopathy with EF 38% with global hypokinesia of left ventricle with sepsis with Acute Kidney Injury with shock with severe metabolic acidosis. Patient presented as a case of post LSCS done on 17.09.2017 from outside following which she had developed abdominal distension and was operated outside in another hospital where she developed breathlessness and was intubated on 21.09.2017. Tracheostomy was done in same hospital on 28.09.2017 due to difficult weaning and was then brought to DMC, Ludhiana where she was managed with broad spectrum i/v antibiotics and mechanical ventilation. Patient was then shifted to ICU and necessary opinion from departments of Obst., Gynae and surgery alongwith endocrinology opinion in view of hypothyroidism was taken. She was managed on lines of  sepsis but due to fall in blood pressure, she was started on inotropic support. Due to abnormal movements, neurological consultation was taken. Antibiotics were stepped up. As urine output was declining constantly, therefore, Sustained Low Efficiency Dialysis was done on 5.10.2017. Patient had fluctuating course in terms of consciousness and response to

‘cc no.-96 of 2019’

commands and therefore, cross consultation was also taken from Dr Sandeep Puri. In view of bladder rupture, bladder repair was planned once the patient was stabilized. Prognosis and serious condition of patient was explained to attendants. Consultation about Cardiac Anaesthesia was taken they were explained the need for Continual Renal Replacement Therapy that they refused. On 16.10.2017 attendants were told the need for hospital stay but they refused further treatment for patient and got discharged her against medical advice. It is further averred that answering OP is merely proforma party. Complainant has neither levelled any allegations against them nor has sought any claim from them. There is no deficiency in service in rendering treatment to the wife of complainant by answering OP and has prayed for dismissal of complaint.

8                                 OP-5 filed written statement wherein asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part as there is no privity of contract between complainant and answering OP. It is further averred that OP-1 purchased policy in question from then valid from 20.05.2017 to 19.05.2018 for risk of Rs. 10 lakhs with regards to

‘cc no.-96 of 2019’

Professional Risk Act and if OP-1 is held liable for negligence and is saddled with liability, then, OP-1 after paying the claim to complainant is to lodge the reimbursement of claim covered under policy in question and then, answering OP is to consider the claim, but OP-5 cannot be sued directly by complainant because complainant is not their consumer. However, on merits, OP-5 has denied all the allegations being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

9                                       OP-6 filed written statement wherein took preliminary objections that complaint against answering OP is without any cause of action. It involves complicated questions of law and facts requiring lengthy evidence, that cannot be conducted in the summary procedure of Consumer Protection Act and therefore matter is required to be referred to Civil Court. Complainant has concealed the material facts and filed the present complaint only to extract money from them. No justification is given by complainant to prove the fact that how he reached to the alleged amount of Rs.19,50,000/-. It is further alleged that complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties as Dr

‘cc no.-96 of 2019’

Raminder Kaur Sandhu and Dr. Harsimran Sandhu have not been made party to present complaint. It is alleged that no intimation regarding alleged health problem or claim was ever given to answering OP by complainant or OP-2 thereby preventing them to gather first hand information regarding health of complainant. It is a breach of terms and conditions of the policy. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 as OP-2 gave best treatment as per standard norms approved by WHO guidelines. Complaint is filed with ulterior motive to extract money from them. Moreover, OP-2 was not insured with answering OP at the relevant time and thus, no liability attaches to answering OP. No proper particulars of insurance have been produced on record either by complainant or other OPs. There are several regional officers and it is not possible for them to locate insurance particulars without supplying the same by insured and therefore, at this stage insurance claim is denied. It is further averred that  present complaint is premature because as per terms and conditions of the policy, complaint can be filed only against the doctor insured. Answering OP is only an indemnifier and that also on fulfilment of

‘cc no.-96 of 2019’

certain terms and conditions by the insured and answering OP is liable only if insured doctor is held liable. There is no relationship between complainant and answering OP as there is no privy of contract between them. However, on merits, OP-6 has denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and reiterated the same pleadings as taken in preliminary objections and further asserted that there is no deficiency in service on behalf of OP-6 and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

10                                               Parties were given proper opportunities to prove their respective case. Ld counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-W1/A, and documents Ex C-1 to C-12 and then, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

11                                             In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Ld Counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Dr. Kamlesh Garg Ex OP-1/1 and documents Ex OP-1/2 to Ex OP-1/5 and then, closed the same on behalf of OP-1. Ld Counsel for OP-2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Dr Sandeep Singh Sandhu Ex OP-2/1,

‘cc no.-96 of 2019’

document Ex OP-2/2 to Ex OP-2/3 and then, closed the same on behalf of OP-2. Ld Counsel for OP-4 tendered in evidence affidavit of Dr Dinesh Gupta as Ex OP-4/A and case summary Ex OP-4/1 and then, closed the same on behalf of OP-4. Ld counsel for OP-5 tendered in evidence affidavit of Vikas Kataria Divisional Manager, OIC, Ferozepur as Ex OP-5/1 and closed the evidence. Ld Counsel for OP-6 tendered in evidence affidavit of Satish Chander Goyal, Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company, Moga Ex C-6/1 and document Ex C-6/2 and then also closed the same on behalf of OP-6                      

  12                     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as opposite parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents available on the file.

13                                  It is observed that grievance of the complainant is that due to negligence on the part of OP-1 and OP-2, his wife lost life. Prayer for granting justice is made. On the contrary, Ld Counsel for OP-1 and 2 pleaded that there is no negligence on the part of the OPs as they have provided the best possible treatment to the wife

‘cc no.-96 of 2019’

of complainant. Their Counsel argued that the complainant has not proved his case by any expert medical evidence and by mere allegations of medical negligence it cannot be proved. To support the version, ld counsel for OP-1 put reliance on the citation Usashi Mukherjee & anr Vs Coal India Ltd. And ors. 2010 (1) Consumer Law Today,136, in a case of Medical Negligence, it was observed by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi that “medical negligence-Burden of proof- the onus to prove medical negligence lies largely on the claimant - the onus can be discharged by leading cogent evidence - a mere averment in complaint which is denied by the other side cannot be said to be evidence by which case of complainant can be said to be proved - it is the obligation of the complainant to provide the facta probanda as well as the facts probantia.” Ld. Counsel for the OPs argued that it was well informed to the complainant regarding the complication involved and about her condition. In his support he put reliance on the citation 2010 (4) Consumer Law Today, 126 titled as Vinay Kumar and others Vs Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh and another whereas the Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

 

‘cc no.-96 of 2019’

Union Territory, Chandigarh, held that “Medical service-Medical negligence alleged-Surgery-Laparoscopic method-For removal of gallbladder which was having stones-there is consent letter signed by complainant no.1 giving his consent for surgery under his own risk and willingness-No evidence on record that treating doctor was no qualified to treat the patient or he did not follow the line of treatment as per medical norms or he did not take proper post operative care of the patient-Complainants have not been able to produce any evidence or medical opinion to prove their contention that the Pancreas of the deceased has been negligently cut or damaged by the treating doctors and that eventually caused Pancreatitis resulting in the death of the patient or any other medical negligence on the part of OPs-Complaint liable to be dismissed.” As such there is no negligence and carelessness on the part of the OPs. The Counsel for the complainant miserably failed to prove his case. There is no negligence on the part of the OPs and complainant file the present complaint only to extract money from the OPs and prayed that the present complaint may be dismissed with cost.

‘cc no.-96 of 2019’

14                                   OPs further argued that complainant has levelled false and baseless allegations on OPs. He put reliance on the citation 2014(3)Consumer Law Today, 9  titled as Vijay Dutt Vs Dr.R.D. Nagpal & others whereas Our Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi observed that “Consumer Protection Act, 1986,Section 2(1)(g)-Medical Negligence -doctors cannot give a warranty of the perfection of their skill or a guarantee of cure and if the doctor has adopted the rightcourse of treatment and if he is skilled and has worked with a method and manner best suited to the patient, he cannot be blamed for negligence if the patient is not totally cured”. He also put reliance in citation 2010 (2) Consumer Law Today, 282 (S.C) titled Kusum Sharma & ors Vs Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre & Ors whereas Our Hon’ble Apex Court laid down Basic principles regarding medical negligence which are reproduced as under:-

                             “On scrutiny of the leading cases of medical negligence both in our country and other countries especially United Kingdom, some basic principles emerge in dealing with the cases of medical negligence. While deciding whether the medical professional

‘cc no.-96 of 2019’

is guilty of medical negligence following well known principles must be kept in view:-

I.       Negligence is the breach of a duty exercised by omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.

II.      Negligence is an essential ingredient of the offence. The negligence to be established by the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not the negligence merely based upon an error of judgment.

III.    The medical professional is expected to bring a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law requires.

IV.     A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field.

 

‘cc no.-96 of 2019’

V.    In the realm of diagnosis and treatment there is scope for genuine difference of opinion and one professional doctor is clearly not negligent merely because his conclusion differs from that of other professional doctor.

VI.    The medical professional is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which he honestly believes as providing greater chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances of failure. Just because a professional looking to the gravity of illness has taken higher element of risk to redeem the patient out of his/her suffering which did not yield the desired result may not amount to negligence.

VII.    Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill and competence. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession.

 

‘cc no.-96 of 2019’

VIII.    It would not be conducive to the efficiency of the medical profession if no Doctor could administer medicine without a halter round his neck.

IX.    It is our bounden duty and obligation of the civil society to ensure that the medical professionals are not unnecessary harassed or humiliated so that they can perform their professional duties without fear and apprehension.

X.   The medical practitioners at times also have to be saved from such a class of complainants who use criminal process as a tool for pressurizing the medical professionals/hospitals particularly private hospitals or clinics for extracting uncalled for compensation. Such malicious proceedings deserve to be discarded against the medical practitioners.

XI.   The medical professionals are entitled to get protection so long as they perform their duties with reasonable skill and competence and in the interest of the patients. The interest and welfare of the patients have to be paramount for the medical professionals.

 

‘cc no.-96 of 2019’

                   In para no.90 Our Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that                            ‘As long as the doctors have performed their duties and exercised an ordinary degree of professional skill and competence, they cannot be held guilty of medical negligence. It is imperative that the doctors must be able to perform their professional duties with free mind’.

15                                    During the course of arguments, it is also brought before the Commission that complainant wanted to have female child as her brother used to beat her mother, but after the birth of male child, behaviour of complainant became aggressive and it was difficult to control her. Just after 2-3 hours of operation, she tried to get up and was controlled by her attendants by pressing her from arms, legs and abdomen. It took about three hours to control her and due to sedatives, she became normal thereafter. Next day, her vital parameters remained stable, but intra abdominal bleed was suspected due to her aggressive behaviour of previous day. She was shifted to the hospital of OP-2 where on re-exploration, small injury was noted in the urinary bladder, which was duly repaired and during her stay in the hospital of OP-2, her vitals were monitored regularly and her condition improved

‘cc no.-96 of 2019’

regularly but as patient was not getting off ventilator support, therefore, she was referred to higher centre DMC, Ludhiana for further management. Ruptured urinary bladder of patient was repaired by OP-2 with due diligence and after that she survived for about one month. There was no defect in the repair of urinary bladder and treatment was done with full care.

16                                       Opinion given  by Medical Board consisting the expert doctors is reproduced hereunder as

  “After going through the original treatment report of Kumar Hospital, Kotkapura, Photocopy of Sandhu Hospital, Muktsar and DMC, Ludhiana in this case , we are of the opinion that due to previous operation /surgeries  (in this case previous caesarean operation) adhesions of the urinary bladder are well known complication and cut on adherent urinary bladder while separation even by fine dissection during current caesarean delivery is a well known complication in such cases, even in the hands of adequately qualified and experienced Obstetricians. Patient was shifted to the higher centre Mukatsar with facilities of laparoscopic surgery suspecting intra abdominal bleed leading to severe anaemia. Also two units of blood were transfused to built up the patient and correct the anaemia. An emergency laprotomy was done at Sandhu Hospital, Mukatsar, where the tear in the bladder was detected and corrected. As per record of Sandhu Hospital, Mukatsar also very appropriate treatment was given to the patient and when needed, patient was also put on life support (ventilator support). She  was also referred to the DMC, Ludhiana, a tertiary care Hospital but her condition deteriorated and she succumbed to death. As such, the medical board is of the opinion that there is no concrete evidence suggestive of deficiency in served on the part of Dr Kamlesh Garg of Kumar Hospital, Kotkapura’’.

17                               Moreover, careful perusal of pages 3 and 4 of Ex OP-1/5 which is report given by Civil Surgeon, Faridkot clearly reveals the fact that procedure adopted by concerned doctors in treating the deceased patient was appropriate and treatment given to  patient was proper and it was as per standard terms and scientific guidelines issued for treating such patients. Operation was done skilfully and there is no negligence in performing operation by OP-1. In this case in the absence of any specific evidence, it is not possible for us to say that it was due to surgical trauma. No negligence is established on the part of operating doctors and complainant has failed to discharge the burden of negligence of OPs.

‘cc no.-96 of 2019’

 18                                    Even Discharge summary produced by OP-4 Ex OP-4/1, reveals the fact that OP-4 also gave best possible treatment to patient and attendants of patient were explained the prognosis and seriousness of the condition of the patient. Consultation from Cardiac Anaesthesia Consultant Dr Vivek was taken and they were explained the need for Continuous Rental Replacement Therapy (CRRT) which was refused by the attendants. On 16.10.2017, despite being explained the need for hospital stay, attendants refused further treatment and patient was discharged against medical advice.

19                                      It is observed that condition of complainant could have been improved and her life could be saved, if she was given continuous treatment, but her attendants refused further treatment and got discharged her against medical advice.

20                                         We have thoroughly gone through file and evidence and pleadings put forward by respective parties and from the perusal of all documents placed on record and in view of above discussion, we come to the conclusion that due to previous caesarean

‘cc no.-96 of 2019’

operation of complainant, adhesion of the urinary bladder occurred which is a well known complication. In such cases, cut on adherent urinary bladder while separation even by fine dissection during current caesarean delivery is a well known complication, even in the hands of adequately qualified and experienced Obstetricians. There is no negligence on the part of OP-1 in conducting operation of Anita Rani and laprotomy was done at Sandhu Hospital, Mukatsar/OP-2, where the tear in the bladder was detected and corrected. OP-2 also provided appropriate treatment to the patient and when needed, patient was also put on life support (ventilator support). She was referred to the DMC, Ludhiana, but her attendants got discharged her from there at their own against the medical advice and after getting discharged from there, her condition deteriorated and she succumbed to death. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and 2 as they have given best treatment as per medical standards. They adopted appropriate procedure and during treatment no negligence is committed by them. Therefore, we are of considered opinion that present complaint is devoid of any merits and there is no deficiency in service on the part of

‘cc no.-96 of 2019’

OPs. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed. However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 24.07.2023

                                      Member                                    Member

(Vishav Kant Garg)       (Parampal Kaur)