Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
(3) Anil Kumar Singh
Member
Date of Order : 30.06.2018
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 15,00,000/- as Compensation.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 25,000/- as litigation cost.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
Complainant has asserted that he consulted Dr. Mohan Sharma ( opposite party) in clinic cum private hospital Bihta for pain in Scroteum on 27.12.2000. After examination of his testicles opposite party advised him to undergo sugery for hydrocele. Thereafter the complainant deposited required fee to opposite party for sugery which was done at about 3 PM.
It is further case of the complainant that after regaining his consesness he was given some medicines and he was permitted to go home with advise to come again for dressing after 4 days. When the pain in his testicles continued then he went to Sanjeevani Hospital, Kankarbagh, Patna then it was confirmed vide annexure – 1 that his both testies have been removed by opposite party without the consent of complainant. Thereafter the complainant protested and filed a case at Bihta P.S. case no. 47 of 2011 on 22.02.2011 U/s 269, 279 IPC but after investigation the police submitted final report stating therein as mistake of facts. The complainant has asserted that he was treated by Dr. Sharma ( opposite party) till 18.01.2011 and there was severe bleeding from Scroteum. After considering his condition he was advised some open tankan ( stitches) and thereafter the complainant did not find his testicles when bandage was removed.
It is further case of the complainant that entire medical practice of the opposite party is based on fraud because in prescription he only writes MBBS, MS(s) and his registration number is not mentioned on the prescription.
It is also case of the complainant that after operation opposite party had not provided bed ticket and other papers of the clinic and hospital. There is no facility of pathological test was provided. From annexure – 3 it is also clear that his testis could not be seen in bilateral inguinal reason.
The grievance of the complainant is that his testis was removed by opposite party illegally and when complication occurred, no treatment was done and it was due to faulty surgery.
The complainant has further asserted that he has filed a complaint before Bihar Human Rights Commissions being no. BHRC/COMP957/011 against opposite party who was directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to complainant for violation of his Human Rights.
It is the case of the complainant that the conduct of the opposite party has resulted in his deficiency for which the complainant is entitled for compensation and litigation costs.
A supplementary affidavit has been filed by the complainant praying to constitute a medical board. InPara – 3 of this supplementary affidavit it is also been admitted that at the direction of Human Rights Commissions, Patna medical board has already been done to the complainant on 06.06.2012. the copy of the medical board has been annexed as annexure – 5.
From bare perusal of annexure – 6 it appears that the opposite party has filed writ in the Hon’ble High Court being CWJC no. 13188/12 against the decision of commission dated 13.06.2012 and further proceeding in commission have been adjourned sinedie awaiting the decision of the Hon’ble High Court, Patna.
A counter affidavit (written statement) has been filed on behalf of opposite party denying the allegation of the complainant. In Para – 5 of the counter affidavit following facts has been asserted, “the fact is that the complainant Sanjay Kumar visited the clinic of opposite party on 27.12.2010, complainant pain in his Scroteum. After examination, it was found that he was suffering from Bilateral Hydrosil Skin of Scroteum was also stiff. On proper examination opposite party advised the complainant for surgery. The complainant had given written consent for operation. Thereafter in routine pathological test, it was found within normal limit for operation of Hydrosil along with scroplasty, same was accordingly done. After operation patient was shifted in ward, when opposite party visited ward at about 6 PM complainant was not there, on enquiry staff of clinic stated that complainant went his home by motorcycle with his friend. On 28.12.2010 brother of complainant came at clinic and saying that his brother is not well then opposite party advised to bring him at clinic immediately. Complainant came at clinic on 29.12.2010, on examination it was found that wound was in unhealthy condition, thereafter conservative treatment was done and advised to stay at clinic but he not stayed at clinic. He again came at clinic on 31.12.2010 for dressing then opposite party found that condition of patient was serious and one of the testicle was ruptured and B.P. of patient was also low. On treatment and after bringing the patient in some normal condition getting written consent from his relative to open the stitch and found that there was hematoma due to which gangrene had developed in testis and skin. Opposite party called the relative of Sanjay Kumar ( complainant) and told the condition of patient and advised that only remedy to cure the patient is by removal of both the testis. Accordingly as per demand of medical assistance to cure the patient operation was done and both the testis was removed only to save the life of complainant. There is no negligence found in the service of Doctor. The allegation leveled by the complainant is baseless and false.”
It have been further stated that complainant had already got two sons and he had already got family planning not to procreate further child.
It has been further stated that the complainant has filed a complaint case being no. 1123(c)11 and the learned J.M. 1st class have been pleased to dismiss the aforesaid complaint as will appear from annexure – A.
It has been further stated that there is no any complaint about treatment from any quarter. It has been also stated that the testicles were removed on 31.12.2012 when the patient came to his clinic in a serious condition with rupture testicles and developing gangrene.
A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party stating therein that on the complaint of the complainant, the Ethics Committee of Medical Council of India has made enquiry and has not find any medical negligence in the treatment of the complainant as will appear from annexure – D.
On behalf of complainant a rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed repeating the fact again and again. It has been stated that after complaint before higher officials, the Bihta P.S. case no. 47/11 has been reopened as will appear from annexure – 2. Copy of medical report constituted under the direction of the Human Rights Commission has been also filed by the complainant himself which has been made annexure – 4 of the rejoinder.
On behalf of opposite party several documents have been filed from perusal of which it appears that the opposite party was Civil Surgeon at Arwal and he was posted at regional malaria office, Patna this fact is clear from letter of Health department, Patna being no. 3/T-01-07/2015-336(3).
Both sides have filed written arguments which has been perused by us.
Heard both the parties at length.
At the time of hearing both the parties admitted that the matter involved in this case is not involved in any way in the writ application filed in the Hon’ble High Court and as such both parties requested to decide this complaint. Both parties have stated that they rely on the medical board report. Due to the aforesaid fact this case was heard at length.
It is the case of the complainant that his testies were taken out without his permission. The opposite parties have denied this allegation and asserted that he has obtained permission from the relative of the complainant and this was done with view to save the life of complainant.
From perusal of medical board report it appears that no element of negligence was found against the opposite party rather the medical board has stated that the testis cannot be sold. The Ethics Committee i.e. Enquiry Committee of Medical Council which conducted observation in its report enquiry on the complaint of the complainant has made following, “an enquiry committee consisting of Dr. K.P. Sinha, regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Bihar, Patna, Dr. Madhurendra Kishore, Joint Director Health Services, Bihar, Patna and investigation by senior S.P. Patna also did not find Dr. Lalit Mohan Sharma guilty of Medical negligence in case of alleged by Sri. Sanjay Kumar Singh.”
Hence, the aforesaid both expert agency such as Medical Board and Ethics Committee have not found any medical negligence on the part of opposite party. Even, the complaint filed against opposite party has stood dismissed by learned J.M. 1st class.
For the discussion made above we find no material to hold deficiency on the part of opposite party and as such this complaint stands dismissed but without cost.
Member Member(f) President
