Haryana

StateCommission

A/724/2014

Sandeep - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Manoj Soni - Opp.Party(s)

25 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      724 of 2014

Date of Institution:      14.08.2014

Date of Decision :       25.04.2016

 

Sandeep s/o Sh. Uday Singh, Resident of Village Mahjad, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar.

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.      Dr. Manoj Soni, M.S. (General Surgeon), presently at CMC Hospital, Hisar.

2.      Dr. Arun Jindal, Urologist, presently at V.K. Neurocare Hospital, Tosham Road, Hisar.

3.      CMC Hospital, Delhi Road, Hisar through its Director.

4.      United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, Branch Office, SCO No.152-153, above Syndicate Bank, Red Square Market, Hisar (insurer of opposite party No.1).

5.      United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, Branch Office, SCO No.152-153, above Syndicate bank, Red Square Market, Hisar (insurer of opposite party No.1).

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

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

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               None for appellant.

Sh. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Shri Jitender Saini, Advocate for respondent No.2.

None for respondent No.3.

Shri Sat Pal Dhamija, Advocate for respondents No.4 & 5.

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal of un-successful complainant is against the order dated July 8^th, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby Consumer Complaint No.86 of 2011 filed by Sandeep-complainant/appellant, was dismissed.

2.      Sandeep-complainant/appellant, filed complaint stating that on June 4^th, 2010 he suffered abdominal pain with urine problem and vomiting. He visited Central Medical Centre (C.M.C.), Hisar. On being checked up by Dr. Manoj Soni-respondent No.1, he was diagnosed a patient of Left PUJ Obstruction after going through the ultrasonography, Intravenous Pylography (IVP). He was advised for Pyleoplasty and was admitted in the said hospital on June 4^th, 2010. On 5^th June, 2010, Dr. Arun Jindal-respondent No.2, suggested the operation/Pyleoplasty and the same was done. He was discharged on 9^th June, 2010.

3.      It was further stated that the problem of the appellant was not cured and after one week he again suffered abdominal pain and vomiting. The appellant consulted the respondent No1. On 10^th June, 2010, DJ Stent was removed prematurely without going for I.V.P. to see the potency of stent and urine routine to rule out urinary tract infection. Still the problem persisted even after removing the DJ stent. Again the DJ stent was implanted on 8^th July, 2010.

4.      On 31^st August, 2010 the appellant visited Aastha Hospital and consulted Dr. Vivek Mehta, who disclosed that the DJ Stent operation was not done properly and suggested Endopyleotomy to get the same done either from Delhi, Chandigarh or Jaipur.

5.      The appellant visited Sawai Mann Singh Hospital, Jaipur where Dr. K.K. Sharma, advised the appellant Ureterocalycostomy with DJ stenting for which the appellant was operated and discharged on 03.11.2010. On 6.12.2010 the DJ stent was removed. Alleging it a case of medical negligence and deficiency in service, the appellant filed complaint.

6.      The respondents/opposite parties contested complaint. The respondent No.1 in his separate reply raised several preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the complaint etc. On merits, it was stated that the respondent is a qualified doctor having qualifications of MBBS, M.S. (General Surgery), having vast experience in General Surgery. The appellant had come to the hospital complaining Retention of Urine, vomiting and pain in abdomen. The appellant had told that treatment had also been taken from many local doctors but all in vain. After examination, it was found a case of obstruction of Left PUJ. The appellant was advised for Pyeloplasty by Dr. Arun Jindal, of which he was even told the consequences. Repair of renal pelvis by surgery was done on 5^th June, 1010 by Dr. Arun Jindal. Thus the operation was done very carefully. The appellant was discharged on 9^th June, 2010 in comfortable and satisfactory conditions. Denying the allegations of the complainant, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

7.      Dr. Arun Jindal-Opposite Party/respondent No.2, in his separate reply admitted that the appellant was operated by him (Dr.Arun Jindal). The respondent No.2 was a visiting doctor of respondent No.3 –CMC Hospital. He is a qualified surgeon (M.S.) followed by M.Ch. (Urology). The operation was conducted efficiently and the appellant was discharged on 9^th June, 2010. The allegations of the appellant were denied.

8.      Opposite Party/respondent No.3, in its reply denied the allegations of the complainant as per the averments made in the replies of respondents No.1 and 2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.      After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.

10.    It is not disputed that Pyeloplasty operation of the appellant was conducted on 5^th June, 2010 by the respondent No.2. After operation, the appellant was discharged on 9^th June, 2010 in satisfactory condition. It is also not in dispute that the DJ stent was removed on 10^th June, 2010 because the appellant/patient was not tolerating the difficulty of passing urine. However, it was again implanted on 8^th July, 2010 and the same was removed after 48 days. The appellant alleged it a case of medical negligence.

11.    The medical negligence has been exhaustively discussed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments viz. Dr. Laxman B. Joshi v. Dr. Trimbak Bapu Godbole & Anr, AIR 1969 SC 128; Kusum Sharma and others v. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre and others, I(2010) CPJ 29 (SC); Martin F.D.’Souza v. Mohd. Ishfaq, 1(2009) CPJ 32 (SC).

12.    In Dr. Laxman B. Joshi’s case (Supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

“The duties which a doctor owes to his patient are clear. A person who holds himself out ready to give medical advice and treatment impliedly undertakes that he is possessed of skill and knowledge for the purpose. Such a person when consulted by a patient owes him certain duties, viz., a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case, a duty of care in deciding what treatment to give or a duty of care in the administration of that treatment. A breach of any of those, duties gives a right of action for negligence to, the patient. The practitioner must bring to his task 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 require: (cf.Halsbury’s Laws of England 3^rd ed. Vol.26 p.17).”  

13.    In the case in hand, the Dr. Arun Jindal-respondent No.2, is a qualified surgeon and operation was conducted efficiently. There is no evidence to show that there was any deviation from his ‘duty of care’. A perusal of the record pertaining to the treatment of the appellant/patient, available on the file shows that the treatment was as per expected norms. So, there was no illegality in the order of the District Forum in dismissing the complaint.

14.    Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

 

Announced 25.04.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL