Bihar

Patna

CC/304/2013

Pana Devi, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Amit

27 Feb 2018

ORDER

Present         (1)     Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                                         President

                    (2)     Smt. Karishma Mandal,

                                                                                                                                                                              Member

Date of Order : 27.02.2018

                    Nisha Nath Ojha

1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-

1. To direct the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs. 80,000/- to the complainant along with 18% interest.
2. To direct the Opposite party to pay the amount of Rs. 18,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant for inconvenience.
3. To direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant as litigation costs.

2. The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-

The complainant has asserted that she was examined by opposite party no. 1 whom she had disclosed her post medical history, drug sensitiveness etc. and thereafter he advised her to take medicines and further advised for medical checkup vide annexure – 1. After perusing the test report as advised by opposite party she took medicine and when these medicines were not effective then new medicine were prescribed. The complainant after some days again visited opposite party as she was not feeling any relief even after getting new medicines. The opposite party admitted the complainant in his private nursing home and operated the complainant. After operation, the family member of complainant were assured that the operation is successful and further assured that the complainant will be fully recovered within two weeks.

It has been further asserted that after operation the physical condition of the complainant began to detoriate and she was not feeling well. Thereafter, she was taken to Sanjeevani Hospital situated at Yogipur, Kankarbagh, Patna where Doctor Upender Prasad Singh advised the complainant for checkup she was prescribed some test and after perusing the test report etc. doctor explained the advantages and disadvantages of undergoing treatment and also advised for surgery. Thereafter she was operated by the said doctor after admitting her in the hospital and after operation a tetra of size 8”X6” was present inside cacoon which was taken out of her stomach. The aforesaid tetra was left inside the body of the complainant in the just surgery conducted by opposite party as will appear from annexure – 2.

It has been further stated by the complainant that in the report dated 31.12.2012 ( annexure – 3) it is stated that “approx 120 ml defined loculated intra obdominal collection in the peri - umbilical region towards right side is noted along with a tratct arising from the medical border of the leision umbilicus” reaching up to.

The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party has not explained the advantages and disadvantages of surgery before operation nor he took into account the drug sensitiveness, post medical history etc. of the complainant and has also prescribed Liv – 52 which is medicine of Ayurveda Stream. It is also alleged that opposite party has not followed the standard medical treatment and he has totally violated the provision of Indian medical counsel regulation 2002 as well as medical ethics leading to harassment, torture as well as financial strain of the complainant for which necessary order must be passed.

On behalf of opposite party Dr. Rajendra Prasad Singh a written statement has been filed denying the allegation of the complainant and stating there in that the present complaint is fit to be dismissed U/s 26 of the consumer protection act 1986.

It has been further stated that opposite party is B.Sc, MBBS, MS in general surgery and has got experience of 37 of major surgery in different medical college hospital including PMCH and he belong to 1970 batch.

It has been further stated that Pano Devi ( complainant) came on 13.05.2011 to the clinic cum residential complex of the opposite party on her own will with her husband and her other family members produced ultra sound report etc. which showed acute cholecystitis with obdematous gall bladder with empyema and lump. The standard protocol in the case of gall bladder disease as advised in the surgery book was adopted and the complainant was treated conservatively with IV fluids, parenteral, analgestics, antiemetic PPI and other supportive drugs from 13.05.2011 to 30.05.2011. Thereafter on finding of different investigation USG, Haemogram and fitness case of the surgery and anaesthesial she was advised to undergo open cholecystecomy and the husband of the complainant desired open operation. Thereafter, she was operated on 05.06.2011 and all the standard procedure were followed at the time of operation. The operation was successful and the specimen of the gall bladder was shown to the attendant and later on that was sent for histo pathological examination. Wound and stitches of the complainant was removed on 16.06.2011 i.e. 12^th day of the operation and the complainant was discharged with adviced of drug diet precautions to be maintained according to her diabetes and asked for follow up after 15 days. Thereafter complainant visited opposite party on 23.06.2011, 01.07.2011, 17.10.2011 with no complaint. Thereafter she got relief with the problem upto 04.05.2012 and in between she did not turned up with any complaint. On 04.05.2012 she came with complaint of injury abdomen having strain over abdomen feeling pain in the injured area but was not having any appetite or bowel problem. She was suggested USG of whole abdomen which reported some features of sub acute abdominal obstruction and otherwise normal scan of whole abdomen and did not report about any foreign body.

It is further stated in Para 24, 25, 26 of the written statement, “that after six months after her last visit dated 04.05.2012, she again visited on 06.10.2012 for complaints of heaviness and pain abdomen, feeling of swelling right side of abdomen just above the umblilicus. She had a swelling mildly tender 2”X2” in size, suspected incisional hernia. An ultrasound whole abdomen was suggested on 06.10.2012 which reported complex cystic mass in paraumilical region abutting the inner surface of anterior abdominal wall. No foreign body was reported in the USG. To confirm the diagnosis of the swelling CT scan of abdomen and FNAC was suggested, but the patient did not comply. On 16.10.2012 she had USG guided FNAC which was shown on 17.10.2012 as pyogenic inflammatory fluid. Accordingly she was advised for drug for 10 days and report. But after 17.10.2012 she did not turnup.”

“that after 6 months of last visit on 17.10.2012 sometime in middle of may 2013, the husband accompanied by some other persons came to opposite party nursing home and showed to the opposite party a piece of Photostate paper and told the opposite party that it is OT note of Sanjeevani Hospital where the patient had undergone some surgical procedure and a tetra was taken out an alleging me responsible and asked the opposite party to pay Rs. 20 Lacs as compensation otherwise to face consequences.”

“that on my persuasion he gave the complainant records of Sanjeevani Hospital from 30.10.2012 to 31.12.2012 but on examination of record of Sanjeevani Hospital she has produced only four pages of the record to the court and she had not submitted the record of six pages. The OT note itself appears to create fallacious reports.”

It appears that after perusing the relevant record this forum referred the matter to medical board, the report of which has been received in this forum and it is as follows, “Removal of Foreign Body ( Tetra) was not Photographed, Preserved for documentary proof. OT note do not mentions anything about cystic lump in Para umbilical region as described in USG report on 06.10.2012.

So it is very difficult to say that foreign body taken out (as mentioned in OT note of Sanjeevani Hospital) was inside complainant’s body and was actual cause of her morbidity.

Liv 52 is widely prescribed drugs for hepatic ailments by Allopathic Doctors.”

On behalf of complainant an evidence on affidavit has been filed repeating the same facts and several documents filed with the complaint petition have been filed as evidence asserting the same fact.

Both parties in their evidence have narrated the same facts as have been stated by them in complaint petition and written statement as well written averments. However some additional documents have been annexed in support of their contention which were also perused by us.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties in detail.

It is the case of the complainant that at the time of operation and even before operation standard medical procedure were not followed and risk during the operation was not explained to the complainant or her family members but from bare perusal of annexure – 1 attached with written statement of opposite party, it is crystal clear that before operation the husband of the complainant as well as two witnesses had signed on the risk bond from which it appears that risk at the time of operation or after operation were explained to the family of the complainant.

From bare perusal of finding of report of medical board which has been signed by five doctors it is crystal clear that medical board has not found any deficiency or violation of standard medical procedure on behalf of opposite party.

It is true that some of the documents have been filed by complainant by way of evidence on affidavit. In this evidence on affidavit a report of doctor professor U.P. Singh of Sanjeevani Hospital has been annexed from which it appears that he has assisted in the operation and recorded the operative note on annexure – 2 but it is truth that the aforesaid doctor has not come forward before this forum to support this operative note neither this material was filed with complainant earlier nor this doctor was produced before the medical board by complainant in support of his assertion.

For the discussion made above we find and hold that there is no conclusive material on the record to prove deficiency on the part of opposite party and as such this complaint petition stands dismissed but without cost.

 

                             Member                                                                              President