The case of the complainant in a nutshell is that complainant was suffering from Post Meno Pose bleeding per vagina and was under treatment with the Op/doctor. Op suggested for surgical operation of Hysterectomy . As a result, complainant was admitted in Medicare nursing home at Chinsurah, 11.5.2014 and released on 18.5.2015. The petitioner followed the advice of the oP/doctor. After operation urine was coming out . Her condition was deteriorated day by day. The OP did not advise the complainant to change the catheter on regular interval. The petitioner was again admitted on 12.6.2014 for blooder drilling and was released on 14.6.2014. The catheter was not taken of but new catheter was put in the petitioner. She was told for review after another month. Even was not bibtic but blood sugar increased. The patient was referred to Dr.Subhas Hazra , Urologist. The complainant attended Dr. Hazra on 16.7.2014. It was also the case of the complainant that it was the first time demonstrated the occurrence of VBF during hysterectomy . The petitioner again went to the chamber of Dr. Hazra on 27.7.2014. Petitioner again was admitted in the Immambara hospital on 29.4.2014 under the OP/doctor and was released on 3.8.2014. But no treatment of VVF was done. Complainant consulted with Dr.M.Mukherjee of Appollo hospital . She had further undergone all blood test and pathological test. Problem was diagnosed as VVA. The injury was caused by careless operation Hysterectomy. The petitioner was admitted under Dr.M.Mukherjee of Appollo for repair of VVF. She was operated on 1.9.2014 and discharged 5.9.2014. Ultimately leakage of urine was checked. The petitioner has to incur expenditure of Rs.5.0 lacs for post hysterectomy treatment. In this way the petitioner back to normal life for treatment by Dr. M.Mukherjee. Hence, the petitioner filed this case claiming compensation embodied in the petition of complaint.
Op/doctor contested the case by filing written version denying inter alia all material allegations. The doctor is working in West Bengal Health service for 30 years and he has been working as a specialist for last 20 years. The doctor treated this complainant for her post meno poser bleeding. She was hypothyroid . She was suffering from endow material polis as there was persistent post meno postal bleeding , so operation of hysterectomy was advised. Total hysterectomy was advised . Hysterectomy operation was done on 12.5.2014. During operation it was found that urinary blooder was intimately adherent to uterus. The situation required a very difficult dissection to make the uterus free from blooder wall which is an essential step for the said operation. All the difficulties have been written in the discharge certificate. But the same has not been filed by the complainant. The Op has filed the copy of discharge certificate Annexure A. It is also case of the Op that there was no dribbling of urine per vagina during firs ..three weeks. Even after clamping of catheter during blooder drill. Leakage point was so small that it could not be seen by naked eye. Even Dr. Hazra was not detected the leakage by clinical examination. It is also stated by the doctor that the cauterization was done as per standard medical advice of conservative treatment and there is probability of repairing the leakage point by conservative treatment. Dr. has filed copy of literature Annexure D. After that the patient developed high sugar and urinary tract infection and was admitted in Imambara Hospital and this Op told the complainant when the complainant again took admission in the Imambara Sadar hospital that second operation would have been necessary and the same may be arranged by this Op and R.G.Kar Medical College and Hospital but the complainant did not turn up vide (para K of WV). It is also case of the oP that operation was done in good faith to cure the Post Menopausal bleeding and the same was cured also. The complication of VVF is a complication of abdominal hysterectomy and is completely treatable and the treatment of complication was done is step by step according to standard medical practice. Accordingly, the occurrence of complication which have been allege by the complainant is a general problem and cannot be equated with medical negligence. It is also canvassed by the doctor that to ascertain the position , opinion of experience Gynecologist was necessary or the doctor who subsequently treated the present complainant was necessary to reach conclusion about negligence. Accordingly, the act of the op does not constitute any negligence and the complainant’s allegation should be rejected.
Complainant filed Copy of Dr.T.K.R.Unnithan –vs- Smt. Sussamma Samuel, on 15th November, 2008. Copy of prescription issued by Dr. S.Pathak , copy of certificate by Medicare nursing Home. Complainant also filed Evidence in chief and Written Notes of argument. Op on the other filed Annexure A, Discharge certificate dated 18.5.2014 by Op doctor. Annexure B Text book reference, Annexure C Consent letter dated 11.5.2014, Annexure D Time of repair after operation of hysterectomy and to relieve from VVF and surgical technique of VVF and approach for VVF . Op also filed Evidence in chief and Written Notes of argument.
POINTS FOR DECISION :
1)Whether the complainant is a consumer ?
2)Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the oP ?
3)Whether the complainant/petitioner is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
All the points are taken together for easiness of discussion.
It is admitted fact that the patient was treated by the doctor op no.1 . The complainant did not file the discharge summary. It appears from the discharge summary that the patient was admitted on 11.5.2014, date of discharge on 18.5.2014, advice on discharge shows “blooder was strongly adherent with service and was difficult for dissection. In advice , Doctor advised continuous catheter drainage , three weeks. In the evidence in chief complainant suppressed the advice of doctor and did not file the discharge certificate. The complainant in this case has written vividly regarding the Fistula created by the doctor during the hysterectomy operation and later that fistula has been repaired by operation in Apollo hospital, Kolkata . We have gone through the Discharge summary and total observation . The Discharge certificate shows , Final Diagnosis VVF )Vesico Vaginal Fistula_ Post Hysterectomy cystoscopy with left ureteric catheterization & Vesico vaginal fistula repair under spinal Anesthesia on 1.9.14, Reasons for admission (Chief complaints) : Admitted for evaluation and management. SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS : Mrs. Kalpana Mitra, 54 years old post hysterectomy (total abdominal hysterectomy & bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy) with Vesicovaginal fistula , was admitted for surgical management. History of Present illness : Leakage of urnine P/V after one month of hysterectomy following catheter removal which was kept in situ for one month. One examination VVF detected on left angle of vault and admitted for evaluation and management. The Op treated the patient since inception of the treatment and before operation . Op has observed all surgical parameters like Blood test, X-ray and other relevant essentials for preparation of operation. The Op has also referred the patient to Urologist Dr.S. Hazra and Op also consulted the matter with Dr. Subhas Hazra. In discharge summary patient was advised to review after three weeks . The doctor in his statement Written version and on oath stated that he told the patient to wait at least three months for complete cure. Because it is general practice that in same place the second operation shall be done after some interval. But the complainant did not approach with her alleged VVF with the first doctor and later she went to Apollo , who made repairing the fistula i.e. Vesico Vaginal Fistula , a little hole in the vagina through which the urine was coming out as the urine blooder was strongly adherent with service as per discharge summary of the op. So, due to strongly adherent of urine blooder with service there is every possibility of being injured at the time of operation and it is very general, as per Annexure B and Annexure D, Text Book reference.
So after going through the preponderance of probability and nature of the act which has been performed by the oP/doctor has been done with due care and attention as per his capacity and experience. He has also adopted sufficient measurement and step to cure the patient at the time of making operation. We have gone through the interrogatories filed by the oP along with Written arguments. The doctor stated Post operative difficulties cannot be anticipated in each and every case . It varies widely from patient to patient. The decision of operation was taken to treat the patient from bleeding and accordingly operation was done. In this case also no opinion of a Senior Gynecologist have been invited by the complainant. L
Ld. Advocate of Both sides advanced laborious argument and discussed the facts of the case of their own own favour
Accordingly, after going through the material on record , oral evidence, documentary evidence, discharge summary we are of opinion that the complainant fails to prove the case of negligence and deficiency in service of OP/doctor.
Accordingly, the case fails. Hence it is –
Ordered
That the CC no. 162 of 2015 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No order as to cost.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.
