Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 31.01.2017
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. 5,00,000/- ( Rs. Five Lack only ) as compensation.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
It has been asserted by the complainant that there was pain and sore on her left arm for which her father consulted opposite party no. 1 i.e. Dr. Vinod Kumar on 14.12.2004. The opposite party no. 1 after examining the aforesaid sore diagnosed and decided to operate the sore of the complainant without taking consent of her father because she was minor. Her father has brought her to opposite party no. 1 for her treatment. It is further asserted that opposite party no. 1 without any diagnosis operated the same but her illness was not cured and she did not got any relief. Ultimately after laps of seven days i.e. on 21.12.2004 the opposite party no. 1 instructed the guardian of the complainant for X – Ray of the complainant and after that he advised for biopsy test of the operated part. Thereafter the complainant’s father consulted with opposite party no. 2 for biopsy test and the opposite party no. 2 after conducting the biopsy test of the operated part submitted his report and observation “ Highly Suspicious and Rhobdomysarcome”. When the complainant consulted the opposite party no. 1 with the report of opposite party no. 2 then the opposite party no. 1 opined that the complainant was suffering from cancer and refused the treatment of the complainant. After hearing the diagnosis of opposite party no. 2 the whole family of the complainant was perturbed and thereafter the complainant consulted the Doctors of Mahabir Cancer Sansthan, Patna and after consulting they advised to go to Tata Memorial Hospital.
Thereafter the complainant with her family proceeded for Bombay on 04.01.2005 and after advise of the Doctors of Tata Memorial again biopsy of aforesaid wound of the operated part of the complainant was done by the Doctors of Tata Memorial.
After biopsy report the Doctors of the Tata memorial Expressed definite opinion that there is no cancer to the complainant rather they found “ An abscess or harmatone calcification” and after simple treatment by the Doctors of Tata memorial the complainant began to feel better.
The complainant has alleged that opposite party no. 1 had diagnosed negligently and operated the complainant without consent of the complainant’s father and opposite party no. 2 without any basis gave report about the cancer which shows that opposite parties were not serious about the treatment of the complainant’s sore.
On behalf of opposite party no. 1 Dr. Vinod Kumar a written statement has been filed denying the allegation of the complainant. In Para – 12 of written statement the following facts have been asserted, “ According to the principle of surgery in any abscess if pus is found the only proper course to give effective and quick relief to the patient from pain and other ailment is to operate the abscess and to drain out pus and to administer proper antibiotic for some time as per condition of the wound. The opposite party did the same and nothing wrong was committed by him.”
The opposite party no. 1 in the same paragraph has asserted as following, “Lastly on 21.12.2004 X – Ray report of the left arm was produced before this opposite party and on examination of X – ray plate micro calcification was found by this opposite party and as such he suggested biopsy to find out the root cause for the same. Accordingly small part of muscle was taken and handed over to the complainant’s father for the purpose of biopsy with a direction to produce the biopsy report for further treatment if any. But thereafter neither the complainant nor her father ever turned up before this opposite party.”
It has been further asserted by opposite party no. 1 that after perusal of the documents annexed with complaint petition it simply reveals that opposite party no. 2 on biopsy suspected “ Rahbodomysarcome meaning thereby suspicion is not the reality. Hence it is for him to explain.” This opposite party has denied the entire allegation of the complainant.
So far opposite party no. 2 is concerned, from order sheet dated 23.06.2015 it appears that opposite party no. 2 had returned the Dusti Notice after perusing the same and hence valid tamila was declared.
It appears from the record that the entire matter was referred to medical board for opinion. The report of the medical board consisting of five Doctors is in the record. The Doctors of the medical board after examining the entire matter has expressed opinion as follows, “ it seems a case of deficiency: service medical negligence on part of Dr. Ashok Singh, opposite party no. 2.” The report is exhausting hence concluding Para has been mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs.
As there is no written statement on the part of opposite party no. 2 hence we have no option but to rely the aforementioned facts mentioned in the complainant petition, written statement of opposite party no. 1 as well as medical report. The aforesaid facts clearly disclose deficiency on the part of opposite party no. 2 for giving a report in negligent manner against the norms of medical ethics.
In the facts and circumstances we direct opposite party no. 2 namely Dr. Ashok Singh to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- ( Rs. Lack only ) to the complainant within the period of two months from the receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which opposite party no. 2 will have to pay 10% on the aforesaid amount till its final payment.
Opposite party no. 2 further directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- ( Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only ) to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation costs within the period of two months.
Accordingly this complaint stands allowed to the extent referred above.
Member President
