BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : WARANGAL
Present: Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu,
President.
Sri N.J. Mohan Rao,
Member
And
Smt. V.J. Praveena,
Member.
Monday the 26th day of May, 2008.
CONSUMER DISPUTE NO. 163/1998
Between:
Dasari Lingamma, W/o Dasari Ramulu,
Age: 29 years, Occ: Shephered,
R/o Maliyala Mandal, Mahabubabad,
Warangal District.
… Complainant
AND
1. Dr.Ch.Surya Kumari, W/o Ch.Devi Reddy,
Age: 35 yrs, Occ: Medical Practitioner, R/o Mahabubabad.
2. Dr.Ch.Devi Reddy, Age: 42 years,
Occ:Medical Practitioner, R/o Mahabubabad.
3. S.R.R. Memorial Nursing Home,
Managed by Dr.Devi Reddy, Medial Practitioner at
Mahabubabad.
… Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainant : Sri. Ch. Narsimha Rao, Advocate
Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Sri A. Venkateshwar Rao, Advocate.
This complaint coming for final hearing before this Forum, the Forum pronounced the following Order.
ORDER
Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu, President
This is a complaint filed by the complainant Dasari Lingamma against the Opposite parties under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards mental and physical agony and Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses.
The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainant are as follows:
The complainant stated that while she was grazing sheep fell down from a bolder which resulted in prolapse of vagina and with certain complaints, she approached Opposite parties for treatment and Opposite parties 1 and 2 suggested vaginal repair and she was admitted in the hospital as in-patient for 8 days and total abnormal Hysterectomy was conducted on the complainant and she was discharged. Even after she could not recovered and she consulted a Gynaecologist at Warangal and she was informed to the complainant that the total abdominal hysterectomy was done to her. Later the contention of the complainant that the above operation was unwarranted and because of the operation her husband left her and he is prepared to give divorce because she cannot give birth to child any more, then she filed the complaint before this Forum.
The Opposite parties filed the Written Version contending in brief as follows:
The opposite parties denying all the versions and they stated that surgery was unwarranted and there was negligence on the apart of the Opposite parties and the complainant has approached this Forum, these are all false and there was no signs of prolapse or injury or bleeding from the Vagina at the time of examination by Opposite party No.2 and there was no complaint regarding the feeling of fall from height and that the complainant has approached the Opposite parties with a complaint of chronic white discharge, lower abdominal pain and heavy bleeding during menstrual period. At the time of examination, she was having badly eroded cervix and signs pelvic informatory disease and the complainant was advised to under go hysterectomy which will relieve her from the above symptoms permanently. The complainant fully explained the nature and consequences of operation and she expressed her willingness for hysterectomy operation and complainant and also one of her relative by name Sathyamma signed on
the consent letter for the above said operation. The contention of the complainant was improved after the operation and at the time of discharge her condition was satisfactory. Before the above said operation the complainant was explained about the circumstances of operation and if the above said operation is conducted she cannot bare children in her life and the complainant has informed that her husband has left her for personal reasons and she has a grown up female child of 12 years and she did not have any desire to conceive any more. Then the complainant approached the Opposite parties with a complaint that she has mass and Opposite party No.2 examined her and found no such mass but the complainant was again complaining the same symptoms and Opposite party No.2 called Dr.Indra Sena Reddy Gynecologist for second opinion and that Dr.Indrasena Reddy examined the complainant and found that there was no mass or prolapse symptoms and the said symptoms may be pscho-somatic and advised to her to go to psychiatrist and that Opposite parties No.1 and 2 are eligible to conduct gynecological surgeries and that Opposite party No.1 has undergone training in Jaya Nursing Home, and Opposite party No.2 is specialized in General surgery and which also includes training GYN-OBG for two months and he did many operations during his medical practice that the Opposite parties conducted the necessary pathological and laboratory tests before the operation. Thus hysterectomy was done since the complainant approached the opposite parties with badly eroded cervix and under the given circumstances, the operation was necessary and the badly eroded cervix may turn into malignancy, there was no negligence on the part of the Opposite parties in conducting operation.
The complainant in support of her claim, filed her Affidavit in the form of chief examination and also marked Exs.A-1 to A-14. On behalf of Opposite parties one Dr.Ch.Devi Reddy, filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination and marked Exs.B-1 to B-3.
After arguments of both side counsels, our reasons are like this:
Now the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs..3,00,000/- towards mental and physical agony and to award Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses from the opposite parties.
On behalf of complainant side, except the complainant as PW-1 no one was examined. On behalf of Opposite party No.2, Opposite party No.2 is examined as RW-1. The evidence of RW- 1 shows that the complainant approached Opposite party No.2 with a complaint that she was suffering from chronic white discharge lower abdominal pain and heavy bleeding during menstrual period. At the time of examination, she was having badly eroded
cervix and signs pelvic informatory disease and they prescribed medicines to relieve from symptoms temporarily they advised the complainant to undergo Hysterectomy operation. It is the only method to relieve the complainant from the above symptoms permanently. The complainant deliberately suppressed the same and further it is not correct that the complainant was only suggested vaginal repair. She fully explained the nature and consequences of operation to the complainant. The complainant again came on 17-3-98 and expressed her willingness for hysterectomy operation she joined in the hospital on the same day. The operation was conducted on the same day after having taken consent for the same from the complainant and her relative namely Satyamma. The opposite parties admitted the complainant and treated as inpatient in their Nursing Home from 17-3-97 to 25-3-97.
Further the evidence of RW-1 goes to show that the complainant was inpatient and at the time of discharge her condition was improved and satisfactory. She did not complaint of any pain at the time of discharge and she attended only after one month from discharge with vague complaints of something mass in the Vagina and pain in sitting postures. Even on repeated examinations she could not find any mass or prolapse of Vagina and symptoms may be purely non specific. They called Dr.Indrasena Reddy who is specialist in Gynecology and taken second opinion. Dr.Indrasena Reddy examined the complainant and informed that there was no mass or prolapse and symptoms may be psycho somatic and advised her to get psychiatric consultation. So the evidence of RW-1 clearly goes to show that after taken precautionary measures and after taken thorough examinations from the Specialist Dr.Indra sena Reddy then they conducted operation. And further we did not find anything fault from Opposite party No.2. He did the operation in a correct manner and further whatever the complainant stated in this complaint i.e., mass disease or prolapse symptoms and the symptoms are not at all there on the complainant. And further he is an experienced doctor he is a qualified surgeon, he do all gynalogical surgeries, he trained in Jaya Nurinsg Home, Hanamkonda for two years before opening the present Nursing Home. He is specialized in General Surgery which also includes training in GYNOEG for two months and did thousands of Hysterectomy operations as per his Written Affidavit. So as per his Written Affidavit it is clear he is an experienced doctor and we did not find out anything as he is less experienced.
From the Opposite parties side only Ex.B-1 to B-3 are marked. Ex.B-1 is the ECG, Ex.B-2 is the case sheet, Ex.B-3 is the admission card.
The contention of the complainant is that without taking any contrary permission from her the Doctor conducted hysterectomy operation but for this the RW-1 stated for conducting hysterectomy operation already he has taken consent and obtained the signatures, after saying the same before them. To prove this she filed Ex.B-3. In the last of 3rd page the consent for admission. In this the Thumb impression of Lingamma and signature of Satyamma who is the relative of the complainant were there. So the contention of the complainant that consent not taken by doctor prior operation is not correct. So already the doctor has taken consent and after then obtained their thumb impression as per Ex.B-3 at 3rd page. The complainant failed to submit any authority that the patient who is suffering with non specific PID hysterectomy could not be done. In the given circumstances, PW-1 was suffering with PID and she had eroded cervix and since 2 years she is having white discharge and was having lower abdominal pain and as such the complainant was advised for hysterectomy. The contention of the complainant that no clinical observations which are required for the diagnosis of PID were mentioned in the case sheet and that it was admitted by RW-1 in his cross examination is not tenable. Opposite party NO.2 in the case sheet has mentioned the necessary clinical findings for diagnosis of PID i.e., Ex.B-2 3rd page RW1 clearly stated in his cross examination that he has recorded the clinical findings in Ex.B-3. So the contention of the complainant that as many as 7 pathological tests were prescribed as per Standard medical Text Books to diagnise PID and that the
Opposite parties have failed to conduct pathological examination is not tenable. No where in the said medical text books it is mentioned that pathological tests are mandatory to diagnose PID and that without such pathological tests, surgeon cannot diagnose PID. A good clinician can make the diagnosis of PID by going through the careful history and clinical examination of the patient. In the medical text books at page No.106 of para No.1 in sub-heading of diagnosis of PID supports the contention of the opposite parties that by clinical examination of the patient and after going through the history of the patient a surgeon can diagnose PID.
With regard to experience of the doctor we already stated in supra the Opposite party no.2 is an experienced doctor. Further the complainant is not expert in medical field and the complainant failed to examine any expert to prove that the opposite parties were negligent in treating PW-1. In the absence of any such evidence, it cannot be said that the opposite parties are negligent. As per the National Commission Decision reported in 2004 (1) CPR-84 the allegation of medical negligence is a serious issue and it is for the person who sets up the case to prove negligence based on material on record by way of evidence. In the present case there is no evidence on record that in the given circumstances, the hysterectomy operation should not have been done to PW-1 and that the PW-1 should have been treated without opting for hysterectomy. The complainant has not examined any medical expert to prove and that in the given circumstances hysterectomy operation was unwarranted on PW-1 and that had any other doctor treated PW-1 he would not have opted for hysterectomy operation. Since she has not examined any expert doctor with regard to that and the above cited judgment is applicable to the case of opposite parties against the complainant.
The complainant also filed a citation 2004 (2) CPR 130 (NC)
Dr.V. Pahwa … Appellant
VS
Surindra Mohan Ghose … Respondent.
Medical Negligence –Consumer protection Act, 1986 – Sections 12 and 17 – It was clear case of negligence and no expert evidence was required – Amount of compensation could not be excessive but was rather inadequate- No ground to interfere.
The facts of above cited judgment and the present case of judgment are different manner. So it is not applicable to the present case. Because as per the citation in 2004 (1) CPR-84the medical negligence is a serious issue and it is for the person who sets up the case to prove negligence based on material on record by way of evidence. So here the duty of PW-1 is that she has to examine the expert evidence.
For the foregoing reasons given by us , we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to prove her case and we see no grounds to allow this complaint. Accordingly this point is decided in favour of opposite parties against the complainant.
Point No.2 To what relief:-The first point is decided in favour of opposite parties against the complainant this point also decided in favour of opposite parties against the complainant.
In the result the complaint is dismissed, but without costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum today, the 26th May, 2008)
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Member Member President,
District Consumer Forum, Warangal.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
On behalf of Complainant On behalf of Opposite Party
Affidavit and deposition of complainant Affidavit and deposition of O.P-2
EXHIBITS MARKED
On behalf of complainant
- Ex.A-1 Discharge card of complainant issued by OPs
- Ex.A-2 To A-5 Purchase bills of medicines
- Ex.A-6 To A-11 Prescriptions issued by OPs.
- Ex.A-12 Prescription issued by OPs.
- Ex.A-13 Prescription issued by OPs.
- Ex.A-14 Prescription issued by OPs.
On behalf of Opposite party.
1. Ex.B-1 E.C.G. of complainant.
2. Ex.B-2 Details of complainant.
3. Ex.B-3 Admission card issued by OPs in favour of complainant.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT.
