BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT.

Complaint No. : CC/10/24

Date of Institution : 1.2.2010

Date of Decision : 19.10.2010

Baljit Kaur aged about 50 years w/o Resham Singh, s/o Utar Singh, r/o Village Mumara Tehsil and District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Dr. Madhu Goyal, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Faridkot.

2. Punjab Health System Corporation, Chandigarh through its Managing Director.

...Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum: Sh. Ashok Kumar President

Dr. H.L. Mittal Member

Present: Sh. P. Betab counsel for the complainant.

Sh. Atul Gupta counsel for the opposite party No. 1.

None for opposite party No. 2.

ORDER

Complainant has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties for negligently and carelessly leaving dressing piece (patti) in the abdomen of the complainant and for compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- for causing physical pain, mental agony, danger to life and financial loss besides costs of the complaint.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that in the month of May, 2009 she was feeling some problem in her abdomen and she got herself checked from Dr. Madhu Goyal opposite party No. 1 who advised the complainant that a piece had to be taken from the uterus of the complainant for getting the same tested. After depositing a fee of Rs. 65/- vide receipt No. 95 book No. 396, the complainant was operated upon by the opposite party No. 1 on 14.5.2009 and a piece from the uterus of the complainant was taken. She was allowed to go home after stitching of the incision. The complainant felt severe pain in the abdomen on 16.5.2009 and she was taken to opposite party No. 1 for check up and she prescribed some medicines with the assurance that the pain would be removed. But the pain persisted and the complainant was again taken to Dr. Madhu Goyal on 21.5.2009 and she could not detect the actual cause of pain but prescribed some other medicines. Despite taking medicines prescribed by Dr. Madhu Goyal the pain persisted. On 25.5.2009 the report of piece sent for examination was received and Dr. Madhu Goyal told that the complainant was suffering from cancer and she advised to take the complainant to some cancer hospital for treatment. The husband of the complainant took her to cancer hospital at Muktsar but as the doctors there demanded huge expenses so the complainant was taken to Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot. On 4.6.2009 CT Scan of the complainant was done at Guru Gobind Singh Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot by Dr. G.S. Shekhawat which revealed that there was a piece of dressing in the uterus of the complainant. Then it became clear that Dr. Madhu Goyal had left this piece of dressing in the uterus of the complainant negligently and carelessly when she had operated upon the complainant in the civil hospital on 14.5.2009 to take a piece of uterus for examination. It was the piece of the dressing which was causing pain in the abdomen of the complainant. Then the husband of the complainant took her to Dr. Maninderpal Singh in his clinic at Cantt Road, Faridkot, who removed the piece of dressing and told that infection had spread in the body of the complainant due to the above mentioned piece of dressing and it was impossible to remove the uterus for treatment of cancer. He advised the complainant to go to Oswal Hospital, Ludhiana. On 6.6.2009 the husband of complainant with some Panchayat members of Village Mumara went to civil hospital Faridkot to meet Dr. Madhu Goyal but as she was not present there so they approached her at her residence where her husband Dr. Sanjiv Goyal was present. The piece of dressing was shown to him but instead of feeling sorry for the carelessness and negligence of Dr. Madhu Goyal he misbehaved with the husband of complainant and Panchayat Members with him. The husband of the complainant submitted written complaints to Health Minister, Punjab and other higher authorities and an enquiry was also conducted by Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Kotkapura but due to personal influence of Dr. Madhu Goyal with the Enquiry Officer and witnesses, the Enquiry Officer gave his report in favour of Dr. Madhu Goyal. At present the complainant is under the treatment from Acharya Tulsi Regional Cancer Treatment and Research Centre, Bikaner. The family of the complainant had to sell land for the treatment of the complainant. It is a sheer carelessness and negligence on the part of the opposite parties to leave the piece of dressing in the uterus of the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- with costs of the complaint. Hence this complaint.

3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 2.2.2010 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4. In response to the notice, the opposite party No. 1 filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the answering opposite party No. 1 is Post Graduate in Gynecology and has been serving as PCMS doctor for the last more than 13 years. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant only in order to harass and humiliate the answering opposite party No. 1. The answering opposite party No. 1 diagnosed the patient i.e the complainant as a case of C.A. Cervix which was duly mentioned on the OPD slip of complainant and after doing the clinical observation she was admitted in the Civil hospital vide admission No. 1959 dated 14.5.2009 and due consent before performing biopsy was also taken from the complainant and all the pros and cons of biopsy were duly told to the complainant. The indoor file was prepared in which entire procedure adopted by the opposite party No. 1 was mentioned with the help of staff nurse Smt. Kulwinder Jeet Kaur and it was before the discharge of complainant the pack was duly removed by the attending sister and she also put her signatures after removing the pack on the progress chart i.e the indoor file of the complainant and she was discharged satisfactorily. So, there was no negligence of leaving the vaginal pack inside the uterus of the complainant. The husband of complainant Resham Singh had filed complaints to various authorities i.e. Punjab State Human Rights Commission, Chandigarh, Chief Medical officer, Faridkot, Directorate Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, Chandigarh and on the complaint the then Civil Surgeon, Faridkot had formed a Medical Board consisting of one Senior Medical Officer, Surgeon and Gynecologist. The board duly recorded the statement of answering opposite party and she was cross examined. Statements of Kulwinder Jeet Kaur Staff Nurse and Resham Singh husband of the complainant were recorded alongwith Dr. Maninder Pal Singh Surgeon. Dr. Maninder Pal Singh had categorically stated before the Enquiry Board that he did not perform any surgery or operation of the complainant nor he ever got any bandage or vaginal pack extracted from the uterus of the complainant. Then the report was sent to Punjab State Human Rights Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh and other higher authorities. The Medical Board categorically mentioned in its report that the patient i.e the complainant was already suffering from C.A. Cervix which progressed to stage II-B which could never be result of any pack in the womb, rather the answering opposite party advised the patient that she should be taken to Bikaner or to any Cancer Hospital. It is further submitted that after 14.5.2009 the complainant had approached the answering opposite party No. 1 on 16.5.2009 and after thorough check up the answering opposite party No. 1 prescribed some medicines for five days and on 21.5.2009 as the patient had cured so the medicines were reduced. But after 21.5.2009 the complainant never approached the answering opposite party No. 1 for further investigation and any follow up. It is further alleged that there is no opinion of any Medical Board or any expert opinion without which the complaint cannot proceed further as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India. The answering opposite party has not charged any amount from the complainant for her treatment so she does not fall under the category of a consumer. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had approached the opposite party No. 1 and she was admitted in the civil hospital where the indoor file of the patient was prepared. The procedure was duly followed after giving the injections and other requisite medicines and on the same day in the evening the patient was discharged. The staff nurse duly removed the vaginal pack from the uterus of the complainant and an entry to this effect was also made in the indoor file of the complainant. It is denied if on 25.5.2009 any report was received and answering opposite party ever told that the complainant was suffering from cancer as the complainant never approached the opposite party No. 1 after 21.5.2009. The alleged CT Scan dated 4.6.2009 has nothing to do with the answering opposite party. There was never any vaginal pack or any dressing left inside the uterus so there was no occasion for Dr. Maninder Pal Singh to remove any such pack. So, there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. The allegations with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.

5. The opposite party No. 2 filed separate written reply taking preliminary objections that no legal notice has been served by the complainant before the institution of the instant complaint, so the present complaint deserves to be dismissed. All the other preliminary objections taken by the opposite party No. 1 were reiterated. On merits, all the allegations leveled by the complainant were denied by the opposite party No. 2 on the lines of the opposite party No. 1 and the same are reiterated and a prayer is made for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.

6. All the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of receipt dated 14.5.2009 Ex.C-2, copy of OPD Slips Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4, copy of bed head ticket Ex.C-5, copy of report dated 4.6.2009 Ex.C-6, copy of test report dated 25.7.2009 Ex.C-7, copy of discharge slip Ex.C-8, copy of prescription Ex.C-9, copy of receipt No. 449 Ex.C-10, copy of bill dated 18.8.2009 Ex.C-11, copy of bill Ex.C-12, copy of receipt No. 429 Ex.C-13, copy of discharge card Ex.C-14, CT Scan images Ex.C-15, piece of dressing Mark-A, affidavit of Gurchain Singh Ex.C-16 and closed her evidence.

7. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite party No. 1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Dr. Madhu Goyal Ex.R-1, anatomy of female reproductive system Ex.R-1 attested copy of degree of MD Ex.R-2, copy of appreciation certificates Ex.R-3 to Ex.R-10, enquiry report Ex.R-11, enquiry report dated 30.7.2009 Ex.R-12, indoor file Ex.R-13 and evidence of the opposite parties was closed by order of this Forum vide order dated 1.10.2010.

8. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits & documents on the file. Our observations & findings are as under.-

9. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that for treatment of abdominal pain complainant was subjected to cervical biopsy by opposite party No. 1 on 14.5.2009 but a piece of dressing was left in uterus of the complainant which proves serious medical negligence on the part of the opposite party. In support of the allegations in this respect he has heavily relied upon statement of Sh. G.S. Shekhawat, Director, Adesh Medical Centre Private Ltd and Incharge G.G.S. Multi Slice CT Scan, Faridkot besides other evidence referred to above.

10. Learned counsel for the opposite parties however repelled the aforesaid contentions on the ground that as per the report of Sh. G.S. Shekhawat Ex.C-6 which is based on CT Scan images Ex.C-15 vaginal pack was found in the vaginal cavity. It may be cotton or piece of cloth which a patient suffering from a disease may normally use of her own. To make his point further clear he has relied upon illustration of anatomy of the female reproductive system Ex.R-1. He has further contended that there is clinching evidence that after conducting biopsy by Dr. Madhu Goyal vaginal pack was removed from vagina of the complainant by the attending staff nurse Smt. Kulwinder Jeet Kaur. Moreover, there is no cogent and reliable evidence that the said pack was not present in the vaginal track as a result of use of such pack by the complainant herself to stop bleeding. He has also contended that reported disease of cancer had already been caused to the complainant and was not a result of vaginal pack.

11. We have keenly considered the rival contentions in the light of evidence on record. It is admitted fact that complainant was admitted in the hospital of opposite party No. 1 on complaint of some problem in her abdomen. It is also admitted that opposite party No. 1 advised the complainant for cervical biopsy which was done on 14.5.2009 and complainant was discharged on the same date. It is admitted case of the parties that piece taken from the uterus of the complainant during biopsy procedure was sent for histopathological examination to G.G.S. Medical College, Faridkot. Report of same was received on 25.5.2009 whereunder it was declared that patient(complainant) is having Squamous cell carcinoma (cancer cervix). Complainant was diagnosed having C.A. Cervix Stage II-B patient and advised radiotherapy from Radio diagnosis department of Oswal Cancer Hospital, Ludhiana. From the above findings it is not difficult to conclude that the complainant was already suffering from cervix Cancer before she was subjected to cervical biopsy. A perusal of the statement of Smt. Kulwinder Jeet Kaur staff Nurse, Civil Hospital, Faridkot RW-2 would show that vaginal pack was removed by her from the vagina of the complainant and in this respect a note was also given by her in daily progress chart at P-25 produced by the opposite parties alongwith admission record Ex.R-13. It need be pointed out that during enquiry also this fact was noted by the Enquiry Officer as is evident from his detailed Enquiry report Ex.R-11. Complainant has not examined Dr. Maninder Pal Singh who is stated to have removed the piece of dressing from the person of the complainant.

12. In view of the material produced on the file by both the parties there is no iota of doubt that vaginal pack was spotted in the vaginal cavity only which is outside the cervix as is clear from illustration of anatomy of female reproductive system Ex.R-1. Complainant was taken to clinic of Dr. Maninder Pal Singh after 4.6.2009 on which date CT Scan of the complainant was done at GGS Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot. Report of Sh. G.S. Shekhawat Ex.C-6 is of 4.6.2009. By the time patient was brought to the clinic of Dr. Maninder Pal Singh so much time has already elapsed. As per Sh. G.S. Shekhawat no foreign body in the cavity of uterus was found in view of the CT scan images Ex.C-15. To elaborate his report Ex.C-6 he has stated that he has mentioned as to the possibility of Rasoli (space occupying liasion SOL). Vaginal pack was in the vaginal cavity. He has further stated that as per his knowledge based on literature, cancer cannot develop from vaginal pack. Vaginal pack can be there on account of bleeding and secretion to stop the same. It may be cotton or piece of cloth which the patient suffering from the disease in question normally use. As per Ex.RW-3 Dr. H.P. Yadav patient (Baljit Kaur complainant) was suffering probably from cancer before approaching Dr. Madhu Goyal for cervix biopsy in view of the symptoms mentioned by Dr. Madhu Goyal in Ex.R-13. In his view procedure of biopsy was rightly conducted by Dr. Madhu Goyal. There is no evidence in literature that any packing gauze can develop cancer. It is a routine procedure that gauze packing are done to keep bleeding in control. This can be done by the patient herself.

No material has been brought on record by the complainant that presence of gauze in the vaginal pack had caused infection in the private part of the complainant. It is not the case of the complainant that cancer developed due to dressing in the private part of the complainant. There is plethora of evidence on record to rule out the possibility of leaving of pack/gauze inside the private part of the complainant at the time she was subjected to cervix biopsy by Dr. Madhu Goyal. Therefore, we have not found any medical negligence on the part of the opposite party No. 1 in conducting cervix biopsy of the complainant in order to relieve her of pain which was being complained by the complainant. Therefore, the complaint filed by Baljit Kaur complainant is found to be devoid of any merits and as such the same is dismissed. However, in the peculiar set of circumstances, there is no order as to costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 19.10.2010

Member President (Dr. H.L. Mittal) (Ashok Kumar)