BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.114 of 2017
Date of Instt.: 31.8.2017
Date of Decision: 18.3.2021
Kuldeep Singh, aged 30 years, son of Sh. Deep Chand, resident of village Kadma, Tehsil Badhra, District Charkhi Dadri.
………..Complainant
Versus
Dr. Ranvir Singh, proprietor of Ranvir Hospital, Meham Road, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.
Respondent/OP
Complaint under the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986
Before: Mr. Nagender Singh, President.
Mr. Shriniwas Khundia, Member.
Argued by: Sh. D.V. Lamba, Adv. for complainant.
Sh. A.K. Vashisth, Adv. for OP.
NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT
Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant visited the respondent hospital on 27.6.2017 for the treatment of tonsils in right side near right upper jaw but the respondent doctor operated right jaw of the complainant without obtaining any report from the lab and discharged the complainant on 1.7.2017. After operation, the condition of complainant became very critical and he suffered intolerable pain. The complainant again visited the respondent hospital on 6.7.2017 and the operated material was sent by the respondent to Yadav Path Lab for testing. The lab report said that “the shows myxoid storma in some areas while at other the storma is minimal” and also mentioned on second page of report that “round cell tumor” which shows that the complainant is patient of round cell tumor. It is averred that there is no equipments/machines/lab etc to treat such type of disease in the hospital of respondent. The complainant was also got admitted in Jindal Institute of Medical Science, Hisar on 24.7.2017 and report from Dr. Lal Path was obtained by the doctor which also suggest regarding clinical history right pre-auricular swelling for IHC marker. It is averred that the condition of complainant is very critical and hence, he was taken by his relatives from one hospital to another and now the complainant being admitted in Acharya Tulsi Regional Cancer Treatment & Research Centre, Bikaner has also incurred a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-on the treatment and further treatment is going on from Acharya Tulsi Regional Cancer Treatment & Research Centre, Bikaner. It is averred that the respondent operated the round cell tumor on the right jaw of complainant without obtaining any report from the Path lab, hence, this act of respondent is very negligent and cruel to the complainant. After the operation of right jaw of complainant, continuous swelling started due to infection and complainant faced intolerable pain. It is averred that the complainant is driver by profession and is married person having two minor children and was getting salary of Rs. 18,000/-per month from HPR Transport Company. The mother and wife of complainant and minor children Kunal and Sonakshi and grandmother of complainant are fully dependent upon the complainant. It is sought by the complainant that the respondents be directed to make the payment of Rs. 5,00,000/-along with interest on account of negligence in treatment, make payment of Rs. 2,00,000/-incurred on treatment with further treatment charges and litigation expenses besides any other relief, for which the complainant found entitled.
2. Upon notice, the respondent appeared and filed the written statement after taking several preliminary objections i.e. not maintainability, no locus standi, no cause of action etc. It is averred that no report of negligence against the doctor is available on the file, hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. That intricate question of law and facts are involved in the present matter which can only be decided by the civil court after taking extensive evidence of both the parties, both oral as well as documentary. It is averred that the true facts are that the complainant was having right parotld and right submandibular swelling for last 6 months which was gradually increasing in size with time. Complainant was having difficulty in swallowing and inability to close his right eye. Complainant consulted ENT surgeon in May 2017 who advised CT scan. The CT scan done on 9.5.2017 showed multipal varing sized enhancing hypo dense areas with central non enhancing areas in Submental ‘Submandibular’ Parotid and Parapharangeal region compressing pharynx and complainant has been advised to have HISTOPATHOLOGICAL CONFIRMATION in CT scan report. Complainant came to respondent hospital for Biopsy. Complainant was explained that Biopsy is the part of investigation and it is not a treatment but the treatment line depends on Biopsy report from Pathology Lab. The complainant was explained about Biopsy procedure and after doing all necessary investigations, he was admitted, and Ultra Sonography of the involved area was also done. On the same day on 27.6.2017, biopsy was taken under local Anaesthesia from right submandibular tumor and sent for Histopathological examination at pathology Lab and the complainant was discharged on 1.7.2017 with advise to come on 6.7.2017. Complainant came in the respondent hospital on 6.7.2017 for stitch removal and to show Biopsy report. On that day, stitches were removed and the wound was healed. After reading the Biopsy report, the complainant was sent to higher center for further treatment. Complainant went to Hisar Jindal Hospital where he was diagnosed as a confirm case of Round Cell Tumor. Diagnosis was made by Lal Path Lab after doing IHC study on Biopsy material which was taken at Ranvir Hospital and processed at Yadav Pathology Lab Bhiwani Blocks & Slides 517/17. It is averred that the procedure (biopsy) for HISTOPATHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION which was advised by the Jindal Hospital Hisar on 17.7.2017 after ultrasonography and FNAC of tumor has been done after 20 days before (27.6.2017) at Ranvir Hospital, Bhiwani. This shows that there was no negligence on the part of the answering respondent. It is averred that the complainant is not entitled for any relief and the complaint is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, prays for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. The complainant placed on record affidavit and documents as Ex. CW-1/A and Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-5 and closed the evidence. At the time of arguments, one more document has been placed on record which is taken on record as JN-A, having 9 pages.
On the other hand, the respondent tendered into evidence affidavit Annexure RW-1/A and documents as Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-13 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel of both the parties and gone through the entire evidence so placed on record by the parties very carefully and minutely.
During the course of arguments, the complainant reiterated the contents of his complaint and the learned counsel of respondents reiterated the contents of reply filed by the respondents and drawn the attention of this Forum/Commission towards the documents so placed on record by both the parties.
5. After hearing arguments and going through the entire case file and perusing the documents so placed on record very carefully and minutely, we have observed that in the present complaint, the grievance of the complainant is that he approached the hospital of opposite party on 27.06.2017 for the treatment of tonsils in right side near right upper jaw but the respondent doctor operated right jaw of the complainant without obtaining any report from the lab and discharged him on 01.07.2017. He again visited the respondent hospital on 06.07.2017 and the operated material was sent to Yadav Path Lab for testing and as per report of lab, the complainant is patient of round cell tumor. But respondent doctor operated round cell tumor on the right jaw of the complainant without obtaining any report from the lab, due to which the condition of complainant become critical and the complainant has incurred a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on his treatment and further treatment is going on from Acharya Tulsi Regional Cancer Treatment & Research Centre, Bikaner.
On the other hand, the contention of learned counsel for the opposite party is that the patient was complaining of difficulty in swallowing and inability to close his right eye. Patient also consulted ENT Surgeon Dr. Rupender Ranga in the month of May 2017 and he was advised to get CT Scan. CT scan was done on 09.05.2017 which shows multiple varing sized enhancing hypo dense areas with central non enhancing areas in submental, submandibular, Parotid and Parapharangeal region compressing, pharynx and advised Histopathological confirmation. Patient came to Ranvir Hospital for Biopsy procedure so that Histopathological diagnosis can be made and which was required for further definitive treatment of this tumors. Patient was not operated for right jaw as claimed by patient but only biopsy from right Submandibular tumor was taken on 27.06.2017 after doing all necessary investigation. The tissue piece was sent to Pathologist for HISTOPATHOLOGICAL examination. It is wrong to say that patient was operated without pathlab report. Lab needs material (biopsy tissue) for examination/testing for same purpose tissue (biopsy) was taken and sent for Pathlab test. It was a biopsy procedure necessary for diagnosis of the disease. It was not a surgery for treatment of the tumour. In this procedure only small piece of tissue is taken for testing. Hence it is wrong to say that wrong treatment was given to the complainant. Complainant patient again visited at Ranvir Hospital on 06.07.2017 for stitch removal and to show biopsy report. Stitches removed, wound was healed after reading the Biopsy report that showed maliognant tumor. Patient was sent to higher center for further treatment. Patient went to Hisar Jindal Hospital and was diagnosed as a confirm case of Round Cell Tumor. Diagnosis was made by Lal Path Lab after doing IHC study on Biopsy material which was taken at Ranvir Hospital and processed at Yadav Pathology Lab Bhiwani Blocks & slides 517/17. The procedure (biopsy for HISTOPATHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION which was advised by the Jindal Hospital Hisar on 17.07.2017 after ultrasonography and FNAC of tumor has been done 20 days before (27.06.2017) at Ranvir Hospital Bhiwani. This shows that there was no negligence and it was only confirmatory diagnostic test which is necessary to diagnose such disease.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that opposite party adopted biopsy procedure necessary for diagnosis of the disease and thereafter was sent to higher center for further treatment. It was not a surgery for treatment of the tumour. We have minutely perused the documents of Jindal Hospital, Hisar placed on file by the complainant/respondent. As per these documents, no previous history of surgery has been mentioned in these documents. The complainant has not placed on file any document or affidavit of a doctor to prove that the there was negligence on the part of opposite party. In the absence of any evidence it is not proved that there is negligence or deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. As such present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.
File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Commission
Dated: - 18.3.2021
(Shriniwas Khundia) (Nagender Singh)
Member President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Bhiwani.
