DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 276 of 18-09-07<br /> Decided on :27-02-2008 <br /> <br /> Paramjit Singh aged 32 years S/o Sh. Banarasi Dass serving as Assistant of Contractor, R/o D-37, III-Type, Thermal Colony, Bathinda.<br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> 1.Dr. Rekha Maheshwari, M.B.B.S. M.A.I.M.S. 100 Ft. Wide Road, Bathinda.<br /> 2.Dr. Ripudamanjit Singh Kalra M.D. Medicine, Ajit Road, Bathinda.<br /> 3.National Insurance Company Limited, 8 Circular Road, Abohar through its Branch Manager<br /> 4.National Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Bathinda, through its Divisional Manager.<br /> ...Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Charanpal Singh Brar, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. N.M. Aggarwal, Advocate, for opposite parties No. 1.<br /> Sh. S.K. Singla, Advocate, for opposite party No. 2.<br /> Sh. J.D. Nayyar, Advocate, for opposite parties No. 3 & 4. <br /> O R D E R<br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. Instant one is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') which has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to pay him damages/compensation to the tune of Rs. 18.00 Lacs alongwith interest @ 18% P.A. besides cost of litigation.<br /> 2. Version of the complainant as emanates from the complaint itself resulting into its filing may be stated as under :-<br /> Baljinder Kaur was married to the complainant on 17.4.98. There is one issue from their loins. She had again become pregnant and was being treated by opposite party No. 1 during her pregnancy. No complication regarding pregnancy was observed as per prescriptions and report of opposite party No. 1. In the month of December, 2006, opposite party No. 1 had advised the complainant that Baljinder Kaur was required to be operated upon in order to avoid complications. After considering pros and cons, he and his wife gave consent for immediate operation under the undue influence of opposite party No. 1. On 14.12.06 some other Doctors were called by opposite party No. 1 in her operation theatre and operation was conducted. During the operation period, complainant was directed by opposite party No. 1 and other doctors to arrange blood. Accordingly, 16 units of blood were arranged. After a few hours of the operation, she was brought out of the operation theatre. Her condition was critical. She was feeling acute pain in her abdomen and other parts of the body. Bleeding was continuous as per vagina. It had transpired from the hospital staff that during operation some vein was cut by opposite party No. 1 negligently and carelessly due to which she had severe pain and excessive bleeding. Opposite party No. 1 was requested to provide best treatment. She had apprised him that another operation was required for saving her life. Under compelling circumstances, he gave consent for another operation. Services of some other doctors were requisitioned. Thereafter she was again operated upon. It is alleged that during the period of second operation, they had heard her loud cries from the operation threatre. He (complainant) had forcibly entered the operation theatre and had seen opposite party No.1 pressing her breast. He was advised to go out of the operation theatre. After operation, she was brought in the ward. Her condition was critical. Pipe was fitted in her throat by opposite party No.1 by making a hole for ventilation purposes. Certificate to this effect was issued by opposite party No. 1 on 6.1.07. Next day i.e on. 15.12.06 patient (Baljinder Kaur) was shifted to Kalra Hospital where she was medically treated by Dr. Ripudamanjit Singh Kalra i.e. opposite party No. 2 for 34 days. During that period there was no improvement in her condition. Rather it became more deteriorated despite the administration of costly medicines given on the prescription of opposite party No. 2. During the period of 34 days opposite party No. 2 had the knowledge that her condition was critical and he was unable to cure her. Despite this, he in consultation with opposite No. 1 kept her in his hospital in order to save opposite party No. 1 and to avoid any action again him. There was criminal conspiracy between opposite party No. 1 & 2. They were playing with her life and caused delay in referring her to any other medical Institute. Their sole motive was that truth might not come to the light. Hence there is professional misconduct on their part. They were busy in making money on one pretext or the other by playing with the life of the patient. Complainant's requests were paid deaf ears. After a few days, Baljinder Kaur was admitted in Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana (Here-in-after referred to as D.M.C, Ludhiana). Complainant was told by the doctors that there was no hope of saving her life and there was no use of providing her treatment. Thereafter she was taken to Raja Diagnostic Center and Hospital, Mota Singh Road, Nawan Shehar. Her condition was very serious and she was in distress. She was discharged from that hospital on 26.1.07 and was brought back to his village where she breathed her last on 27.1.07. Allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party No. 1 had cut the vein of Baljinder Kaur due to her negligence and carelessness. Thereafter she was handed over to opposite party No. 2 who instead of saving her life, preferred to protect opposite party No. 1. Opposite parties have acted against all cannons of justice and medical profession. A sum of more than Rs. 3.00 Lacs has been spent by him on her treatment. He and his all relatives have undergone mental and physical sufferings due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Request was made to the opposite parties to pay compensation/damages but to no effect. Legal notice was got served by him (complainant) upon the opposite parties through his counsel. Application was also moved to the Senior Superintendent of Police for action against the opposite parties, but no action was taken as they are influential persons.<br /> 3. Opposite party No. 1 filed reply taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint against her as he is not consumer; complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; intricate questions of law and facts are involved and as such, matter is required to be adjudicated by the civil court; complainant has not come with clean hands and complaint is false and frivolous. Complainant did not get the dead body of Baljinder Kaur subjected to post mortem examination to know as to whether her death was natural or on account of deficiency in service or negligence on the part of opposite party No. 1 & 2. On merits, her plea is that she had consulted her for the first time on 29.11.06. At that time, she was pregnant and was suffering from anemia and was bleeding spotting per vagina. After her examination and taking her previous history into consideration, she was kept for conservative management and observation because at that time she was having mild bleeding. She was discharged in the evening of 29.11.06. Ultrasound was advised which was got done by her from Dr. Indu of Satyam Scan Centre . After seeking the scan and report of Sonologist, it was noticed that she was suffering from a serious obstetrical condition namely complete placenta previa covering the internal OS (Opening of the Uterus). This is a condition where the normal implantation of the placenta is in front of the fetus/baby i.e. between the baby and the mouth of the uterus whereas normal location of the placenta should be above and behind the baby. Complete placenta previa is a serious condition because :<br /> a) the natural delivery of the baby is not possible without resulting in serious life threatening bleeding<br /> b) fore-lying placenta previa can start bleeding any time during pregnancy and more frequently in later months of pregnancy which is called Ante Partum hemorrhage<br /> c) even the operative treatment i.e. cesarean section for this condition is medically known to result in bleeding complication. <br /> It is averred by her that seriousness of condition of the patient was explained to her relatives. Treatment and bed rest for correction of anemia and stabilization of the patient were advised. Patient had come to her on 11.12.06 with complaint of mild bleeding per vagina and moderate anemia. She was admitted as indoor patient because of seriousness of her condition. Blood transfusion was medically required to build her up. It was arranged. 4 units of blood were given on 11.12.06 and 12.12.06 whereby there was improvement in her condition. On 13.12.06, there was no complaint of any type and general condition was good. On 14.12.06 her condition was found good in the morning and there was no complaint except bleeding. Around 9.50 a.m. she had significant bleeding per vagina. Such an occurrence is usual in placenta previa which is known to result inevitable and recurrent ante partum bleeding. In this situation, she had started necessary treatment by giving Intravenous Drip and medication. Because of acute bleeding, emergency cesarean section was required. She denies that she exercised undue influence on the patient or her relatives. Complications and the risks involved in anesthesia and operation were explained. After understanding them, complaint and his wife had given consent for emergency cesarean section operation on consent form. Since it was an emergent operation, services of Dr. P S Rajpal, M.D. Gynecologist, Dr. J C Garg, M.D. Anesthesia and Dr. Alpna Badyal, M.D. Pediatrician were requisitioned. Lower Section Segment cesarean (LSCS) was done by the team of doctors assisted by her (opposite party No. 1). Male child was born. Operation was started at about 10.45 A.M. and was completed around 12.15 Noon. It was successful and there was no complication. Operation was done under Spinal Anesthesia. Patient had no pain. She denies that complainant was asked to arrange 16 units of blood at the time of cesarean section. Occurrence of excessive bleeding from the placenta attachment site in lower uterine segment is well known complication and in such like cases, the occurrence was expertly managed by compression and suture ligation. Patient was shifted to the ward. Her condition and post operation progress were normal upto 4.00 p.m. on 14.12.06. She was stable. Had her condition been serious with bleeding, her attendants would have raised hue and cry then and there and could take her to some higher Institute for better management. After 4.00 p.m. on 14.12.06, there was complication of Post Partum Hemorrhage (PPH). Her immediate treatment was started. Expert opinions of doctors P S Rajpal and Arvind Sharma were sought. Both of them after examining and seeing her condition had decided that she was requiring exploration and further necessary treatment. They had further advised to call another senior general Surgeon for assistance during operation. Accordingly, Dr. S K Bansal, Senior Surgical Specialist was called during the operation. She denies that any vein was cut by her on account of which she was undergoing pain and continuous bleeding. Whatever a little pain she might have, was on account of cesarean operation. Operation was conducted by the team of the doctors with utmost care and caution to the best of their capability and ability as she had already undergone cesarean operations at the time of her earlier deliveries. After giving emergency treatment and making treatment for future blood transfusion, the team of doctors including her had proceeded for exploration. Gurbax Kaur, mother-in-law of Baljinder Kaur had given consent for second operation. Team of the doctors who had conducted the operation of exploration had found that the upper segment of the uterus was well contracted and normal but the lower segment had bleeding venous sinuses. Such an occurrence (PPH) is medically known complication in cases of complete placenta previa. First step of control of such bleeding is internal iliac-artery ligation procedure which was immediately performed. Thereafter the team of doctors had observed that this procedure was not controlling the bleeding significantly. Accordingly. It was decided to proceed for the removal of uterus (hysterectomy) which was expertly done. In such like operation, bleeding is somewhat more than average. Accordingly 4 units of blood were required by her. Patient did not go into shock. She was transferred to the ward as Anesthetist and the team of doctors were satisfied about her condition and outcome of the surgery. Her condition was satisfactory. She was free from any distress. No ventilation (artificial breathing) was required at that time because initial signs of Oxygen saturation were normal. Thereafter she was examined by her in the ward and was satisfied about her progress. She was found cheerful. Thereafter she was periodically examined. Complainant and her other relatives were satisfied with the operation. Her condition was found satisfactory and stable upto 3.00 p.m. on 15.12.06, when she (opposite party No. 1) noticed that her respiratory rate was becoming faster. She was not bleeding per vagina and abdomen was found soft without any distension. Immediately Oxygen and other treatment was started. Call was given to Dr. Garg, Anesthetist who immediately came and told that she had developed respiratory distress. He carried out the necessary treatment including intubation for assisted ventilation. He had decided that at time that in view of the known medical complication called as ARDS (Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome), patient was requiring mechanical ventilation and for that she was required to be shifted. Thereafter opposite party No. 1 had herself examined her for any local abdominal problem. There was no abdominal distension or any vaginal bleeding. On the request of the attendants of the patient to the effect that since they had already taken treatment from opposite party No. 2 for their relatives and as such, he was known to them, it was better if she was shifted to his ( Kalra Hospital) for ventilation. It is further added by opposite party No. 1 that she herself had attended the patient for post operative care at Dr. Kalra's Hospital and had done the dressings on alternate days. Subsequently after 10 days stitches were removed and there was no discharge etc. So far as certificate dated 6.1.07 issued by her is concerned, it was issued as per the desire of the complainant when he had represented that he wanted to withdraw certain amount from his P.F. Account/Gratuity amount by showing it to the Department. Accordingly it was mentioned that the price of the medicines might exceed Rs. 20,000/-. She denies that Dr. Kalra was unable to treat her or that she was unnecessarily kept by him in his hospital for long period. She further denies that there was any conspiracy between her and opposite party No. 2 or that they remained busy in making money on one pretext or the other by playing with her life. No amount was paid to her by the complainant or any of the attendants. She had attended the patient for post operative treatment upto 25.12.06 on which operation stitches were removed. There was no surgical complication and wound was found dry and well healed. She did not ask the attendants of the patient that she be not shifted to any referral Hospital/Institute. She was interested in her speedy recovery. She has learnt that patient had left D.M.C, Ludhiana against medical advice. Complainant at risk had taken her to Raja Diagnostic Centre and Hospital, Mota Singh Road, Nawan Shahar. She denies that she has died on account of her negligence or careless treatment. She denies that complainant has spent a sum of more than Rs. 3.00 Lacs on her treatment. False complaint was filed by the complainant to Senior Superintendent of Police which was inquired by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Finding the same to be frivolous, it was ordered to be filed. If at all this Forum comes to the conclusion that some compensation is payable, the same is to be paid by opposite party No. 3. Remaining averments in the complaint,alleged deficiency in service and medical negligence are denied by her.<br /> 4. Opposite party No. 2 filed separate reply of the complaint taking legal objections that complainant has got no locus standi to file the complaint; complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; serious allegation of connivance and criminal conspiracy has been levelled for which eleborate evidence is required which can be taken by the civil court and as such, this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; complaint is speculative; complaint has been filed on false, baseless and distorted facts; no post mortem on the dead body was got conducted to ascertain the exact cause of death of Baljinder Kaur; complicated questions of law and facts are involved which can only be decided by civil court; complainant has not come to this forum with clean hands and if this forum comes to the conclusion that he is in any way liable to pay the compensation, liability to pay it is of the Insurance Company. On merits, he admits that deceased was the wife of the complainant. She was admitted in his hospital on 15.12.06. At the time of her admission in his hospital, there was no symptom of cutting of any vein. There was no bleeding. He denies that that any pipe was fitted for ventilation by making hole in her throat. She was advised tracheostomy on 21.12.06 but her relatives did not give consent for it. Again tracheostomy was advised on 22.12.06 but the same could not be done on account of refusal of her attendants. Dr. Sidhu was called by him (opposite party No. 2) to examine her on 1.1.07. He had advised tracheostomy and the same was done on 1.1.07 with the consent of her attendants/relatives and pipe was fitted in her throat. He denies the allegation of connivance and criminal conspiracy between him and opposite party No. 1. According to him these allegations are scandalous and defamatory. She was admitted in his hospital for ventilation and for post operative treatment. Opposite party No. 1 had no ventilator. On the request of the relatives/attendants of the patient, she was shifted to his hospital. While patient was in his hospital, opposite party No. 1 kept on visiting her for check up and dressing etc., On 16.12.06 dressing was done by her. Wound was healthy and there was no discharge. Thereafter opposite party No. 1 and Dr. J C Garg kept on continuously visiting his hospital for checking the patient. Stitches were removed on 25.12.06. There was no discharge from the wound. Medical treatment given by him was as per medical norms and prescribed standard. Two or three times attendants of the patient were advised to shift her to D.M.C, Ludhiana, but they refused to shift her for monetary problems. Despite this, best possible treatment was given. Patient was shifted to D.M.C, Ludhiana on 17.1.07 and she remained in that hospital for about 7-8 days. Then she was admitted in Raja Super Speciality Hospital for one day. Thereafter she had died in the village. No record of D.M.C, Ludhiana regarding treatment and under what circumstances she was discharged has been placed on record except the certificate dated 11.6.07. He denies that Baljinder Kaur has died due to his negligence and carelessness or the negligence and carelessness of opposite party No. 1. Complainant did not pay even a single penny to him as his relatives were known to him. She was assured that payment would be made after coming from Ludhiana. He admits the receipt of notice from the complainant through his counsel Sh. Charan Pal Singh Brar. It is further added by him that complainant had filed complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda but on Inquiry by Dy. Superintendent of Police, the same was found false. He does not admit the remaining averments in the complaint<br /> 5. National Insurance Company Limited has been arrayed as opposite parties No. 3 & 4. Legal objections are taken by them that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file it; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try it; complaint is false and frivolous; complainant is not consumer; intricate questions of law and facts are involved and as such, this Forum cannot decide this complaint in summary manner; complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his act and conduct and there is no deficiency in service on their part. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint mainly on the grounds of want of knowledge.<br /> 6. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his two affidavits (Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-2), affidavit of Smt. Gurbaksh Kaur (Ex. C-3), Courier receipts (Ex. C-4 & Ex. C-5), Photocopies of legal notice (Ex. C-6 & Ex. C-7), photocopy of application (Ex. C-8), photographs (Ex. C-9 & Ex. C-10), photocopy of certificate (Ex. C-11),. Photocopy of prescription (Ex. C-12), photocopy of Laboratory report (Ex. C-13), photocopy of certificate (Ex. C-14), photocopy of treatment (Ex. C-15), photocopy of operation notes (Ex. C-16), photocopies of Laboratory Reports (Ex. C-17 to Ex. C-19), photocopy of card (Ex. C-20), photocopy of death certificate (Ex. C-21), photocopies of Laboratory reports (Ex. C-22 to Ex. C-67), photograph (Ex. C-68), payment receipts (Ex. C-69 to Ex. C-143), Estimates (Ex. C-144 to Ex. C-148) and Receipts (Ex. C-149 to Ex. C-152).<br /> 7. In rebuttal, on behalf of opposite party No. 1 her affidavit (Ex. R-1), affidavit of Dr. J C Garg, (Ex. R-2), affidavit of Sh. Pritam Singh Rajpal (Ex. R-3), affidavit of Dr.(Mrs.) Suneet Pal Kaur (Ex. R-4), affidavit of Sh. Anil Grover (Ex. R-5), photocopy of Indoor record (Ex. R-6), on behalf of opposite party No. 2 his affidavit (Ex. R-7), photocopy of Indoor treatment (Ex. R-8) and on behalf of opposite parties No. 3 & 4 affidavit of Sh. Subhash Sharma, Divisional Manager (Ex. R-9), photocopy of policy (Ex. R-10) and photocopy of Insurance Cover Note (Ex. R-11) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and written brief of arguments submitted on behalf of opposite party No.1.<br /> 9. This is a case of alleged medical negligence on the part of opposite parties No. 1 & 2. Onus to prove medical negligence lies on the complainant. For this, reference may be made to the observations of their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs M/s. K L M Royal Dutch Airlines and Another 2000(1) CLT 33. Similar view has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in the cases of Mr. Naseem Mohammed Bashir Ansari Vs. Dhange Hospital and Ors. 2007(1) CPR 351 (NC), P.N. Sudhakar Gupta Vs. Anugraha Vittala Nursing Home and Ors. 2007(3) CPR 388 (NC) and Shri Prasanta Kumar Chakraborty and Others Vs. Dr. Jahar Debnath & Anr 2007(3) CPR 405 (NC) and by the Hon'ble State Commission, Delhi in the case of R.P. Sharma Vs. Handa Nursing Home and Another IV (2003)CPJ 585.<br /> 10. Learned counsel for the opposite parties 1&2 argued that complainant is not consumer qua the opposite parties as no consideration was paid by him for the patient for availing their services<br /> 11. This submission cuts no ice. No doubt complainant has not placed on record any document showing that any payment was made by him to opposite parties No. 1 & 2 for treatment of his wife yet in the facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be concluded that he is not consumer qua them. Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 do not allege that they are rendering medical treatment to the patients free of cost or that they were not to charge anything for the treatment provided to the deceased. As per definition of consumer given in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act Services can be availed/hired and payment can be is deferred one. Opposite party No. 1 in para No. 10 of the reply of the complaint has averred that complainant owes a sum of Rs. 12,000/- to her as medical charges, surgical fees and cost of medicines. When it is so, it does not lie in her mouth that complainant is not consumer. Accordingly, we hold that complainant is consumer.<br /> 12. It was also argued by the learned counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 that complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. D.M.C, Ludhiana and Raja Diagnostic Centre, Nawan Shehar where deceased was got admitted.<br /> 13. No doubt, treatment was got provided from those hospitals to the deceased yet it cannot be said that they are necessary parties to this complaint. No relief has been sought against them. Complainant does not allege any negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the treating doctors of those hospitals. Complainant is the master of his case. He cannot be compelled to fight against a person against whom he does not want to fight. Apart from this, it is also worth mentioning that even if a necessary party is not joined, complaint cannot be thrown to the winds. In this view of the mater, we get support from the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Savita Garg Vs. Director, National Heart Institute 2004(2) CPC 675 (SC). <br /> 14. Complainant does not assail the educational qualifications and the experience of the opposite parties in the medical profession at their credit. Opposite party No. 1 in her affidavit Ex. R-1 has made it clear that she is MBBS, MAIMS. After doing MBBS in the year 1987, she is practising as Gynecologist. From March, 1989 till November, 1989 she had worked in Shri Krishan Chairtable Hospital, Ludhiana and thereafter from June, 1990 to June, 1993 in Chaudhary Roshan Singh Charitable Trust, Bathinda. From 1993 onwards she is doing her private practice in Maheshwari Nursing Home, Bathinda as Gynecologist. Opposite party No. 2 is M.D. Medicines. After completing M.D. Medicines, he has worked with D.M.C. Ludhiana as Emergency Senior Resident in the year 1994 and thereafter he did fellowship in Allegheny Hospital in U.S.A. In 1987. He has also worked with Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi. Thereafter he is doing private practice since July, 1994 at Kalra Hospital, Bathinda.<br /> 15. Complainant avers that he had learnt from the hospital staff that during the operation conducted on Baljinder Kaur, some vein was cut by opposite party No. 1 negligently and carelessly on account of which bleeding was continuing and she was having pain. Main thrust of the complainant is that she has died due to negligence and careless treatment provided to her by the opposite parties and they have played with her life against all cannons of justice. She was referred by opposite party No. 1 to opposite party No. 2 on 15.12.06. She was treated by him (opposite party No. 2) for 34 days. There was no improvement in her condition. Rather her condition had become from bad to worse. She was referred by him to D.M.C. Ludhiana after inordinate delay of 34 days and she was kept in his hospital in connivance with opposite party No. 1 in order to avoid any action against him and opposite party No. 1. Complainant has also averred that after second operation his wife was brought in the ward and pipe was fitted in her throat for ventilation by opposite party No. 1 by way of making a hole and certificate to this effect was issued, copy of which is Ex. C-11.<br /> 16. Mr. Aggarwal and Mr. Singla, learned counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2 respectively argued that no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 in providing medical treatment to the wife of the complainant is established from the evidence on the record.<br /> 17. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments. In support of his version, complainant has proved his affidavits Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-2. Apart from this Ex. C-3 is the affidavit of Smt. Gurbaksh Kaur, his mother. Stance of the complainant is that Baljinder Kaur was pregnant and was being treated during her pregnancy by opposite party No. 1 and from prescriptions and report of opposite party No. 1 it was clear that her condition was normal and there was no complication. It is the plea of opposite party No. 1 that she had come to her for the first time only on 29.11.06. Complainant has failed to bring on record any prescription showing that she was getting treatment from opposite party No. 1 prior to 29.11.06.<br /> 18. Allegation of cutting of vein during the first operation of the deceased by opposite party No. 1 has not gone beyond the stage of allegation. It is not known who was the member of the staff of opposite party No. 1 who had told the complainant that vein was cut during the course of operation. Similarly evidence has not been brought which vein was cut. Expert evidence to this effect is lacking. To the contrary, opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have placed on record their Indoor treatment record copies of which are Ex. R-6 & Ex. R-8 respectively. Deceased was advised to get Ultrasound done which was got done from Dr. Indu of Satyam Scan Centre. After seeing the scan and report by the Sonologist, it was noticed that she was suffering from a serious obstetrical condition namely complete placenta previa covering the internal OS (opening of the Uterus). Complete placenta previa is a serious condition. In such a case natural delivery of the baby is not possible without resulting in serious life threatening bleeding. Fore-lying placenta previa can start bleeding any time during pregnancy and more frequently in later months of pregnancy which is called Ante Partum Hemorrhage. Even the operative treatment i.e. cesarean section for this condition is medically known to result in bleeding complication. There is no dispute about the fact that Blajinder Kaur was admitted by opposite party No. 1 on 11.12.06 with complaint of mild bleeding per vagina and moderate anemia. Blood transfusion was required. It was given on 11.12.06 and 12.12.06. On 14.12.06 there was significant bleeding per vagina around 9.50 a.m. Necessary treatment was provided by opposite party No. 1 by giving her Intravenous Drip and medication. Due to acute bleeding, emergency cesarean section was required. Possible complications and risks were explained. Complainant had given the consent for her operation. Since emergency operation was required to be done, opposite party No. 1 requisitioned the services of Dr. P S Rajpal, M.D. Gynecologist, Dr. J C Garg, M.D. Anesthesia and Dr. Alpna Badyal, M.D. Pediatrician. Lower Section Segment Cesarean (LSCS) was done by the team of Doctors assisted by opposite party No. 1 and male child was born. Operation was completed around 12.15 noon. There was no complication. Patient was shifted to the Ward. Her condition and post operation progress were normal. She was stable. Had she been not stable, complainant and her relatives must have raised din and noise. It is after 4.00 p.m. complication of Post Partum Hemorrhage (PPH) had developed for which immediate treatment was started by opposite party No. 1. Opinion of experts i.e. Dr. P S Rajpal, Dr. Arvind Sharma, M.D. Gynecologist who is qualified Post Graduate and experienced Gynecological surgeon was sought. After examining Baljinder Kaur, it was decided that she was requiring exploration and further necessary treatment. For that Senior General Surgeon Dr. S K Bansal, was called and he came during operation. Consent before second operation was given by mother-in-law of deceased namely Gurbaksh Kaur. Team of the doctors conducted the operation of exploration and they found that upper segment of the uterus was well contracted and normal but the lower segment had bleeding venous sinuses. The first step to control such bleeding is internal iliac artery ligation procedure which was performed. It was observed by the team of doctor that procedure had not significantly controlled the bleeding. Accordingly, it was decided to proceed for removal of the uterus (Hysterectomy) which was done. Operation was performed under general anesthesia. So the allegation of the complainant that patient was crying cannot be accepted. Record shows that she was transferred to the Ward as doctors were satisfied with her condition and outcome of the surgery. Her condition was satisfactory. She was free from any distress. There is nothing to show that at that time ventilation was required. Had her condition been serious when she was brought in the ward, complainant and her relatives could make protest. It is only at about 3.00 a.m. on 15.12.06 when opposite party No. 1 had noticed her respiratory rate was becoming faster. Accordingly, treatment was given. Oxygen was immediately started. Dr. Garg, Anesthetist was also called who had examined her. It was found that she had developed respiratory distress. Necessary treatment including intubation for assisted ventilation was given. In view of the known medical complication called as ARDS (Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome), it was decided that patient was requiring mechanical ventilation. Accordingly, deceased was shifted to the hospital of opposite party No. 2 for ventilation. As per plea of opposite party No. 1 she was shifted to the hospital of opposite party No. 2 on the request of the attendants of the patient. Version of opposite party No. 1 regarding the treatment provided by her and other doctors gets support from her affidavit Ex. R-1 and the affidavits of Dr. J C Garg and Dr. P S Rajpal which are Ex. R-2 & Ex. R-3 respectively. Line of treatment and the treatment provided in Maheshwary Nursing Home to Baljinder Kaur has also been recorded in the Indoor file/record copy of which is Ex. R-6, Thereafter patient was getting treatment from the hospital of opposite party No. 2 as is clear from the affidavit Ex. R-7 of Dr. Ripudamanjit Singh Kalra and Ex. R-8 copy of the Indoor treatment record. It was the duty of the complainant to satisfy this Forum that what should have been done was not done and what was done should not have been done. In the absence of evidence to this effect, mere allegation that doctors were careless and negligent in giving treatment to Baljinder Kaur cannot be given any weight. No expert evidence has been led by the complainant in support of his averments. He has failed to prove medical negligence by way of producing expert witnesses. Cases of medical negligence fall under their own category. They need to be proved with the help of expert opinion. Thay cannot be said to have been proved by uncertain evidence and in realms of probability. For this reference may be made to the authorities Saleemuddin & Ors. Vs. Dr. Sunil Malhotra II(2006) CPJ 348 (NC), Ms. Rohini Devi Vs. Dr. H .S. Chudavat and Another 2002 (1) CPC 194, Ajay Kumar Vs. Dr. Devendra Nath II(2004) CPJ 482, Ashok Kumar Vs. Dr. Suresh Sharma I(2001) CPJ 478, Dr. Harkanwaljit Singh Saini Vs. Gurbax Singh & Another I(2003) CPJ 153 (NC), Smt. Savitri Singh Vs. Dr. Ranbir PD Singh & Others I(2004) CPJ 25, Mathura Mahto (Mistry) Vs. Dr. Bindeshwar Jha “Bindu” I(2003) CPJ 535, Dr. Surinder Kaur Vs. Paramjit Kaur and Another 1998(2) CPC 214 and Dr. Anita Parashar Vs. Preeti Kochar & Another III(2005) CPJ 638. Since there is no expert evidence of the complainant to prove his allegations his affidavits and the affidavits of Gurbaksh Kaur would assume no significance. They cannot be treated as expert evidence and are sufficient to record a finding of negligence on the part of the opposite parties in the matter of performing operations and treatment of Smt. Baljinder Kaur. In this view of the matter we are fortified by the observations of Hon'ble State Commission in the case of Bimla Devi Vs. Davinder Kaur and another 1999(2) CLT 148. <br /> 19. Complainant alleges that vein of his wife was cut during the course of operation. Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are qualified doctors. Moreover, complainant did not deem it fit to get the body of Baljinder Kaur subjected to post mortem examination to show the actual cause of her death. On this score as well, complainant is liable to be dismissed. For this reference may be made to the observations of the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab in the case of Dr. Surinder Kaur Vs. Paramjit Kaur and Another 1998(2) CPC 214. From another angle as well, version of the complainant is liable to be ignored as he has not placed and proved on record extracts from Text Books and medical literature in support of his averments. When it is so, operations conducted on his wife and the treatment provided to her by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 cannot be held to be contrary to accepted practice. In this regard reference can be made to the authorities Smt. Santosh Bhardwaj & Anr. Vs. The Post Graduate Institute for Medical Science & Another 2002(1) CPR 375 and Raj Kumar Gupta & Others Vs. Dr. P S Hardia & Another 2007(1) CPR 258 (NC). <br /> 20. Admittedly Baljinder Kaur was referred to D.M.C. Ludhiana by opposite party No. 2 on 17.1.07. She remained admitted there for several days and thereafter she was taken to Raja Diagnostic Centre , Nawan Shehar . No doctor from either of these two hospitals has been produced to show that there was any deficiency in service in conducting the operation by opposite party No. 1 and providing treatment to the deceased by opposite parties No. 1 & 2. When it is so, no medical negligence on the part of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 is established. For this, we get support from the observations of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Mrs. Bimla Jain Vs. N.P. Singh Hospital through Dr. N.P. Singh & Another 2002(2) CPR 49 (NC). To the contrary, opposite parties have brought to our notice Principles and Practice of Critical Care in Obstetrics , Editors Abhijit Bhattacharya, Sharmila Ahuja, Ashok Kumar Saxena – b.1. Churchill Livingstone, New Delhi according to which as per placenta previa grade III/IV required delivery by cesarean section whether fetus is alive or dead. In this case from the report of Ultrasound dated 29.11.06 it was evident that Placenta was in left lateral quadrant with leading edge covering the internal OS (Opening of Uterus) complete and crossing over it to opposite side i.e. major degree placenta previa. Hence there was no way out except to get delivery by cesarean section. It has further been observed in this medical book that severe bleeding may also occur from placental implantation site following removal of placenta because of poorly contracting lower segment or due to adherent Placenta Accreta /Increta /Percreta particularly in association with previous cesarean section. Patient in this case had already undergone an operation of LSCS. In the above referred medical book it has further been stressed that hysterectomy should be restored after conservative measures failed to control the bleeding and that it should not be delayed for the sake of less definitive procedures with which there may be little experiences. In the case in hand Doctors examining Baljinder Kaur had taken the decision to go in for hysterectomy while conducting second operation as this is the standard procedure. In our view doctors in this case have performed their duties to the best of their abilities and with due care and caution. It cannot be said that they acted in a manner which is not acceptable to the medical profession. Ex. R-4 & Ex. R-5 are the affidavits of Dr. (Mrs.) Suneet Pal Kaur Chahal, Obstetrician and Gynecologist and Dr.Anil Grover, M.D. (Medicines) respectively, who have also given opinion supporting the version of opposite parties No. 1 & 2. All possible measures were taken by the opposite parties to combat the situation. Every surgical operation is attended by the risks. If something goes wrong, conclusion of deficiency cannot be drawn. For this reference can be made to the authorities Mrs. Shantaben Muljibhai Patel & Others Vs. Beach Candy Hospital and Research Centre & Others I(2005) CPJ 10 (NC) . In the case of Deepak Kr Neogi & Anr. Vs. Birndra Nath Das (Dr) & Anr IV(2006) CPJ 314 there was perforation of intestine during operation. Patient was complaining of severe pain after operation for removal of uterus. Pain was coupled with falling blood pressure. Second operation was immediately arranged to give relief to patient. Perforations caused during first operation were also repaired. Condition was critical. Patient was put on ventilator and was transferred to ICCU, but could not be survived. It was held that when there is nothing to show willful negligence on the part of the doctor, no medical negligence is proved.<br /> 21. So far the allegation of the complainant that pipe was fitted in the throat of Baljinder Kaur for ventilation when she was brought in the ward after second operation is concerned, it does not stand substantiated either from Ex. C-14 or from any other record. To the contrary, record speaks that tracheostomy was done on 1.1.07 after Dr. Sukhdev Singh Sidhu had paid visit to the hospital of opposite party No. 2 and had thoroughly examined her (Baljinder Kaur).<br /> 22. No doubt opposite party No. 2 had kept Baljinder Kaur for 34 days. There is no allegation against him that wrong treatment was provided by him to the patient. There is nothing on the record to support it. Similarly there is no evidence that any request was made by the attendants of the patient and that despite this, patient was not referred to any other higher medical Institute. From this, inference is that they were satisfied with the treatment which was being provided to her. Ex. R-8 is the copy of the Indoor treatment record of the deceased maintained by opposite party No. 2. A perusal of it reveals that on 6.1.07, her attendants were advised to take her to DMC, Ludhiana, but they refused due to monetary problem. Again advice was given on 16.1.07 to shift her to other medical Institute, but the attendants had refused. Ultimately she was taken to D.M.C. Ludhiana. Even in his affidavit Ex. R-7 opposite party No. 2 has made it clear that he had advised the attendants of the patient twice or thrice to shift her to D.M.C. Ludhiana, but they were reluctant to shift her on account of fiscal problems. Despite all this, best possible treatment was given by him to her to the best of his knowledge and ability. Sole factor that she was kept by opposite party No. 2 in his hospital for 34 days would fetch no importance. Mere delay in referring the patient to higher centre for special treatment does not amount to negligence and deficient treatment in view of the authority Pankaj Kumar Srivastava Vs. Dr. N K Verma III(2005) CPJ 375.<br /> 23. In the premises written above, crux of the matter is that no deficiency in service, medical negligence in conducting operations and providing treatment to Baljinder Kaur by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 is proved. Accordingly complaint being devoid of merits, is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to record room. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 27-02-2008 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br />