A.K. Mehta, President

1.       Complainants Major Singh  and others have filed the present complaint under Section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after called as ‘the Act’) against Dr.Sukhwinder Singh Sandhu C/O Sandhu Surgical, Maternity and Multi-Speciality Hospital, Sarhali Road, Opposite I.T.I, Patti Tarn Taran (herein-after  called as ‘Opposite Party’) on the allegation of negligence and deficiency in service with prayer to direct the Opposite Party to pay compensation of Rs.20 lacs on account of unnatural and untimely death of Harjinder Kaur due to professional misconduct, negligence and inefficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party.  

2.       The case of the complainants in brief is that, Harjinder Kaur wife of complainant  Major Singh  and mother of complainants No.2 to 5 was suffering from abdomen pain due to which she got conducted her ultra sound from Patti Diagnostic Centre, Patti on 10.11.2013 on the advice of Dr.Bhullar and as per the ultra sound report, a stone was detected in the Gall Bladder of Harjinder Kaur of a thickness of about 5.4 mm due to which there was swelling near her Gall Bladder; that on the next date i.e. 11.11.2013, the complainant  Major Singh  took Harjinder Kaur to Sandhu Surgical, Maternity and Multi-Specialty Hospital, Patti (Opposite Party), where Opposite Party-Doctor  met the complainant  and his wife and on the same day, and without advising any ultra sound  or any other required tests, Opposite Party-Doctor  conducted operation on the same day i.e. 11.11.2013 and removed the Gall Bladder of Harjinder Kaur; that after removal of Gall Bladder of Harjinder Kaur, Opposite Party-Doctor was under duty to send the removed Gall Bladder to the laboratory for Biopsy and to seek report but Opposite Party-Doctor omitted to do his duty which was required to do and which any of the prudent doctor shall do in the same circumstances and as such, Opposite Party-Doctor has shown negligence and committed professional misconduct by not sending the Gall Bladder to the Lab for the purpose of Biopsy; that Harjinder Kaur remained admitted in Opposite Party-Hospital till 15.11.2013 and thereafter till April, 2014 she remained visiting Opposite Party-Hospital for treatment of her pain problem which continued  even after operation on 11.11.2013; that on 8.4.2014, at the advice of Opposite Party-Doctor, test of Harjinder Kaur was conducted  in the lab of Opposite Party-Doctor and typhoid was detected and treatment was accordingly changed, but no improvement was felt by Harjinder Kaur; that thereafter complainant  went to Dr.Surinder Gupta of Amritsar, who advised Harjinder Kaur for ultra sound and Harjinder Kaur got conducted ultra sound from Nijjar Scan  & Diagnostic Centre, Amritsar  on 20.4.2014 and thereafter on the advice of Dr.Surinder Gupta of Amritsar, needle test of Harjinder Kaur was got conducted on 21.4.2014 from Advanced Lab Assistant, Amritsar and after proper scrutiny by Dr.Surinder Gupta of Amritsar, it was informed that Harjinder Kaur was suffering from cancer; that on 22.4.3014 Harjinder Kaur went to Sri Guru Ram Dass Hospital, Amritsar and on 23.04.2014 her chemotherapy was conducted, but Harjinder Kaur was suffering with the problem of increased S Billurubin and then she remained admitted in the hospital at Amritsar  from 2.5.2014 to 9.5.2014 and then doctors of Sri Guru Ram Dass Hospital, Amritsar referred Harjinder Kaur to Dr. Harpreet Singh who put stunt in the body of Harjinder Kaur to remove the problem of increasing S Billirubin and then, Harjinder Kaur was taken back to Sri Guru Ram Dass Hospital, Amritsar for treatment of cancer and her last chemotherapy was conducted on 15.6.2014 and she also died on the same day i.e. 15.6.2014; that the cause of death of Harjinder Kaur was cancer and said cancer started from the stage of operation conducted by Opposite Party-Doctor on 11.11.2013, when Opposite Party-Doctor removed Gall Bladder of Harjinder Kaur because earlier to operation, Harjinder Kaur never felt any problem from which it could be said that she was suffering from cancer and as such, Opposite Party-Doctor was at fault and due to wrong and negligent surgery of Harjinder Kaur, the problem of cancer originated and Opposite Party-Doctor performed the operation negligently and also shown negligence in his duty by not sending the Gall Bladder for Biopsy in order to know the cause  and effect of the problem and had Opposite Party-Doctor done his duty by sending the Gall Bladder for Biopsy, then Harjinder Kaur might have acquired knowledge that she was suffering from cancer and said problem might be cured if she had started treatment of her cancer in time, but due to negligence of Opposite Party-Doctor, Harjinder Kaur was not able to know about the disease of cancer and she came to know about it only after about 4½ months from her operation conducted by Opposite Party-Doctor and as such delay caused in treatment of cancer of Harjinder Kaur was due to fault, negligence, deficiency in service on the part of  Opposite Party-Doctor for which he is liable and due to the negligence of Opposite Party-Doctor, Harjinder Kaur lost her life; that Harjinder Kaur was about 51-52 years old at the time of death and she was having a long expected life; that Harjinder Kaur had two sons and two daughters besides husband and they lost love and affection of Harjinder Kaur; that Harjinder Kaur was also doing work of stitching and was earning about Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- from that profession; that complainant  Major Singh  spent about Rs.80,500/- on the treatment of Harjinder Kaur and have also spent about Rs. 10,000/- on traveling and spent about Rs.50,000/- on the last ceremonies of Harjinder Kaur and considering love and affection and monthly income amounting to Rs.20,000/- of Harjinder Kaur, Opposite Party is liable to pay compensation of Rs.20 lacs to the complainants who  are legal heirs of Harjinder Kaur; that as Major Singh spent the amount on the treatment and operation of Harjinder Kaur, therefore, the complainants are entitled to file the present complaint and are entitled to compensation; that the complainants requested Opposite Party-Doctor many times to pay compensation, but Opposite Party  refused to accept the request of the complainant. Hence complaint was filed.

3        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to the Opposite Party.   Opposite Party  appeared through counsel and filed the written reply contesting the complaint on the preliminary objections that the complainants are not covered under the definition of ‘consumer’ and as per the allegations of the complainants, the matter in hand  is not a ‘consumer dispute’ to seek the relief under the Act and the complainants are barred from filing the present complaint and the complaint is not maintainable either on facts or under the law against Opposite Party. No evidence based allegation has been leveled in the complaint against Opposite Party  and the complainants have not come to the Forum with clean hands and concealed the material facts and gave distorted version of the facts to pressurize and harass the Opposite Party; that there is no evidence on file to show any negligence or deficiency or delay in service at the hands of Opposite Party  during the course of treatment of the patient  and treatment was performed in the said hospital on standard scientific lines as per condition of the patient by competent, qualified and well trained/ experienced doctors and para-medical staff of the hospital; that the process of Consumer Fora can not become a tool  at the hands of unscrupulous persons who file complaint merely  with  a view to extract money in the garb of compensation and the bald allegations leveled by the complainants have to be proved; that the complainants have no locus standi to file the present complaint as they do not fall within the purview of consumer  as envisaged under the Act and the complaint is liable to be dismissed under section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act being frivolous qua Opposite Party-Doctor; that the complaint has been filed after unexplained delay of number of months at the behest of certain vested interest/ ulterior motives, out of the greed and lust for money; that the complaint is not properly verified and no cause of action has accrued  to the complainants to file the present complaint; that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder/ non joinder of parties as the doctors/ hospitals where the patient had taken treatment before coming to Opposite Party  for treatment and subsequent treating doctors/ hospitals are also necessary parties; that the matter in dispute requires lengthy and detailed evidence to prove the case either-way and can not be disposed of in summary trial under the Act as the allegations are of complex and complicated nature; that in the absence of any expert opinion, the allegations leveled in the complaint against Opposite Party-Doctor are not tenable. It was asserted that actually as per the record of Sandhu Hospital and other record adduced by the complainants with the complaint, Harjinder Kaur aged about 50 years  came to OPD of Sandhu Hospital on 10.11.2013 and was a diagnosed case of Cholelithiasis and Cholecystitis and she was already having ultra sound report of Patti Diagnostic Centre, Patti dated 10.11.2013 having finding of Gall Bladder distended with its walls thickness about 5.4 mm with peri cholecystic edema with multiple calculi in its lumen and as such, she was a case of Cholelithiasis with  acute Cholecystitis; that Harjinder Kaur did not produce any other record of treatment already taken by her, but her problem was chronic and she gave history of pain in Right Hypochondrium and Epigestrium for the last 2 to 2½ years  and pain was radiating to back off and on, flatulence Dyspepsia 2 years, more with fatty meals. There was immediate complaint of acute pain in the right Hypochondrium and Epigestrium for the last 3-4 days, vomiting and Nausea 2-3 days, fever off and on 2 days. She came to Opposite Party-Doctor for surgery for removal of Gall Bladder. Opposite Party-Doctor who is a qualified and experienced general surgeon, advised for immediate admission and surgery for removal of Gall Bladder and when the attendants of the patient agreed for surgery, her medical fitness for surgery was sought and investigations pre-requisite for surgery were also advised and she was declared medically fit for surgery on the same day by Dr.Kamaljeet Singh Sekhon, M.D.(Medicine) a medical specialist, and after the patient was investigated properly, she was admitted in Sandhu Hospital on 11.11.2013 for surgery. After examination, it was found that Harjinder Kaur was not having anaemia, nor jaundice, nor cyanosis, nor lumph adenopathy, though there was tenderness in Right Hypochondrium and her systemic examination showed CNS as well as CVC NAD, Bilateral Vasicular breathing in both sides of chest, liver-spleen as well as kidneys not palpable and with the  provisional diagnosis of Cholecystisis and Choleliathiesis and after taking informed written consent of the patient, she was operated laproscopically on the same day by Opposite Party-Doctor  in the fully equipped operation theatre, under General Anesthesia given by Dr.Rajinder Singh Makna, who is expert and competent anaesthetist and  during surgery, hemostasis achieved, the Gall Bladder was dissected out, and drain placed in Gall Bladder Fossa and then surgery was closed and ASD done. The operative site was thoroughly probed by Opposite Party-Doctor and intra-operative observations were that all viscera healthy, Gall Bladder distended and there was normal bleeding during surgery. The surgery was successful and uneventful. The Gall Bladder was cut open and examined by Opposite Party-Doctor himself, and it was having multiple stones, with wall oedematus and thickened with its inner surface greenish yellow. The removed Gall Bladder  alongwith proper requisition slip was handed over to the patient in the post-operative period for histopathological examination. The post-operative period  of the patient was uneventful and the recovery of patient was satisfactory and there was no complaint except usual mild pain in abdomen and as  no fluid was coming in the drain, the same was removed on 14.11.2013, and the patient was discharged on 15.11.2013, and  was advised to take medicines and was called for follow up. On further regular follow-up, the patient gave copy of the report of histopathology dated 27.11.2013 of removed Gall Bladder which gave impression of advanced Cholecystisis with Choleliathiesis, which was in consonance with operative findings; that photo copy of the said report was obtained and placed in the treatment file of the patient and original report was returned to the patient and patient was advised routine repeat ultra sound examination of abdomen as well which did not show any pathology; that the complainants concealed with malafide intention the OPD slip of post operative follow up and post operative ultra sound report; that on 1.3.2014 the patient came  to OPD of Opposite Party-Doctor with complaint of acute pain abdomen and acute gastritis, when she was advised treatment accordingly and then subsequently,  she again came to Opposite Party-Doctor on 24.3.2014 with complaint of pain abdomen again, when treatment was reviewed; that patient again came to Opposite Party-Doctor on 8.4.2014 when she was advised blood investigations on which typhoid was detected and her treatment was reviewed, but thereafter she lost the follow up.

4.       It was asserted that Major Singh complainant is the old classmate of Opposite Party-Doctor and treatment given in Sandhu Hospital  Patti was highly subsidized and no amount was charged from said patient for OPD consultations, rather she was always examined by Opposite Party-Doctor without any delay whenever she used to visit the hospital; that there is no evidence worth its name to show that there is any negligence or deficiency  or delay in service at the hands of Opposite Party-Doctor during the course of treatment of the patient in question during relevant times, nor any act of deficiency or negligence was committed as per treatment record and the treatment was provided in the hospital on standard scientific lines as per condition of the patient by fully competent, qualified and well trained/ experienced doctors and para- medical staff of the hospital; that with regard to diagnosis of growth  in the Gall Bladder fossa as per record produced by the complainants, it was asserted that it can be primary of Gall Bladder fossa which has got nothing to do with Gall Bladder and it can be secondary from some other distant organ and there is no evidence on the file to show what was the primary source of the growth in question; that the surgery performed by Opposite Party-Doctor can in no way result into cancer as alleged by the complainants nor it can be a predisposing factor for the same; that no scientific evidence at the time of treatment given by Opposite Party-Doctor in November, 2013 even remotely suggested that patient was suffering from cancer and the histopathology  of the removed Gall Bladder also substantiate operative findings of Gall Bladder.  It was denied that  the disease of cancer  started from the stage of operation conducted by Opposite Party-Doctor on 11.11.2013 or there was anything wrong/ negligence in the surgery done by Opposite Party-Doctor on 11.11.2013 or the surgery was performed negligently or that operative specimen was not sent for biopsy.  It was denied if there was any negligence or deficiency in service or the treatment performed by Opposite Party was deficient nor there is any act of deficiency or negligence or delay on the part of Opposite Party-Doctor. All other allegations mentioned in the complaint were denied being false and baseless and a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

5.       Sufficient opportunities were granted to the parties to lead evidence in order to prove their respective case. The complainants tendered into evidence the affidavit of Major Singh complainant Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C60 and closed the evidence. 

6        In order to rebut the evidence of the complainants, the Opposite Party  tendered in to evidence affidavit of Dr.Sukhwinder Singh Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP3, affidavit of Dr.Rajinder Singh Makna MBBS, MD (Anesthesia) Ex.OP4, affidavit of Dr.Kulwant Rai, MBBS, MS Retired Profession of Surgery, Government Medical College and Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar Ex.OP5 and closed the evidence of the Opposite Party.

7.       We have heard ld. counsel for complainant as well as ld. counsel for Opposite Party  and have gone through the evidence and documents produced by the parties on record.

8.       Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that the complainants are the legal heirs of Harjinder Kaur  who was wife of  complainant  Major Singh and complainant Major Singh took Harjinder Kaur  to Opposite Party-Doctor and at his instance, treatment of Harjinder Kaur  was undertaken and Major Singh paid the bills and charges for the treatment and  also paid the entire hospital charges and the complainants are the legal heirs of Harjinder Kaur  who has died after the operation and as such, the complainants fall within the definition of consumer and are entitled to file the complaint. He also argued the case on the same line as was taken in the complaint. It was contended that  the complainant  Major Singh took his wife Harjinder Kaur  to the hospital of Opposite Party-Doctor on 11.11.2013 and on the same day without conducting any investigations or scanning, Opposite Party-Doctor  performed the operation and removed the Gall Bladder of Harjinder Kaur  on the same day i.e. 11.11.2013 and after the surgery, it was the duty of Opposite Party-Doctor to send the removed Gall Bladder for biopsy, but Opposite Party-Doctor did not send the removed Gall Bladder for any report and committed negligence in his duty and treatment. He contended that actually Harjinder Kaur  was continuously feeling pain in her abdomen and then, she consulted Dr.Surinder Gupta, Amritsar who advised for ultra sound/ scan on 20.4.2014 which suggested some growth at the place from where Gall Bladder was removed and due to this reason, Dr.Surinder Gupta, Amritsar  advised the complainant  Major Singh for the needle test of Harjinder Kaur  which was performed on 21.4.2014 and the report was shown to Dr.Surinder Gupta, Amritsar  who informed the complainant  that Harjinder Kaur is suffering from cancer and thereafter, the complainant  Major Singh took Harjinder Kaur  to Sri Guru Ram Dass Charitable Hospital, Amritsar and her chemotherapy  started. He contended that Dr.Meena Sudan, Prof.& Head, S.G.R.D.Rotary Cancer Hospital, Mehta Road, Amritsar  was also examined in the Forum and  she clearly stated that the tumor may be  1 or 2 months old when she examined the patient on 23.4.2014 and as such, tumor was 1½ months old on 23.4.2014 whereas Harjinder Kaur  continuously visiting Opposite Party  Hospital and was taking treatment till 8.4.2014, but Opposite Party-Doctor failed to detect the cancer which shows deficiency in service, negligence on the part of the Opposite Party . He contended that had Opposite Party-Doctor sent the removed Gall Bladder for examination/ test, then he would have come to know about cancer and moreover, the cancer was found at the place from where Gall Bladder was removed but Opposite Party-Doctor who removed the Gall Bladder could not detect the cancer which clearly shows negligence and deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party-Doctor. He contended that Major Singh complainant  is husband and other complainants are children of Harjinder Kaur and they have lost love and affection due to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party-Doctor and Harjinder Kaur  was also earning about Rs.15000/- to Rs.20000/- per month by doing stitching work which the complainants  also lost due to death of Harjinder Kaur  and considering the age of Harjinder Kaur, Opposite Party-Doctor is liable to pay compensation to the extent of Rs.20 lacs, but inspite of repeated requests and visits,  Opposite Party-Doctor refused to pay compensation and as such, the complaint is required to be allowed and the Opposite Party  is required to be directed to pay compensation to the complainants.

9.       Ld.counsel for Opposite Party-Doctor argued the case on the same plea taken in the written reply. It was contended that Harjinder Kaur came to Opposite Party  Hospital on 10.11.2013 and not on 11.11.2013 as contended by the complainants and on 10.11.2013, the patient Harjinder Kaur  was already having report of ultra sound got conducted from Patti Diagnostic Centre, Patti and findings of the examination was that Gall Bladder was distended  and its walls were having thickness and there was cholecystic  edema with multiple stones in it and the findings were Cholecystisis and Choleliathiesis. He contended that the patient came to Opposite Party-Doctor for removal of Gall Bladder as Opposite Party-Doctor is reputed surgeon with vast experience. He contended that immediately her fitness for surgery was examined and the required tests were got conducted and she was examined by Dr.Kamaljeet Singh Sekhon, MD (Medicine) who is a medical specialist and when patient Harjinder Kaur was declared fit for surgery and her pathological reports were declared OK, then she was advised for admission for surgery and then on 11.11.2013, Harjinder Kaur came to Opposite Party-Hospital for admission and after detailed examination, the operation was performed successfully and Gall Bladder  was removed and the place from where the Gall Bladder  was removed was also probed, but nothing unusual was found. He contended that the complainant has wrongly argued that the removed Gall Bladder  was not sent for histopathological report, whereas removed Gall Bladder  was handed over to the patient under her signatures as is clear from her statement attached with history file of Harjinder Kaur Ex.OP3 and during follow up after operation, Harjinder Kaur produced histopathological report dated 27.11.2013 which shows the findings of Cholecystisis and Choleliathiesis  which shows corroboration with the post operative findings of the Opposite Party-Doctor. He contended that the operation was performed as per scientific guidelines and even the post operative period was uneventful and patient was discharged with satisfactory condition on 15.11.2013 with advice to follow up and she had been visiting the Opposite Party-Doctor after operation. He contended that even after the operation, the patient Harjinder Kaur came to Opposite Party-Doctor  with problem of abdomen pain and her treatment was reviewed  and again she visited Opposite Party-Doctor with problem of abdomen pain and then, her blood test was got conducted in which typhoid was detected and then treatment was given accordingly and as such, there was no negligence nor any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party nor there was any complication during the period Harjinder Kaur was visiting the Opposite Party-Doctor nor any report was suggestive of cancer. He contended that patient Harjinder Kaur lateron went to Dr.Surinder Gupta, Amritsar  who also advised her for blood test for typhoid and typhoid was again detected which corroborate the course of treatment undertaken by Opposite Party-Doctor. He contended that only after the needle test, cancer was detected and as such, there was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party-Doctor. He also contended that the complainant has not examined  any witness or even any expert witness which point out towards negligence or deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party-Doctor, rather Opposite Party-Doctor has produced the affidavit of  Dr.Rajinder Singh Makna MBBS, MD (Anesthesia) Ex.OP4, and affidavit of Dr.Kulwant Rai, MBBS, MS Retired Profession of Surgery, Government Medical College and Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar Ex.OP5, who corroborate the line of treatment taken by Opposite Party-Doctor and found no fault or deficiency in the treatment given by Opposite Party-Doctor nor there is any evidence or document on the file which pointed towards negligence or deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party-Doctor and as such, the complaint is totally false and frivolous and has been filed only for the motive to extract money illegally and for pressurizing the Opposite Party-Doctor for no fault and as such, the complaint is required to be dismissed with costs.

10.     After going through the record of the case, evidence and documents produced on the file, this Forum is of the considered opinion that the complainants have failed to prove any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party-Doctor or Opposite Party-Doctor was deficient in service on his part in the course of treatment or Opposite Party-Doctor failed to perform his duty as required from him.

11.     It is admitted case of the parties that Harjinder Kaur wife of complainant Major Singh  visited Opposite Party-Doctor who conducted the operation on her and removed her Gall Bladder . The complainant alleged that Harjinder Kaur visited Opposite Party-Doctor on 11.11.2013 and on the same day, without conducting any ultra sound/ scan or without conducting any investigation, Opposite Party-Doctor performed the operation, whereas the contention of the Opposite Party-Doctor is that Harjinder Kaur came to Opposite Party-Hospital on 10.11.2013 for specific requirement of removal of Gall Bladder  and was having report of ultra sound of Patti Diagnostic Centre, Patti dated 10.11.2013 with conclusion that the Gall Bladder  has distended and its walls have thickened and was having multiple stones in it and it was a case of Cholecystisis and acute Choleliathiesis and the report is proved on file as Ex.C28 and is dated 10.11.2013. It is the specific case of Opposite Party-Doctor that Harjinder Kaur visited Opposite Party-Hospital on 10.11.2013 and not on 11.11.2013. Opposite Party-Doctor has proved the history file of Harjinder Kaur (Ex.OP3) which shows that Harjinder Kaur visited Opposite Party-Hospital on 10.11.2013 for complication of Cholecystisis and Choleliathiesis and the prescription slip also shows that various tests were advised and patient was also referred for examination to know fitness for surgery and the prescription slip also shows that on 10.11.2013 itself, Harjinder Kaur was found fit for surgery  after her examination and other clinical examination as advised on the prescription slip. Even blood and urine test report is also attached in the history file, and it falsifies the claim of the complainant that Harjinder Kaur visited Opposite Party-Doctor on 11.11.2013 who performed the operation on the same day without any examination or without any ultra sound or scan, whereas Harjinder Kaur visited Opposite Party-Doctor on 10.11.2013 when she was already having ultra sound report of Patti Diagnostic Centre, Patti (Ex.C28) and as ultra sound was immediately before visit of Harjinder Kaur to Opposite Party-Doctor, as such, there was no need for any fresh ultra sound report and the Opposite Party-Doctor got conducted the other investigation and examination of patient Harjinder Kaur and found her fit for surgery and was told accordingly on which Harjinder Kaur was admitted in Opposite Party-Hospital on 11.11.2013 and then surgery was performed on her and her Gall Bladder  was removed. The documents placed on the file show that surgery was uneventful and file also shows that after post operative treatment, Harjinder Kaur was discharged on 15.11.2013 in satisfactory condition.

12.     The main contention of the complainant is that Opposite Party-Doctor has not sent the removed Gall Bladder  for histopathological examination which was the duty of the Opposite Party-Doctor. However, Opposite Party-Doctor has produced case file of patient Harjinder Kaur as Ex.OP3 in which the certificate signed by patient Harjinder Kaur is attached showing that removed Gall Bladder  alongwith form was delivered to her for tests and it is the case of the Opposite Party-Doctor that during follow up visit, Harjinder Kaur handed over histopathological examination report of Dr. Pal’s Pathelogy Lab, Amritsar dated 27.11.2013 issued by Dr.Rana A G K Pal, MD (Pathology) which shows that there was advanced chronic Cholecystisis and Choleliathiesis in the removed Gall Bladder  and this report is not at all  suggestive of cancer. The certificate of Harjinder Kaur regarding receipt of removed Gall Bladder  and form and histopathological report dated 27.11.2013 falsifies the allegations of the complainant that Opposite Party-Doctor failed to perform his duty and was negligent and deficient in rendering services when he did not send the removed Gall Bladder  for examination.  In this eventuality, the onus on the complainant to rebut this certificate of Harjinder Kaur and histopathological report dated 27.11.2013 if the case of the complainant is that the removed Gall Bladder  was never delivered to her nor she got the same examined from any doctor because the Opposite Party-Doctor has produced evidence falsifying the allegations of the complainant and in this eventuality, it was the onus of the complainant to call  Dr.Rana A G K Pal, MD (Pathology) of Dr.Pal’s Pathology Lab, Amritsar who gave report dated 27.11.2013 to rebut the histopathological report or to prove that the removed Gall Bladder was not deposited in the Lab on behalf of the complainant or by whom it was deposited with Dr.Pal for examination, but the complainant failed to discharge their onus and failed to rebut this evidence which goes unrebutted and unchallenged.

13.     Harjinder Kaur patient after 8.4.2014 left treatment of Opposite Party-Doctor and consulted Dr.Surinder Gupta, Amritsar  on 15.4.2014, who in his prescription slip Ex.C35 also advised Harjinder Kaur for widal test which is the indication of typhoid. Harjinder Kaur got her blood tested on the same day i.e. 15.4.2014 and Widal tests shows positive sign which shows that Dr.Surinder Gupta, Amritsar  also worked on the same line as was followed by Opposite Party-Doctor as Dr.Surinder Gupta, Amritsar  also initially suspected typhoid as the cause of abdomen pain of Harjinder Kaur. It is only when needle test was performed which was suggestive of Malignant Neoplasm as per report Ex.C-33. Thereafter, Harjinder Kaur consulted Sri Guru Ram Dass Charitable Hospital, Amritsar where her chemotherapy started, but it is also wrong contention of the complainant that last chemotherapy was given on 15.6.2014 and on the same day she died, whereas the record of chemotherapy proved by the complainant as Ex.C40 shows that last chemotherapy was performed on Harjinder Kaur on 5.6.2014 and not on 15.6.2014 and after 10 days of last chemotherapy, Harjinder Kaur unfortunately died. It is unfortunate that Harjinder Kaur died, but her death is not suggestive of negligence or deficiency in service on the part of treating doctor because no doctor can afford the death of his patient because his reputation as doctor is at stake. Otherwise also, there is no evidence on the file suggesting that opposite party doctor conducted the operation negligently or was deficient in service or there was any link between operation and cause of cancer. Moreover, opposite party doctor conducted the operation on 11.11.2013 and Harjinder Kaur was discharged from opposite party Hospital on 15.11.2013 and Harjinder Kaur died on 15.6.2014 and there is no link between opposite party and cause of death to say that operation was the cause of death.

14.     Harjinder Kaur took treatment from Sri Guru Ram Dass Charitable Hospital, Amritsar from 22.4.2014 and Dr.Meena Sudan, Prof.& Head, S.G.R.D.Rotary Cancer Hospital, Mehta Road, Sri Amritsar is examined in the Forum and she stated that it can be possible that tumor may be 1 or 2 months old on the date she examined the patient i.e on 23.4.2014. It means the source of cancer was 1 to 2 months old on 23.4.2014 and it suggest that it was from 23.2.2014 or 23.3.2014 whereas the operation was performed on 11.11.2013 much earlier to 23.2.2014 and as such, histopathological report of Dr.Rana A G K Pal, MD (Pathology) of Dr.Pal’s Pathology Lab, Amritsar  also corroborates the findings of Dr.Meena Sudan, Prof.& Head, S.G.R.D.Rotary Cancer Hospital, Mehta Road, Amritsar as no features of Malignant Neoplasm (cancer) were found in histopathological report dated 27.11.2013 given by Dr.Rana A G K Pal, MD (Pathology) of Dr.Pal’s Pathology Lab, Amritsar. In this eventuality, there was no cause for Opposite Party-Doctor to inform the patient Harjinder Kaur or to give treatment of cancer to patient Harjinder Kaur because at that time, there was no feature of cancer nor there was any report suggestive of cancer. Except the evidence of complainant Major Singh, there is no other evidence on the file alleging negligence or deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party-Doctor though the complainant also examined Dr.Meena Sudan, Prof.& Head, S.G.R.D.Rotary Cancer Hospital, Mehta Road, Amritsar, but she has nowhere stated in the Forum suggesting any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party-Doctor, rather Opposite Party-Doctor examined an independent expert Dr.Kulwant Rai, MBBS, MS Retired Profession of Surgery, Government Medical College and Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar who have supported the Opposite Party-Doctor and stated that treatment and diagnose given by Opposite Party-Doctor was correct and there was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party-Doctor and there is no evidence of the complainant in rebuttal to this evidence of Opposite Party-Doctor which goes unchallenged and unrebutted. As such, the complainant has failed to prove his case on the file. Hence, considering from any corner, complainant has failed to prove his case and is not entitled to any relief.

15.     In the light of above discussion, complaint fails and same is hereby dismissed. However, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 11.08.2016