DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.100 of 17-01-2014

Decided on 27-05-2014

Manjeet Kaur aged about 37 years W/o Hardev Singh S/o Surjit Singh R/o V.Kot Shamir, Tehsil and District Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.Dr.(Mrs.) Anita Jindal MBBS MS (Gynae) of Jindal Nursing Home & Ultra Sound Centre (Dr.B.R Bindasi Memorial Hospital), Power House Road, Near Bus Stand, Bathinda.

2.Jindal Nursing Home & Ultra Sound Centre (Dr.B.R Bindasi Memorial Hospital), Power House Road, Near Bus Stand, Bathinda, through its Dr.Aman Jindal.

3.Insurance Company if any (Name shall be impleaded on disclosure by the opposite party Nos.1 & 2) (Deleted).

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.Lachhman Kumar, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite parties: Sh.N.M Aggarwal, counsel for the opposite party Nos.1 &

2.

Opposite party No.3 already deleted.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that in the month of November, 2013 she had some stomach pain. In order to get her check up, the complainant alongwith her husband and their co-villager Surjit Singh S/o Jarnail Singh approached the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 on 26.11.2013. After external examination of stomach of the complainant, the opposite party No.1 told her that the disease can only be diagnosed after ultrasound scan of the stomach and she agreed to the same. The complainant deposited the amount of Rs.650/- with the opposite party No.1 for the examination and charges of ultrasound scan. The opposite party No.1 conducted the ultrasound scan of the complainant and prepared its report in English and disclosed the complainant, her husband and Surjit Singh that there is stone of 5.6 mm in the right kidney and another stone of 6 mm in the left kidney of the complainant and further disclosed that there is mass of 23.6 mm X 23.9 mm in her uterus etc. The opposite party No.1 in clear words stated that the complainant should have to be operated immediately for the removal of her uterus by way of open surgery, as the mass is to be removed only by surgery and delay in operation would be dangerous to her life and called her husband Dr.Aman Jindal, he too stated that the complainant has to get herself operated from them immediately for the removal of the uterus by conducting the open surgery. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 disclosed the complainant and her husband that they would charge the amount of Rs.50,000/- as operation fees and Rs.20,000/- as medicines charges. Thereafter the complainant got check up herself from Dr.Beant Singh Mann, MBBS MD (Med) of Civil Hospital, Bathinda vide slip No.69510 dated 24.12.2013, he advised her for ultrasound scan of abdomen from Satyam Scan Centre, Bathinda. The complainant got conducted ultrasound scan of her abdomen from Dr.Indu Bansal of Satyam Scan Centre. After conducting the ultrasound scan, Dr.Indu Bansal prepared a report and handed over the same alongwith ultrasound scan photographs to the complainant and disclosed the complainant that the report is OK and there is no problem in her stomach/abdomen. The complainant paid the amount of Rs.500/- as charges for the ultrasound scan to Dr.Indu Bansal. After seeing the ultrasound report and its photographs, Dr.Beant Singh Mann also conveyed the complainant that there is no problem in her stomach and prescribed her certain medicines. The complainant in order to get second opinion also got conducted ultrasound scan from Dr.Ajay Garg of M.D Hospital, Near Pukhraj Cinema, Bathinda on 30.12.2013, he after conducting the ultrasound scan of her abdomen disclosed her that there is no problem in her abdomen. The complainant further alleged that the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 prepared a forged and fabricated ultrasound scan report as well as handed over the ultrasound scan photographs of some other person/lady showing the alleged stones in both the kidneys and mass in the uterus with malafide intention to conduct her false operation in order to extract money from her, which amounts to unfair trade practice on their part. Hence the present complaint filed by the complainant to seek the directions of this Forum to the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.1650/- charged by them alongwith cost and compensation.

2. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 after appearing before this Forum have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 as OPD patient with complaint of vomiting and abdominal pain only once on 26.11.2013 and taking into consideration the symptoms she was advised that she would have to go in for ultrasound scan for the proper diagnosis and she has agreed to the same. Accordingly, the opposite party No.1 has done the scan and has given the scan report to the complainant. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 further pleaded that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of the parties as Dr.Aman Jindal has been wrongly arrayed as the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 has neither seen the patient on 26.11.2013 nor he was available at Bathinda from 21.11.2013 to 27.11.2013 as he was away to Ludhiana, where his son Arsh Jindal was operated for complicated neuro surgical ailment in CMC. The opposite party No.2 has got his son discharged from CMC on 27.11.2013 as it is evident from the copy of discharge slip. The complainant has neither shown the scan film or report given by the opposite party No.1 to any other expert in this field nor has sought the opinion in respect thereof. The report given by the opposite party No.1 is correct according to the picture available regarding the scan done by it. The opinion given by the opposite party No.1 regarding calculi is correct and calculi being tiny/small may have been washed out with the urine on account of medicines suggested by the opposite party No.1 on 26.11.2013 and while giving the report the opposite party No.1 has suggested some medicines so as to stop the vomiting and pain etc. The opposite party No.1 in good faith prescribed certain medicines i.e. Cap. Azure, medicine meant for stones, Tab Volomac an Antibiotic, Tab. Dropicm-a pain killer, Syp. Evtone-a tonic meant for UTI in females and Tab. Ranidom meant for vomiting and abdominal pain etc., by writing the same on the photographic chart itself and the complainant has not turned up thereafter for follow-up. The complainant has visited Civil Hospital, Bathinda on 24.12.2013 as per the OPD slip, where she had again complained of vomiting/abdominal pain/renal caluli to Dr.B.S Mann, he advised her to go in for the ultrasound scan from Satyam Scan Centre as is written on the OPD slip bearing registration No.69510 dated 24.12.2013. The second scan stated to have been got done from Satyam Scan Centre is dated 24.12.2013, which clearly reveals that the complainant has neither apprised the said doctor about the true facts nor has shown him the scan earlier got done from the opposite party No.1. The complainant has not got scan herself for the third time from Dr.Ajay Garg of M.D Hospital on 30.12.2013 as referred by consultant Dr.B.S Mann as such she has filed the present complaint with a malafide intention to harass the opposite parties. The type of small stones are normally treated by conservative treatment and the opposite party No.1 has suggested the medicines required for conservative treatment as it is evident from the scan print on which the same were written. The complainant has never came to the opposite party No.1 for follow-up or for further/higher investigation, which would help in making appropriate and clear diagnoses. There was an impression of Hypoecoic mass at the fundus of uterus and on the basis of the said impression the opposite party No.1 clearly advised the complainant and her husband that it is harmless mass which is not that of cancer and this type of fibroid is known as Subserous fibroid as the same was lying at the uterine fundus and not inside the uterine wall. The opposite party No.1 never advised the complainant for the immediate operation for the removal of the uterus or for the removal of the kidney stones. The complainant has totally mis-stated the facts in the complaint. The complainant was advised to take the excessive fluids so that calculi may be flushed out. The amount of Rs.650/ has been charged by the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 i.e. Rs.500/- has been charged towards the scan charges and Rs.150/- as consultation fee. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 further pleaded that it is possible that the complainant may have some episodes of pain abdomen/vomiting/renal colic between 26.11.2013 and 24.12.2013 because she has gone to Civil Hospital, Bathinda and when examined by Dr.B.S Mann, the same complaint of vomiting/abdomen pain/renal colic has been noted on the OPD slip. From the scan report it reveals that Dr.Indu Bansal has reported the ultrasonography as normal study, which is because the tiny renal calculi had been spontaneously passed out accompanied by a few episodes of vomiting/pain abdomen/renal colic. These episodes were not serious as the complainant remained at home during these episodes and it is very likely that the pain was relieved due to the medicines having been prescribed by the opposite party No.1 on 26.11.2013. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 are not aware about the charges charged by Dr.Indu Bansal.

3. The opposite party No.3 is deleted on the statement suffered by the counsel of the complainant on dated 20.3.2014 vide order dated 20.3.2014 from the array of the opposite parties.

4. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

5. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

6. The submission of the learned counsel of the complainant is that the complainant felt some stomach pain in her abdomen in the middle of November, 2013, she alongwith her husband and their co-villager Surjit Singh S/o Jarnail Singh approached the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 for check up on 26.11.2013. The opposite party No.1 advised the complainant for ultrasound scan of the stomach for the diagnosis of the problem/disease. The opposite party No.1 conducted the ultrasound scan of the complainant and prepared its report in English and disclosed the complainant, her husband and Surjit Singh that there is stone of 5.6 mm in the right kidney and another stone of 6 mm in the left kidney of the complainant and further disclosed that there is mass of 23.6 mm X 23.9 mm in her uterus etc, the opposite party No.1 charged the amount of Rs.650/- from the complainant for ultrasound scan. The opposite party No.1 conveyed the complainant that she is required to undergo the surgery, the mass in the uterus can be removed through surgery only or it would be dangerous to her life and Dr.Aman Jindal, the husband of the opposite party No.1, also suggested the same. The complainant further submitted that as the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have suggested her for the open surgery, she had approached Dr.Beant Singh to seek the second opinion at Civil Hospital, Bathinda on 24.12.2013, he advised her for ultrasound scan of abdomen from Satyam Scan Centre, Bathinda. The complainant got conducted ultrasound scan of her abdomen from Dr.Indu Bansal of Satyam Scan Centre, as per the report and ultrasound scan photographs the report was OK and there was no problem in her stomach/abdomen and she paid the amount of Rs.500/- as charges for the ultrasound scan to Dr.Indu Bansal. After seeing the ultrasound report and its photographs, Dr.Beant Singh Mann conveyed the complainant that there is no problem in her stomach and prescribed her certain medicines. Thereafter the complainant got conducted her another ultrasound scan from Dr.Ajay Garg of M.D Hospital, Bathinda on 30.12.2013, in that report there is no problem in her abdomen. The complainant further submitted that in order to extract money from her, the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have given the wrong report regarding having calculi in her kidneys and mass in her uterus.

7. On the other hand the submission of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 is that the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 with the problem of stomach pain, it advised her for the ultrasound scan for the proper diagnosis. As per the ultrasound report there are small stones in her kidney and a shadow of mass was also seen at her uterus. As per the experience of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 such type of small stones are flushed out by conservative treatment and the complainant was suggested for the required medicines for the conservative treatment by writing the same on the scan print. The opposite party No.1 prescribed certain medicines i.e. Cap. Azure, medicine meant for stones, Tab Volomac an Antibiotic, Tab. Dropicm-a pain killer, Syp. Evtone-a tonic meant for UTI in females and Tab. Ranidom meant for vomiting and abdominal pain etc. and also conveyed the complainant that there was an impression of Hypoecoic mass at the fundus of uterus and on the basis of the said impression the opposite party No.1 clearly advised the complainant and her husband that it is harmless mass which is not cancer and this type of fibroid is known as Subserous fibroid as the same was lying at the uterine fundus and not inside the uterine wall. The complainant had got conducted herself scan from Satyam Scan Centre, Bathinda on 24.12.2013 on the advise of Dr.Beant Singh Mann i.e. after one month from the first ultrasound report. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 further submitted that the opposite party No.2 was not present at Bathinda since 21.11.2013 to 27.11.2013 due to the surgery of his son at CMC, Ludhiana. The complainant might have not disclosed about the earlier ultrasound scan to Dr.Beant Singh Mann, there may be few episodes of vomiting/pain abdomen/renal colic, which were not serious as the complainant remained at home during these episodes and it is very likely that the pain was relieved due to the medicines that have been prescribed by the opposite party No.1 on 26.11.2013.

8. A perusal of record placed on file shows that vide Ex.C4 'Right Kidney showed a calculus of 5.6 mm, Left Kidney hydronephrosed, a calculus of 6 mm seen at upper ureter. Pelvis:-Enlarged c a hypoecoic area at fundus. 23.6 X 23.9. mm Impression lt renal hydronephrosis, Lt centric calculus, UT showed fibroid Uterus'. Vide Ex.C3 the opposite party No.1 has prescribed the medicines Cap. Azure ZOD, Tab Volomac, Tab. Dropicm, Syp. Evtone and Tab. Ranidom. Nothing has been mentioned on this prescription regarding the surgery or removal of the uterus. On 24.12.2013, the complainant visited the Civil Hospital, Bathinda, the treating Dr.Beant Singh Mann advised her for ultrasound scan of abdomen from Satyam Scan Centre, Bathinda and prescribed few medicines. A perusal of Satyam Scan Centre Report, Ex.C5, of the complainant dated 24.12.2013 shows that 'Both Kidneys are of normal shape and size. Parenchymal thickness is normal & echogenicity is normal. No calculus/hydronephrosis is detected in either kidney. Urinary Bladder is normally distended. Wall thickness is normal. No mass/calculus seen in it. Uterus is normal in size no mass is seen in its relation, both ovaries are normal.....; IMP:-Normal study'. Thereafter on 30.12.2013 the complainant got herself ultrasound scan of her whole abdomen from M.D Hospital, Bathinda vide Ex.C8. The relevant portion of Ex.C8 is reproduced:-

“RT kidney:-Normal size & shape. Cortical echoenicity normal.

LT Kidney:-Normal size & shape. No stone seen. Cortical echogenicity normal.

Pancreas:-Show normal echogenicity without any duct dilatation.

UBL:-Lumen Echofree. No soft tissue mass seen.

Uterus:-Normal size & shape Endometrial Echoes are Central. No mass seen. Adenexae:-Clear.

Opinion:-Normal U/S Study.”

The complainant was directed by this Forum to get her ultrasound scan done from Government Laboratory of Civil Hospital and accordingly, she got conducted her ultrasound scan from Civil Hospital on dated 13.2.2014 vide Ex.C10. The relevant portion of Ex.C10 is reproduced:-

“Uterus a/v bulky 61.3 X 42.1 mm.

Conclusion:-a/v bulky uterus (61.3 X 42.1 mm) Adv TVS for further evaluation.”

9. As per the version of the complainant, she has approached the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 with the problem of her abdomen pain and on the advise of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 the ultrasound scan was conducted by her and it was conveyed to her that there is calculus of 5.6 mm in the right kidney and another calculus of 6 mm in the left kidney and hypoecoic mass of 23.6 mm X 23.9 mm is seen at the fundus of the uterus. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 advised the complainant to undergo surgery for the removal of the uterus otherwise it would be dangerous to her life. The complainant got herself scanned for comparative study from Satyam Scan Centre on the advise of Dr.Beant Singh Mann and thereafter from Dr.Ajay Garg of M.D Hospital, both reports of ultrasound scan were normal and there were no stone/calculi shown in the ultrasound reports and mass in the uterus. Thereafter on the direction of this Forum the complainant conducted the ultrasound scan from Civil Hospital, which shows bulky uterus i.e. A/v bulky uterus (61.3 X 42.1 mm) advise TVS for further evaluation', but neither TVS report nor any report of kidney has been placed on file by the complainant. The diagnosis was regarding 'US Pelvist/Abdominal, but there is no report regarding the kidneys. The version of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 seems to be correct that the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 on 26.11.2013 for pain in abdomen, it suggested her for ultrasound scan of her abdomen and after seeing the report the opposite party No.1 advised for few medicines. The small stones in the kidney passed out through urine or vomit on taking the medicines prescribed by the opposite party No.1. The complainant has nowhere mentioned that she has not taken the medicines as prescribed by the opposite party No.1. There is no record to show that the surgery was ever advised to the complainant either by the opposite party No.1 or the opposite party No.2. The Hypoecoic mass at the fundus of uterus is harmless mass which is not cancer and this type of fibroid is known as Subserous fibroid as the same is lying at the uterine fundus and not inside the uterine wall, thus there was no need for the immediate operation for the removal of the uterus or for the removal of the kidney stones. The reports placed on file by the complainant itself shows that the small stones were present in her both the kidneys shown in the ultrasound scan done by the opposite party No.1, have been flushed out. Moreover Dr.Aman Jindal, opposite party No.2 i.e. husband of the opposite party No.1 was not at Bathinda since 21.11.2013 to 27.11.2013, which is evident from the discharge summary of his son Arsh Jindal, Ex.OP1/4, hence no advise has been given by the opposite party No.2 to the complainant for surgery etc. Moreover Dr.Arvind Kumar Sharma has deposed in his affidavit, Ex.OP1/3 and put forth his observations as under:-

“(i) That small/tiny calculi of 5 mm to 6 mm are seen in the kidney/ureter. Such culculi are very frequent finding. According to medical science as well as my clinical experience, such type of small/type calculi are frequently passed out spontaneously (In the natural course themselves). However, some medical treatment and fluid intake help in more expeditious passage of such small calculi. It is established fact that no surgery or other invasive procedure is advised for urinary tract calculi of the size of 5 mm to 6 mm.

(ii) That the said scan is suggestive of a hypoechoic area near/at the fundus of the uterus. This can be interpreted as a probable small/moderate sized fibroid (MYOMA), in a subserous location. This type of fibroid does not need any surgical treatment but is kept under observation and surgery is done only if there is very significant enlargement of the tumor. The fibroid tumors of the uterus practically do not have any relation with cancer/malignancy. Furthermore, the diagnosis of uterine fibroid by ultrasound has inherent limitations and many times may be genuinely false positive or false negative because the ultrasound image is a play of shadows which is subject to artifacts. However, all the qualified doctors will undertake re-evaluation of the ultrasound findings if the treatment is continued further.

(iii) It is my opinion a mistaken impression of small uterine fibroid on ultrasound, being a frequent occurrence and subject to re-evaluation before further treatment, is not equivalent to medical negligence in diagnosis.”

Thus there is no evidence placed on file by the complainant to show that the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have ever advised her surgery, thus in the absence of any evidence in support of her allegations, the bare allegations are not acceptable. The support can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Vijayan Vs. Sam Sahayadas (Dr.), IV (2012) CPJ 234 (NC), wherein it has been held:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections 2(1)(g), 21(b)-Negligence-Blood test-First report found patient HIV Positive-Second report revealed HIV Negative-Mental agony and physical suffering-Alleged deficiency in service-District Forum dismissed complaint-State Commission dismissed appeal-Hence revision-Sending of blood samples to two different labs itself shows that intention of respondent was bonafide-Three specialists clearly stated that there is no defect in treatment given to petitioner-Medical negligence or deficiency in service nor proved-Impugned order upheld-Costs @ Rs.5000/- awarded.”

10. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above we are of the considered opinion that there is no medical negligence or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and the complainant has miserably failed to prove her case. Thus this complaint fails and is dismissed without any order as to cost.

11. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum:-

27-05-2014

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh)

Member