BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 873 of  2011

Date of Institution: 30-9-2011

Date of Decision: 04-08-2015

Mr. Ashok Rampal S/o Sh. Janak Raj Rampal R/o House No. 793, New Bank Wali Gali, Rayya, Amritsar

...Complainant

Versus

1. Fortis Escorts Hospital, Majitha Verka Bypass Road, Amritsar through its Chairman/Managing Director/Principal Officer service through its Medical Superintendent
2. Dr. Manuj Wadhwa c/o Fortis Escort Hospital, Majitha Verka Bypass Road, Amritsar
3. Dr.Mohit Arora c/o Fortis Escort Hospital, Majitha Verka Bypass Road, Amritsar

Opposite Parties.

Complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date)

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Deepinder Singh, Advocate.

               For the Opposite Parties No.1 & 3: Sh.Sanjit Singh, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Party No.2: B.S.Sachdeva, Advocate.

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member  

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member 

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Ashok Rampal under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that the complainant remained admitted in Opposite Parties from 17.6.2010 to  25.06.2010 and again from 1.7.2010 15.7.2010 and has suffered a lot and undergone a trauma due to callous and  negligent medical treatment by the Opposite Parties  rendered  to the complainant. The complainant undergone total knee replacement surgery of both the knees on 18.6.2010. The complainant alleges that the complainant and his attendants were informed by the opposite parties that the said surgery is successful and the complainant was discharged on 25.6.2010 despite the fact that the complainant complained of restricted movement of knees and acute pain in both knees. The complainant was further afflicted with bed sores and no treatment was given by the opposite parties for that bed sores. After discharge from opposite party No.1 hospital, complainant at his house followed the follow up and strictly adhered to the treatment as advised by opposite party No.2 and 3. The condition of the complainant was not satisfactory. The complainant approached the opposite parties on 1.7.2010 for follow up and told them about his bad condition, then opposite parties on check up found the complainant has septecemia which is a hospital infected and condition of bed sores is very worst. So the opposite parties re-admitted the complainant at opposite party No.1 hospital for management of septecemia and bed sores on 1.7.2010 and discharged the complainant on 15.7.2010. But the complainant was still having the bed sores. The condition of both the knees of the complainant was not satisfactory having restricted movement, severe pain in both knees and pus oozing from the operation wound site at both knees and swelling. The complainant was advised to follow up with the opposite parties. The complainant followed up with the opposite parties as advised. But the condition of the complainant remained unsatisfactory and there was no respite from pain, swelling and pus oozing from operation wound site. Despite follow up the movement of both the knees of the complainant remained restricted and the condition of the knees was not satisfactory and the opposite parties every time aspirate the fluid from both the knees of the complainant. The complainant further alleged that opposite party No.2 on 7.1.2011 without any investigation simply on assumption put the complainant on the anti-Tubercular drug and continued the said treatment with anti-Tubercular unethically without considering the side effects of the said therapy which itself is an act of deficiency of service and medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is still suffering from pain in both knees having restricted movement. The complainant contacted Dr. Avtar Singh of Amandeep Hospital on 8.3.2011, who advised redo surgery of both the knees total replacement. The complainant further took the advise of another Orthopaedician Dr. Gurvinder Singh at Hargun Hospital , who also advised the same therapy as advised by Dr. Avtar Singh. Then the complainant approached opposite party No.2 at opposite party No.l hospital and apprised him about the advise of Dr. Avtar Singh and Dr. Gurvinder Singh, opposite party No.2 then admitted that the complainant requires another surgery for the total knee replacement for both knees as earlier surgery was a failure. Therefore, the complainant has been continuously suffering due to failed surgery conducted by opposite parties No.2 and 3 at opposite party No.1 hospital. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the Opposite Parties   to pay Rs.12 lacs spent by the complainant on the treatment from 17.6.2010 onwards alongwith  interest due thereon from the date of payment till realization.  Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Parties No.1 to  3  appeared and filed similar separate written version in which it was submitted that patient Ashok Rampal, complainant was admitted in opposite party No.1 hospital on 17.6.2010 for both knees replacement as he was suffering with pain in both the knee joints for the last one year with difficulty in waling and inability to bear weight on knee joints. Opposite party No.1 hospital has the best of specialized health services, operating rooms, ICUs, Surgeons, Doctors and nursing staff etc., Dr. Manuj Wadhwa opposite party No.2 is head of Ortho Fortis Mohali. He has been doing knee replacement for the last more than 9 years and has done more than 5000 knee replacement without any complaint. Dr. Mohit Arora, opposite party No. 3 is MS Ortho and has 8 years experience in surgery of joints. He is associated with Dr. Manuj Wadhwa for the last more than 5 years. One of the complications of the total knee replacement is infection. The operation theatre at opposite party No.1 hospital is equipped with filtered vertical laminar flow system which has reduced the infection rates from 10% to 1%. As such the risk of infection in the knee replacement surgery in Opposite Party No.1-Hospital is minimum. All risks of surgery are duly  explained to the patient and in every surgery a High Risk Consent is got signed as has been done in this case also. The complainant was admitted in Opposite Party No.1-Hospital on 17.6.2010 at 12.00 Noon under Dr.Mohit and Dr.Manuj Wadhwa for knee replacement. All formalities were  completed. Nero Consultation was taken  from Dr.Raj Kamal, Neurologist as the patient was Post Cerebral vascular accident. The examination of the patient were carried out and the patient as clear for surgery. The patient was also clear from anesthic for surgery and proper medicines were started on 17.6.2010. On 18.6.2010, surgery was performed by the expert surgical team under Dr.Manju Wadhwa and Dr.Mohit Arora in most advanced Operation Theater. B/L Total Knee Replacement, PFC Sigma (Deputy J & J) done on 18.6.2010. Operation was successful.  On 20.6.2010, wound was found OK at the time of dressing, thereafter, Physo Therapy was started. Antibiotics injections were stopped on 21.6.2010 morning and antibiotic tab was started. Day-to-day progress of the patient was also monitored in Opposite Party No.1-Hospital. On 23.6.2010, the Hb of the patient was found 9.4 and therefore, one unit of blood  was given to build up the patient. On 24.6.2010 as the patient was recovering normally, his ultra sound was done. Its report dated 24.6.2010 clearly indicates that Bilateral kidneys show normal size, shape, outline and echogenicity. Corticomedullary differentiation is well maintained. No calculus or Hydrophrosis seen. …Urinary bladder shows normal outline and Capacity. No intraluminal echogenic focus seen. Wall thickness is normal. Wall thickness if normal. Bulb of foley’s catheter is seen in situ.  Prostate shows normal echo texture with smooth outline. No evidence of ascites seen. Impression NO SIGNIFICANT SONOGRAFIC ABNORALITY DETECTED. The patient was discharged on 25.6.2010 in a stable condition and at that time, the patient did not have any infection nor any bed sores as is evident from the medical treatment record of patient Ex.R1 at page 21 and 35. On 25.6.2010 Dr.Mohit had himself examined the patient and concluded that patient fit for discharge, no complaint, wound healthy, vitals wee stable. On 25.6.2010, the patient was discharged with high end antibiotics as possibility of infection after discharge can not be ruled out. The patient was advised to use  high chair/ high commoddee. Review in OPD after one week and it was clearly mentioned in the discharge advise that in case of fever/ soakage/ pus discharge, the patient should report immediately to the Opposite Parties because infections are best treated when caught early. On 1^st July, 2010, patient approached Opposite Party No.1-Hospital with fever associated with breathlessness since 4 days. He was examined by Dr.Amitab Mohan Jearth and cardiac Consultation was  sought and was advised for ECO which was carried on 2.7.2010 which showed mild MR/TR and L VEF 56%. Investigation was  carried out which showed low Hb, 2 units of PRBC were transfused during his hospital stay. USG abdomen showed cholelithiasis with gall bladder sludge for which urology option was sought. Blood culture was sent which showed E coli growth after 24 Hours of aerobic incubation. The patient was  diagnosed  of urine infection and ultra sound showed stones (cholerithiasis) in gall bladder. During the 2^nd hospitalization, the knee stitches were removed at the due time i.e. when the wound was totally healed and with no swelling on knee.  The patient improved physiotherapy was re-stated. The patient underwent conservative medical management which he tolerated well.  His general condition improved gradually. His subsequent stay in the hospital was uneventful and he was discharged in a stable condition on 15.7.2010 and was advised for review in OPD after 7 days.  Infection in joint replacement 0.5% to 1% is very much normal. Source of infection can be infected tooth, UTI, Dental, Skin or any other source of septicemia and infection. Since joint replacement is foreign body, it has a potential to get secondarily infection specially  if it as an early onset. The patient had developed tuberculosis and the infection was not being cured inspite of anti tuberculosis treatment. Dr.Manuj  himself suggested a 2 stage revision, whereas the prescription attached of Dr.Avtar Singh of Amandeep Hospital is dated 8.3.2011 and of Dr.Gurvinder Singh of Hargun Hospital is dated 5.4.2011 which proves that same are actually second opinion taken by the complainant after Dr. Manuj Wadhwa suggested 2 stage revision on 4.3.2011. During second admission of patient on 1.7.2010, patient was having fever and  infection in blood and urine. For the urinary tract infection the option of Dr.Bhagat was taken. He also landed up with bed sores and his treatment of bed sores was advised which is well documented as per the  treatment record of patient Ex.R2. Opposite Parties denied that Septicimia is hospital infected.  In fact, the patient landed in the hospital with Septicimia on 1.7.2010, which shows that patient has not taken  the high recommended antibiotics  or had followed the specific medical recommendations. The synovial Fuid of the patient was sent for examination to the Religare SRL Specialised Lab, Mumbai. Report dated 9.12.2010 of the aforesaid laboratory, Modlecular Biology detected mycobacterium tuberculosis complex  and it was only after conformation of Tuberculosis that the dug was recommended by the treating doctors. The complainant has concealed the report nor the complainant has challenged this report Ex.R9 nor could produce any evidence to rebut this report. So this shows that Opposite Parties  have medically treated the complainant properly as per standard management. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C12  and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 tendered into evidence the medical record of hospital i.e. file No.1 Ex.R1 containing pages 1 to 101, file No.2 Ex.R2 containing pages No.1 to 112, affidavit of Dr.Pinak Moudgil Ex.R3, affidavit of Manju Wadhwa Ex.R4, affidavit of Dr.Mohit Arora Ex.R5, medical literature Ex.R6 ( 21 pages) alongwith other documents Ex.R7 to Ex.R13   and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 to 3.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the parties.
6. From the record i.e.pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant approached the opposite parties and he was admitted in opposite party No.1 hospital for total knee replacement surgery of both the knees of the complainant , on 17.6.2010 and remained under treatment upto 25.6.2010. Again the complainant remained admitted in opposite party No.1 hospital from 1.7.2010 to 15.7.2010. The complainant undergone total knee replacement surgery of both the knees on 18.6.2010. The complainant alleges that the complainant and his attendants were informed by the opposite parties that the said surgery is successful and the complainant was discharged on 25.6.2010 despite the fact that the complainant complained of restricted movement of knees and acute pain in both knees. The complainant was further afflicted with bed sores and no treatment was given by the opposite parties for that bed sores. After discharge from opposite party No.1 hospital, complainant at his house followed the follow up and strictly adhered to the treatment as advised by opposite party No.2 and 3. However, the condition of the complainant was not satisfactory.The complainant approached the opposite parties on 1.7.2010 for follow up and told the opposite parties about his bad condition, then opposite parties on check up found the complainant has septecemia which is a hospital infected and condition of bed sores is very worst. So the opposite parties re-admitted the complainant at opposite party No.1 hospital for management of septecemia and bed sores on 1.7.2010 and discharged the complainant on 15.7.2010. But the complainant was still having the bed sores. The condition of both the knees of the complainant was not satisfactory having restricted movement, severe pain in both knees and pus oozing from the operation wound site at both knees and swelling. The complainant was advised to follow up with the opposite parties. The complainant followed up with the opposite parties as advised. But the condition of the complainant remained unsatisfactory and there was no respite from pain, swelling and pus oozing from operation wound site. Despite follow up the movement of both the knees of the complainant remained restricted and the condition of the knees was not satisfactory and the opposite parties every time aspirate the fluid from both the knees of the complainant. The complainant further alleged that opposite party No.2 on 7.1.2011 without any investigation simply on assumption put the complainant on the anti-Tubercular drug and continued the said treatment with anti-Tubercular unethically without considering the side effects of the said therapy which itself is an act of deficiency of service and medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is still suffering from pain in both knees having restricted movement. The complainant contacted Dr. Avtar Singh of Amandeep Hospital on 8.3.2011, who advised redo surgery of both the knees total replacement. The complainant further took the advise of another Orthopaedician Dr. Gurvinder Singh at Hargun Hospital , who also advised the same therapy as advised by Dr. Avtar Singh. Then the complainant approached opposite party No.2 at opposite party No.l hospital and apprised him about the advise of Dr. Avtar Singh and Dr. Gurvinder Singh, opposite party No.2 then admitted that the complainant requires another surgery for the total knee replacement for both knees as earlier surgery was a failure. Therefore, the complainant has been continuously suffering due to failed surgery conducted by opposite parties No.2 and 3 at opposite party No.1 hospital. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service and medical negligence on the part of opposite parties qua the complainant.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite parties No.1 to 3 is the same though they filed separate written versions in which they submitted that patient Ashok Rampal, complainant was admitted in opposite party No.1 hospital on 17.6.2010 for both knees replacement as he was suffering with pain in both the knee joints for the last one year with difficulty in waling and inability to bear weight on knee joints. Opposite party No.1 hospital has the best of specialized health services, operating rooms, ICUs, Surgeons, Doctors and nursing staff etc., Dr. Manuj Wadhwa opposite party No.2 is head of Ortho Fortis Mohali. He has been doing knee replacement for the last more than 9 years and has done more than 5000 knee replacements without any complaint. Dr. Mohit Arora, opposite party No. 3 is MS Ortho and has 8 years experience in surgery of joints. He is associated with Dr. Manuj Wadhwa for the last more than 5 years. One of the complications of the total knee replacement is infection. The operation theatre at opposite party No.1 hospital is equipped with filtered vertical laminar flow system which has reduced the infection rates from 10% to 1%. As such the risk of infection in the knee replacement surgery in Opposite Party No.1-Hospital is minimum. All risks of surgery are duly  explained to the patient and in every surgery a High Risk Consent is got signed as has been done in this case also. The complainant was admitted in Opposite Party No.1-Hospital on 17.6.2010 at 12.00 Noon under Dr.Mohit and Dr.Manuj Wadhwa for knee replacement. All formalities were  completed. Nero Consultation was taken  from Dr.Raj Kamal, Neurologist as the patient was Post Cerebral vascular accident. All necessary examination of the patient were carried out and the patient as clear for surgery. The patient was also clear from anesthic for surgery and proper medicines were started on 17.6.2010. On 18.6.2010, surgery was performed by the expert surgical team under Dr.Manju Wadhwa and Dr.Mohit Arora in most advanced Operation Theater. B/L Total Knee Replacement, PFC Sigma (Deputy J & J) done on 18.6.2010. Operation was successful.  On 20.6.2010, wound was found OK at the time of dressing, thereafter, Physo Therapy was started. Antibiotics injections were stopped on 21.6.2010 morning and antibiotic tab was started. Day-to-day progress of the patient was also monitored in Opposite Party No.1-Hospital. On 23.6.2010, the Hb of the patient was found 9.4 and therefore, one unit of blood  was given to build up the patient. On 24.6.2010 as the patient was recovering normally, his ultra sound was done. Its report dated 24.6.2010 clearly indicates that Bilateral kidneys show normal size, shape, outline and echogenicity. Corticomedullary differentiation is well maintained. No calculus or Hydrophrosis seen. …Urinary bladder shows normal outline and Capacity. No intraluminal echogenic focus seen. Wall thickness is normal. Wall thickness if normal. Bulb of foley’s catheter is seen in situ.  Prostate shows normal echo texture with smooth outline. No evidence of ascites seen. Impression NO SIGNIFICANT SONOGRAFIC ABNORALITY DETECTED. The patient was discharged on 25.6.2010 in a stable condition and at that time, the patient did not have any infection nor any bed sores as is evident from the medical treatment record of patient Ex.R1 at page 21 and 35. On 25.6.2010 Dr.Mohit had himself examined the patient and concluded that patient fit for discharge, no complaint, wound healthy, vitals wee stable. On 25.6.2010, the patient was discharged with high end antibiotics as possibility of infection after discharge can not be ruled out. The patient was advised to use  high chair/ high commoddee. Review in OPD after one week and it was clearly mentioned in the discharge advise that in case of fever/ soakage/ pus discharge, the patient should report immediately to the Opposite Parties because infections are best treated when caught early. On 1^st July, 2010, patient approached Opposite Party No.1-Hospital with fever associated with breathlessness since 4 days. He was examined by Dr.Amitab Mohan Jearth and cardiac Consultation was  sought and was advised for ECO which was carried on 2.7.2010 which showed mild MR/TR and L VEF 56%. Investigation was  carried out which showed low Hb, 2 units of PRBC were transfused during his hospital stay. USG abdomen showed cholelithiasis with gall bladder sludge for which urology option was sought. Blood culture was sent which showed E coli growth after 24 Hours of aerobic incubation. The patient was  diagnosed  of urine infection and ultra sound showed stones (cholerithiasis) in gall bladder. During the 2^nd hospitalization, the knee stitches were removed at the due time i.e. when the wound was totally healed and with no swelling on knee.  The patient improved physiotherapy was re-stated. The patient underwent conservative medical management which he tolerated well.  His general condition improved gradually. His subsequent stay in the hospital was uneventful and he was discharged in a stable condition on 15.7.2010 and was advised for review in OPD after 7 days.  Infection in joint replacement 0.5% to 1% is very much normal. Source of infection can be infected tooth, UTI, Dental, Skin or any other source of septicemia and infection. Since joint replacement is foreign body, it has a potential to get secondarily infection specially  if it as an early onset. The patient had developed tuberculosis and the infection was not being cured inspite of anti tuberculosis treatment. Dr.Manuj  himself suggested a 2 stage revision, whereas the prescription attached of Dr.Avtar Singh of Amandeep Hospital is dated 8.3.2011 and of Dr.Gurvinder Singh of Hargun Hospital is dated 5.4.2011 which proves that same are actually second opinion taken by the complainant after Dr. Manuj Wadhwa suggested 2 stage revision on 4.3.2011. During second admission of patient on 1.7.2010, patient was having fever and  infection in blood and urine. For the urinary tract infection the option of Dr.Bhagat was taken. He also landed up with bed sores and his treatment of bed sores was advised which is well documented as per the  treatment record of patient Ex.R2. Opposite Parties denied that Septicimia is hospital infected.  In fact, the patient landed in the hospital with Septicimia on 1.7.2010, which shows that patient has not taken  the high recommended antibiotics  or had followed the specific medical recommendations. The synovial Fuid of the patient was sent for examination to the Religare SRL Specialised Lab, Mumbai. Report dated 9.12.2010 of the aforesaid laboratory, Modlecular Biology detected mycobacterium tuberculosis complex  and it was only after conformation of Tuberculosis that the dug was recommended by the treating doctors. The complainant has concealed the report nor the complainant has challenged this report Ex.R9 nor could produce any evidence to rebut this report. So this shows that Opposite Parties  have medically treated the complainant properly as per standard management.  Ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties  submitted that there is no deficiency of service nor any medical negligence on the  part of the Opposite Parties qua the complainant.  
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that  the complainant was admitted in Opposite Party No.1-Hospital on 12.6.2010 for both knee replacement as he was suffering  with pain in both the knee joints for the last one year with difficulty in walking and inability to bear weight on knee joints. At Opposite party No.1 hospital, the patient was checked  by Dr. Manuj Wadhwa opposite party No.2 and Dr.Mohit Arora, Opposite Party No.3 M.S. Ortho.  Medical treatment record of the complainant at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital  Ex.R1 fully proves  that before the decision of surgery from the speciality team of the field, was taken, Neuro Consultation was taken  from Dr.Raj Kamal, Neurologist because  the patient was Post Cerebral vascular accident. All necessary examinations of the patient were carried out and the patient was cleared for surgery. He was also cleared from anesthic for surgery and proper medicines were started on 17.6.2010. On 18.6.2010, surgery was performed by the surgical team under Dr.Manju Wadhwa and Dr.Mohit Arora. B/L Total Knee Replacement, PFC Sigma (Deputy J & J) done on 18.6.2010. Operation was successful.  As per the record of the patient Ex.R1, the patient was examined every day and documented by the hospital staff as is evident from the record Ex.R1. On 20.6.2010, dress was done and wound was found OK. Thereafter, Physio Therapy was started. Antibiotic injections started a day before the surgery, were  stopped on 21.6.2010 morning and oral antibiotic was started as recommended by the doctors. Day-to-day progress of the patient was also monitored in Opposite Party No.1-Hospital as shown in hospital record Ex.R1. On 23.6.2010, the Hb of the patient was found 9.4, therefore, one unit of blood  was given to build up the patient. On 24.6.2010 as the patient was recovering normally, before planning of his discharge, ultra sound of the patient was done. Ultra sound  report dated 24.6.2010  of the patient gave impression  “no significant sonografic abnorality detected”. The patient was discharged on 25.6.2010 in a stable condition   as is event  at page 21 of the medical  record Ex.R1. At that time, the patient did not have any infection nor any bed sore. Nursing staff of Opposite Party No.1 Hospital  keep the record of the assessment of the patient and at that time the skin status of the patient was also mentioned and there was no bed sore or infection, on 25.6.2010.  Dr.Mohit had himself examined the patient and concluded that patient was “fit for discharge, no complaint, wound healthy, vitals were stable” as is evident on Page 21 of medical record Ex.R1. Resultantly,  on 25.6.2010, the patient was discharged with high end antibiotics as there was possibility of infection after discharge. So, from this record, it stands fully proved on record that on 25.6.2010 the patient was discharged with no complaint, wound healthy, vitals were stable. There was no infection nor any bed sore on the skin of the patient. The patient was advised to use high chair/ high commoddee. He was also advised review in OPD after one week and it was clearly mentioned in the discharge advise that in case of fever/ soakage/ pus discharge, the patient should report immediately to the Opposite Parties because infections are best treated when caught early.
9. The complainant/ patient approached Opposite Party No.1-Hospital on 1^st July, 2010 with fever associated with breathlessness for the last  4 days. He was examined by Dr.Amitab Mohan Jearth and cardiac Consultation was  sought and was advised for ECO which was carried on 2.7.2010 which showed mild MR/TR and L VEF 56%. At the time of second admission on 1.7.2010 the complainant had also bed sore.  Investigation was  carried out which showed low Hb of the patient. Resultantly,  2 units of PRBC were transfused. USG abdomen showed cholelithiasis with gall bladder sludge for which urology option was sought. Blood culture was sent which showed E coli growth after 24 Hours of aerobic incubation. From the entire above investigation, the patient was  diagnosed   as case of urine infection and ultra sound showed stones (cholerithiasis) in gall bladder. During the 2^nd hospitalization of the complainant/ patient on 1.7.2010, the knee stitches were removed at the due time, wound was totally healed with no swelling on knees.  As the  patient improved, physiotherapy was re-started. The patient underwent conservative medical management which he tolerated well.  His general condition improved gradually. His subsequent stay in the hospital was uneventful. His infection was fully controlled. Bed sore was also treated properly and the patient was discharged in  stable condition on 15.7.2010 as is evident from the record of the patient Ex.R2. There was no complaint from the side of the patient when he was discharged on 15.7.2010 in full stable condition.
10. Other allegation of the complainant  is that the Opposite Parties on 7.1.2011 without any investigation simply on assumption put the complainant on the anti-Tubercular drug and continued the said treatment with anti-Tubercular unethically without considering the side effects of the said therapy. These allegations of the complainant are not based on the factual position. Tests of the complainant were conducted. No doubt, in Mycotect, Skin Test-Mantoux Ex.R10 and Ex.R11, the tuberculin was not conducted. However, the synovial Fuid of the complainant/ patient was sent for examination to the Religare SRL Specialized Lab, Mumbai and Modlecular Biology detected mycobacterium tuberculosis complex as per report Ex.R9. The complainant could not produce any evidence to rebut this report which is very accurate report regarding the test of tuberculosis. So, it was only after conformation of Tuberculosis that the anti tubercular dug was recommended by the treating doctors and the same was started to the patient, rather the complainant has concealed this  report regarding synovial Fuid of the patient Ex.R9.
11. As regards the other allegation levelled by the complainant  that the patient was checked by  Dr. Avtar Singh of Amandeep Hospital, Amritsar  and Gurvinder Singh at Hargun Hospital, Amritsar and he was suggested 2 stage revision whereas the record of the Opposite Party No.1-Hospital fully proves that on 4.3.2011 Dr.Manuj Wadhwa  himself suggested to the patient 2 stage revision and the prescription of Dr. Manuj Wadhwa has been attached with complaint itself by the complainant himself whereas the prescription  of Dr.Avtar Singh of Amandeep Hospital is dated 8.3.2011 and that of Dr.Gurvinder Singh of Hargun Hospital is dated 5.4.2011 which proves that same are actually second opinion taken by the complainant after Dr. Manuj Wadhwa suggested 2 stage revision on 4.3.2011. Thereafter, the complainant never reported to the Opposite Parties for 2 state revision of knee surgery of the complainant.
12. From the entire above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to point out any negligence or deficiency of service in the medical treatment of the patient at Opposite Party No.1-Hospital. The complainant was discharged from the hospital at the time of first hospitalization on 25.6.2010 in a quite stable condition without any infection or bed sore. The complainant had developed urine infection and bed sore during his stay at home and he was taken to Opposite Party No.1 Hospital on 1.7.2010 with urine infection and bed sore which had developed when the patient was at home and he ws fully cured at Opposite Party No.1 Hospital during his second hospitalization from 1.7.2010 to 15.7.2010 and he was discharged on 15.7.2010 in fully stable condition after he was cured properly for urine infection as well as bed sore. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties started anti tubercular drug to the patient only on the report of synovial fluid, Ex.R9 which is final and clear test of tuberculosis. The complainant was also advised to 2 stage revision of the knee replacement/ surgery by Dr.Manuj Wadhwa on 4.3.2011, but the complainant did not turn up for the same. So, the carelessness, if any, is on the part of the complainant himself  and not on the part of the Opposite Parties.   
13. Consequently, we hold that complainant has failed to prove on record any medical negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties qua the complainant.
14. Resultantly, we hold that the complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 04-08-2015.                                                   (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                               President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

              Member                         Member