DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No. 87 of 2014
Date of institution: 06.02.2014 Date of decision : 12.01.2017
Jatinder Pal Singh son of Randhir Singh resident of # 607, Ravindra Enclave, Baltana, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District Mohali and permanent resident of # 2216/3, Sector 45, Chandigarh.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. J.P. Hospital, NH-21, Ambala Chandigarh Highway, Near Big Bazar, Zirakpur, District Mohali through its Chairman/M.D.
2. Dr. Sandeep Singla, Consultant Incharge, Plastic Surgeon, J.P. Hospital, NH-21, Ambala Chandigarh Highway, Near Big Bazar, Zirakpur, District Mohali.
3. Dr. Rohit Garg, Sureon, Dr. Sandeep Singla, c/o Consultant Incharge, Plastic Surgeon, J.P. Hospital, NH-21, Ambala Chandigarh Highway, Near Big Bazar, Zirakpur, District Mohali.
4. United India Insurance Company Ltd., 42-C, 3rd Floor, Moolchand Commercial Complex, New Delhi 110024.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 11& 12
of the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Shri H.D. Bhardwaj, counsel for the complainant.
Shri Arun Batra, counsel for OP No.1 to 3
Shri Madan Lal Chaudhary, counsel for OP No.4.
ORDER
By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Complainant Jatinder Pal Singh has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
The complainant who is aged 32 years is a Computer Hardware Engineer and is running his own business. The complainant was suffering from acute abdomen pain and consulted OP No.1 to 3 on 09.05.2013 who after diagnosis found that the pain was due to stone in the gallbladder and in medical term it may be pronounced as Lap-chole. OP No.1 to 3 informed the complainant that they shall perform a small laser operation to remove the stone and the complainant shall not suffer any pain throughout in his life. The OP No.1 to 3 informed the complainant that the fee for the laser operation shall be Rs.25,000/- and there would be no other expenditure except this. The OP No.1 to 3 thereafter operated the complainant which lead to some complication as these OPs were not having the competence of expertise in the filed nor they fully investigated the disease. The complainant was discharged on 11.05.2013. The complainant again felt problem and was re-examined on 18.05.2013 and he was admitted for indoor treatment and was discharged on 21.05.2013 and was again called on 22.05.2013 that an expert would examine and solve the complications but no expert was called nor proper treatment was provided due to which the problem further aggravated. The complainant was asked to go to Fortis Hospital where he was checked and the injury was detected. The OP No.1 to 3 did not possess necessary and essential expertise and did not investigate properly for operating the complainant which resulted into the injury during operation. The complainant was again admitted on 26.05.2013 and was discharged on 28.05.2013. However, the complainant was again admitted on 29.05.2013 and the OPs asked the complainant to seek expert opinion of his choice and discharged the complainant on 31.05.2013 by mentioning on the discharge slip that the complainant wants discharge on his own request. The complainant then went to the PGI for treatment on 31.05.2013 and was admitted in emergency on account of injuries and sufferance at the hands of OP No.1 to 3. The complainant remained hospitalized upto 18.06.2013 and further from 20.08.2013 to 17.09.2013. Thus, alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 to 3, the complainant has sought direction to the OPs to pay him compensation to the tune of Rs.18,80,000/- alongwith interest and costs of litigation.
2. OP No.1 to 3 in the preliminary objections of the written statement have pleaded that the complainant has not produced any expert opinion of any competent doctor/medical board for proving his case of medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of these OPs. The complainant was operated on 09.05.2013 after obtaining informed consent for the surgery. The post operative period was uneventful. The complainant used to have off and on pain in abdomen for which necessary medications were prescribed and the complainant got relieved from the pain. After discharge on 11.05.2013 the complainant was accepting orally well and was passing normal colour stools. Thereafter, the complainant was re-admitted on 18.05.2013 with the complaint of pain in epigastrium region and left upper abdomen. The complainant’s abdomen ultrasonography was conducted which revealed collection in the left subcapsular region. USG guided aspiration was done, bilious fluid aspirated and USG guided pigtail catheter was put in. The complainant was again admitted on 24.05.2013 with the complaint of fever Endoscopic retrograde chalangiopancreatography (ERCP) was conducted which revealed common bile duct (CBD) injury. The complainant was managed conservatively with antibiotics. The complaint was again admitted on 26.05.2013 with complaint of pain in left flank area. The complainant’s abdomen USG was done which revealed no intra abdominal collection with pigtail catheter in situ. The complainant was discharged on 28.05.1013. He was again admitted on 29.05.2013 with complaint of abdominal pain. The complainant was advised for contrast enhanced computed tomography (CECT) of abdomen but the complainant took discharge on request. The OPs have admitted that bile duct injury is a common complication which may occur and same is certified by medical literature. On merits, the OPs have denied the allegations of the complainant regarding medical negligence and deficiency in service on their part and they have sought dismissal of the complaint.
3. OP No.4 was impleaded on the MA application No.126 of 26.05.2014 filed by OP No.1 to 3. OP No.4 in its reply has admitted that it has issued Prof. Indemnity Policy to OP No.1 for the period 24.01.2013 to 23.01.2014 subject to certain terms and conditions. It has pleaded that if this Forum comes to the conclusion that there is any negligence on the part of OP No.1 to 3 and any compensation is passed in favour of the complainant, then the same would be borne by the insured and OP No.4 shall reimburse the insured subject to policy cover limit and other terms and conditions.
4. In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW-1/1; copies of prescription slip Ex.C-1; bill Ex.C-2; receipts Ex.C-3 to C-8; discharge summary Ex.C-9; reports Ex.C-10 to C-12; prescription slip Ex.C-13; discharge summary Ex.C-14; reports Ex.C-15 to C-17; prescription slip dated 22.05.2013 Ex.C-18; discharge summary alongwith slips Ex.C-19; slip Ex.C-20; report Ex.C-21; discharge summary Ex.C-22; reports Ex.C-23 & C-24; discharge summary Ex.C-25; reports Ex.C-26 to C-29; ERCP report Ex.C-30 to C-32; PGI slip Ex.C-33; discharge and follow up card Ex.C-34 to C-57; receipts Ex.C-58 to Ex.C-100; calculation sheet Ex.C-101; receipts Ex.C-102 to C-111; calculation sheet Ex.C-112; cash receipts Ex.C-113 to C-125; notice dated 13.06.2013 Ex.C-126; news paper cuttings Ex.C-129; OPD card Ex.C-130; affidavit of Randhir Singh father of the complainant Ex.C-131 and affidavit of Gurinder Singh Ex.C-132. In rebuttal, OP No.1 to 3 has tendered in evidence affidavit of Dr. Rohit Garg Ex.OP-3/1; medical literature Ex.OP-3/2; qualification certificates of OP No.2 Ex.OP-2/1 to Ex.OP-2/4 and qualification certificates of OP No.3 Ex.OP-3/3 to Ex.OP-3/5.. Evidence of OP No.4 consists of affidavit of Hemali Batra its Dy. Manager Ex.OP-4/1; certified copy of insurance policy Ex.OP-4/2 to Ex.OP-4/4.
5. Learned Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the main controversy involved in the present case is that OP No.1 to 3 while operating upon the complainant committed bile duct injury and this fact has been admitted by the Ops in their preliminarily submissions sub para J of the written version. He pleaded that it is established from the medical record Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-24 that due to careless and negligent act of OP No.1 to 3 the complainant was compelled to undergo several operations and thereafter complainant did not get any relief from the treatments. Learned counsel also stated that due to the act and conduct of the Ops the complainant had no option than to get himself discharged from the OP-Hospital as the OPs were not able to provide adequate and necessary care as it is evident from the discharge slips Ex.C-25 to Ex.C-28.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsels for the OPs submitted that an expert opinion was also taken from the PGI, Chandigarh upon the request of the complainant and the PGI
Board vide report dated 04.03.2015 stated that in such like cases there is always a chance of 0.5%. Learned counsel pleaded that the OP doctor possesses a professional skill and there are chance that such incidents happens but not due to the negligence of the Doctor. Learned counsel also pleaded that there is no material on record to prove that the Ops acted negligently while performing the operation upon the complainant.
7. After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties and the oral arguments and written submissions, we find that there is force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the complainant. It is well established from the medical record placed on record Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-28 that due to biliary injury caused by the OPs the complainant had to undergo tremendous physical torture by repeatedly getting himself admitted in hospitals. The PGI vide its report dated 04.03.2015 had stated that there are chance of 0.5 percent in such like cases. As per our opinion, if the Ops had taken due precautions, the injury could have been easily avoided. We are of the opinion that when the OPs came to know about the injury, they should have treated the complainant with proper care and not to let him suffer due to their carelessness behavior towards the complainant.
8. So far as OP No.2 is concerned, he is consultant and has only prescribed medicines to the complainant post surgery. The surgery was conducted by OP No.3. The post surgery problems which the complainant has faced is due to the injury he received during surgery conducted by OP No.3. Hence, no medical negligence and deficiency is found on the part of the OP No.2. So, the complaint against OP No.2 deserves to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion, we find that due to careless, negligent act and conduct of the OP No. 1 & 3 the complainant had to suffer physical as well as mental harassment at the hands of the OP No. 1 & 3.We are of the view that the OP No.1 & 3 had committed deficiency of service by not providing proper medical aid. Hence we direct the OP No.1 & 3 to pay a lump sum amount which includes expenses for hospitalizations, medical expenses, compensation for causing mental as well as physical harassment alongwith litigation costs to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lakhs only).
The OP No.1 & 3 are also directed to comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case the OP No. 1 & 3 failed to comply with this order within the stipulated period, they shall pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the costs awarded to the complainant till its realization
The arguments on the complaint were heard on 10.01.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 12.01.2017
(A.P.S.Rajput)
President
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
