Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/13/832

Bhagat Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jawada Nursing Home - Opp.Party(s)

07 Feb 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 832 of 07.11.2013

Date of Decision          : 07.02.2017

 

Bhagat Singh aged 33 years s/o Narinder Singh r/o Ward No.18, Roop Nagar Khanna, District Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

Versus 

1.Jawada Nursing Home (Maternity & Surgical Centre) Pirkhana Road near Jarg Chowk, Khanna District Ludhiana through Dr.Major Singh Jawada.

2.Dr Major Singh Jawada of Jawada Nursing Home (Maternity & Surgical Centre) Pirkhana Road near Jarg Chowk, Khanna District Ludhiana.

3.United India Insurance Company Limited, 42-C, 3^rd Floor, Mool Chand Commercial Complex, New Delhi-110024, through authorized signatory.

4.Punjab Health System Corporation, Civil Hospital, Khanna, District Ludhiana through Medical Officer.

..…Opposite parties

 

 (COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For Complainant                     :         Sh.M.S.Sethi, Advocate

For OP1 and OP2          :         Sh.Randeep Singh Gill, Advocate

For OP3 and OP4          :         Ex-parte. 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Complainant, a renowned goldsmith of Khanna was operated by OP1 and OP2 on 19.9.2013 for appendixes Rs.20,000/- were charged against the consultancy, treatment and operation by OP1 and OP2. Complainant was discharged from the hospital on 23.9.2013 at 10:00 AM by prescribing certain medicines for three days through prescription slip of that date. At the time of discharge, Op failed to push out the drain pipe from the abdomen, despite various efforts. That discharge without pushing the drain pipe was on the ground that the said pipe seems to be fixed with stitching by mistake while stitching wound/stomach. It was disclosed that pipe will be removed at the time of removal of the stitches. Despite request by the complainant to the effect that he is unable to bear the acute pain, Op without providing effective remedy, discharged the complainant from the hospital leaving the drain pipe inside. Complainant visited OP on the same day at 4:00 PM and was admitted there on account of complaint of sudden nerve pain, body pain including right side chest and back upto neck etc. Injection of Vovran was given and ECG was done by OP1 and OP2. Case was examined by Dr.Ajit Singh of Ajit Hospital on 23.9.2013, but he failed to provide relief to the complainant with respect to the pain suffered by him. Thereafter, the complainant was kept in its hospital by OP1 and OP2 till 24.9.2013 and was discharged there from by prescribing certain medicines, but without removing the drain pipe. An amount of Rs.6500/- was charged in the name of treatment/testing/consultancy. In view of attitude of OP1 and OP2 in discharging the complainant without providing proper treatment and without removing the drain pipe, relative of the complainant namely Roop Chand called the nearest photographer on 23.9.2013 in the hospital. Photographs showing drain pipe inside the abdomen were clicked and even news item regarding negligence of OP1 and OP2 was published in Daily Ajit newspapers. Thereafter, OP called complainant in hospital for next 5 days, but failed to remove the drain pipe. On 3.9.2013 during visit to the hospital of OP1 and OP2, they removed the stitches of the wounds and even tried their best to remove the drain pipe. As the drain pipe was tried to be removed forcibly and as such, the same resulted in leakage of blood and acute pain. Thereafter, the complainant called upon his relative to take him to civil hospital for further action and there complainant was brought in emergency ward of Civil Hospital, Khanna on 30.9.2013. Case was referred to Surgeon by attending doctor. After conduct of test and adopting other measures, drain pipe from inside the abdomen was removed. Due to critical condition of the complainant, he was discharged from the Civil Hospital on 8.10.2013 after admission on 30.9.2013. The drain pipe was required to be removed from inside the abdomen after three days from the date of operation, otherwise it was to so harm full for creating pus and infection causing danger to the life of the complainant. However, OP2 despite claiming himself to be MBBS, MS (Surgery) failed to follow the norms of the medical science in this particular case. Cause of abdominal distension/pain and reason of non exit of the drain pipe could have been disclosed through ultrasound test etc., but those were not performed by Ops and as such, by pleading negligence on the part of OP1 and OP2, prayer made for directing Ops to pay compensation of Rs.66,600/- plus travelling expenses of Rs.75,000/-. Compensation for loss of employment and livelihood of Rs.2 lac and compensation for medical negligence and adoption of unfair trade practice of Rs.5 lac along with litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/- more claimed. Prayer also made for holding OP1 and OP2 responsible for rendering medical negligence and providing deficient services. It is claimed that the complainant lodged complaint with CMO, Ludhiana and SMO, Ludhiana, but no action is so far taken as to his knowledge. Even relative of the complainant lodged complaint with Medical Council of India, which was returned with advise to file the complaint for cancellation of license of OP1 and OP2. Even complainant tried his best to lodge criminal complaint against OP1 and OP2, but it is claimed that due to political nexus and pressure, the police authority failed to initiate action on the complaint of complainant. OP1 and OP2 are insured with OP3 vide policy No.041200/46/13/32/0000/2546 for the period w.e.f.16.7.2013 to 15.7.2014 and as such, liability of insurer to pay the claim amount is also there.

2.                In written statement filed by Op1 and OP2 jointly, it is pleaded interalia as if complaint is frivolous and vexatious as well as the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands because his complaint is not supported by any expert view. It is claimed that no cause of action accrued to the complainant against OP1 and OP2 because there was no negligence or deficiency in service in providing services by them. Complainant failed to disclose as to how, OP1 and OP2 were negligent and as such, complaint filed on the basis of conjectures alone. Though opinion of Medical expert required for proving the case of medical negligence, but no such expert opinion produced on record. Earlier complainant filed complaint with Medical Council of India, New Delhi, which was forwarded to the Punjab Medical Council Mohali for inquiry. An inquiry committee has been constituted by the Civil Surgeon, Ludhiana. That inquiry is going on in the office of Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Khanna. Complaint alleged to be filed just for harassing and defaming OP1. It is claimed that though OP1 and OP2 were insured with United India Insurance Company Limited, but same is not impleaded. OP2 is MBBS and MS(General Surgeon). OP2 worked as Medical Officer in P.C.M.S. Cadre from 1993 to 1997 and even he worked in Govt.Medical College, Patiala in surgery department as Junior Resident from 1997-2000. OP2 even worked as Surgeon at Civil Hospital, Kotakpura    from 2002-2003. OP2 even worked as Surgeon in Civil Hospital at Samrala and Khanna, District Ludhiana from 2003 to 2006. After 2006, OP2 is running his own hospital at Khanna in the name of OP1. So, OP2 claims to be having experience of more than 15 year in Surgery. Admittedly, complainant came to OP1 on 19.9.2013 with history of right iliac fossa pain abdomen for 2-3 days and thereafter, he was admitted for 2 days. OP2 examined the complainant and diagnosed his case as acute appendicitis after conduct of ultrasound scan of abdomen. OP2 got another ultrasound done from Ruchi Scan Centre and thereafter, got the confirmation about diagnosis of acute Appendicitis. Op2 advised the complainant for immediate operation, to which, he consented and thereafter, operation was performed on the same day namely 19.9.2013. Appendicectomy operation was difficult, due to appendix being an abnormal position and due to history of pain for 2-3 days. So, a lot of tissue dissection was done because the appendix was found in lumber region and it was friable. Incision had to be extended twice to gain access to base of appendix. There was lot of pus and suction was done. Incision can go as much high as is the seat of appendix. Operative notes mentions about doing of under spinal anesthesia and cleaning of the parts and draping them. Right grid iron incision was given and abdomen opened. Caecum was identified. Pus was present in right paracolic gutter and suction of the same was done. Appendix could not be identified and that is why incision was extended towards liver. Tip of appendix was seen and same was caught hold of.  Appendix dissected up to base after extending the incision further. This appendix was inflamed and friable. Small amount of bleeding was present from mesentery side. Hot sponge was applied and bleeding was controlled. Spongistan was put in. Tube drain was put in right paracolic and Caecum area. Peritoneum was closed. Wound was cleaned with N/s, Betadine. Closing of this wound was in layers with vicryl No.1 and Trulon 2-0. In difficult appendix surgeries, where pus is present and lot of tissue dissection is done, oozing of blood is more than normal. It is normal practice to leave a drain to remove pus/blood and other fluids out of abdomen. Even the Atlas of General Surgery study suggests so. Complainant in this case progressed well and he started taking orally liquids and then food by 3^rd post operative day and also passed motion. So, intestines of the complainant were functioning normally and he was found moving around in the hospital comfortably. Thereafter, the complainant was discharged in satisfactory condition from the hospital on 23.9.2013 after doing wound dressing. It was planned to remove the drain along with stitches, removal of which to take place on 8^th post operative day. Complainant came back in the evening on 23.9.2013 around 5 P.M. because he was having severe pain in right side of abdomen, chest and right shoulder. Complainant was attended   immediately. OP2 gave injection to control pain and even did an ECG for ruling out heart attack. The pain subsided in 20-25 minutes. Thereafter, the complainant was sent to Medical Specialist Dr.Ajit Singh, M.D.(Medicine) for medical checkup. That doctor conducted x-ray of chest. There was air under diaphragm which was explained as the cause of severe pain. Thereafter, the complainant came back to OP1 within one hour. OP2 kept the complainant under observation for the night and he remained comfortable throughout during night. Complainant was taking food and was not having any pain or any distension. Thereafter, the complainant was discharged in satisfactory condition on 24.9.2013. No charges were claimed for this treatment and stay. Thereafter, the complainant came to the hospital of OP1 for removal of stitches on 28.9.2013 and those were removed. However, when OP2 tried to pull out the drain, then complainant became apprehensive and was tightening his muscle by complaining pain. Op2 asked the complainant to come empty stomach in the next morning, so that drain can be removed safely and painlessly under anesthesia. That is the best way to remove drain painlessly. Complainant agreed for the same. Op2 called upon the complainant in the evening of 28.9.2013 at about 6:55 PM for fixing up the time for the next day. Telephone bill of OP2 attached with the written statement. However, the complainant did not come for drain removal, despite the fact that OP2 fixed up with Anesthetist Dr.Rohit Kansal on 28.9.2013 for removal of drain under anesthesia. So, said doctor had to go back from Jawanda Nursing Home on 29.9.2013 in the morning. Rather, the complainant went to Civil Hospital, Khanna. It is denied that drain tube inserted wrongly or against the scientific requirements. Had the drain not been put in, then there would have been collection of blood, pus, and peritoneal fluids inside the abdomen resulting in infection to gram negative local peritonitis and even to gram negative generalized peritonitis. That further would been caused infection in blood (gram negative septicemia). That may have resulted in multi-organ failure and ultimately death. As and when pus is present in any area, then the same has to be drained out. It is due to this that drain pipe has to be inserted next to the operated appendix part. Drain in such like situation acts like a camera in abdomen. As after tissue dissection normally the seepage of blood takes place and that is why for removal of the same, the drain was inserted for effective removal of the blood, puss and infected peritoneal fluid. Even the same facts became evident from the ultrasound scan done at Civil Hospital, Khanna. Rather, drain prevented the deadly complications. Treatment in this case was given as per standard surgical procedures and norms. Complainant filed complaint with  D.S.P.Khanna, who called both the parties. There the complainant gave in writing that he was satisfied with the provided treatment and does not want to pursue the complaint. Admittedly, OP1 and OP2 received Rs.20,000/- from the complainant for the treatment of Appendixes. Sometimes, the drain may stuck up due to various reasons like kinking, muscle edema, apprehension of the patient by tightening his muscles, which in fact is the position in this case. It is on account of this that for removal of the drain pipe, anesthesia has to been applied. All this was explained to the complainant. Civil Hospital after conducting test and adopting other measures, operated the complainant is a matter of record. Complainant himself did not come for getting the drain pipe removed under anesthesia as referred above. Even the doctor of Civil Hospital removed the drain under anesthesia as per plan discussed by Op2 with the complainant. Removal of drain under anesthesia was a routine procedure adopted in Civil Hospital. Removal of drain takes place, when the discharge from the drain stops. There is no hard and fast rule regarding the time for removal of drain. Definitely the drain pipe is not removed on the third day, if it keeps on draining. Drain pipe is not harmful to human health, if it is kept with the purpose of draining by a Surgeon. Many patients are routinely sent home with drains, catheters and chest tubes. All allegations of medical negligence vehemently denied by claiming that OP1 and Op2 provided treatment diligently with due care and caution. So, allegations of providing deficient services or of adoption of   unfair trade practice denied one by one each.

3.                In separate written statement filed by OP3, it is admitted that OP1 and OP2 are insured with OP3 under Establishment Error & Professional Indemnity policy No.041200/46/13/32/00002546 with validity period w.e.f.18.7.2013 to 17.7.2014. Op1 virtually insured for period from 12.7.2013 to 11.7.2016 as per the terms and conditions of the policy. It is claimed that OP3 takes all the pleas as are taken in the written statement of OP1 and OP2.

4.                OP4 is ex-parte in this case.

5.                OP3 was impleaded as a party after filing of application and thereafter, on notice being sent through registered post, none appeared and that is why after drawing presumption of due service and after lapse of period of 30 days, OP3 was proceeded against ex-parte. That ex-parte order was set-aside against Op3 vide order dated 11.12.2014. In this way, written statement of OP3 obtained on 2.1.2015. However, subsequently, none appeared for OP3, when case was posted for evidence of OP3 after closure of evidence by the complainant and OP1 and OP2 and as such, OP3 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 15.4.2015.

6.                Complaint to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA1 along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C28 and thereafter, his counsel closed the evidence.

7.                On the other hand, counsel for OP1 and OP2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.DW1/1 of Sh.Major Singh Jawanda along with documents Ex.DW1/A to Ex.DW1/T including H1 and then he along with his counsel closed the evidence on behalf of OP1 and OP2.

8.                Written arguments in this case submitted by the complainant as well as by OP1 and OP2. Oral arguments of counsel for parties heard. Records gone through minutely. 

9.                Contention of counsel for OP1 and OP2 to the effect that complaint qua the same subject matter was filed by the complainant with Civil Surgeon, Ludhiana and through relative with D.S.P has force because after going through letter Ex.DW1/A dated 1.7.2014 sent by the Civil Surgeon, Ludhiana to Director, Health and Family Welfare, Punjab, Chandigarh and also after going through letter Ex.DW1/B dated 2.6.2014 sent by Senior Medical Officer Incharge, Eye Mobile Unit, Civil Surgeon Office, Ludhiana, it is made out that on complaint being filed by the complainant, an enquiry was conducted and it was found as if there was no negligence on the part of OP2 in providing treatment in question. Rather, through these letters Ex.DW1/A and Ex.DW1/B, it has been specifically found on the basis of annexed enquiry report that no negligence was committed by OP2 in providing treatment. Rather, OP2 was declared innocent through these letters. So, certainly the office of Civil Surgeon after conduct of due enquiry has found the complaint filed by the complainant as having no substance. Rather, case of medical negligence not at all held to be made out in the enquiry conducted through the office of Civil Surgeon, Ludhiana.

10.              Perusal of Ex.DW1/L, the report dated 23.10.2013 prepared by DSP, Khanna shows as if Roop Chand Sedha, the relative of the complainant through recorded suffered statement claimed as if he is not to get further proceedings conducted in said complaint qua negligent treatment provided by                      OP2 to the complainant on 19.9.2013. Copy of that un-exhibited complaint dated 2.10.2013 has also been produced on record. Rather, statement of said Roop Chand Sedha was recorded by DSP, Khana and copy of same available on record as Ex.DW1/M. Through this statement Ex.DW1/M, said Roop Chand Sedha claimed as if his nephew Bhagat Singh satisfied now with the provided treatment of Appendixes and that is why he is withdrawing the application filed by him with DSP. Letter dated 13.12.2013 Ex.DW1/N also shows that on the basis of complaint, office of Civil Surgeon initiated enquiry and thereafter, held OP2 as innocent as referred above.

11.              Even complainant lodged complaint with the Medical Council of India and the same was sent to Punjab Medical Council is a fact borne from contents of letters Ex.DW1/P and Ex.DW1/O. Contents of Ex.DW1/Q and Ex.DW1/R further establishes that the complaint even was filed by Roop Chand Sedha with Medical Council of India, but the same was returned in original with request to submit the complaint in prescribed format by paying Rs.200/- through demand draft and attaching the affidavit on stamp paper of Rs.50/-. That is borne from the contents of Ex.DW1/R. Comments of OP2 along with Dr.Beant Kaur Jawanda were called by Punjab Medical Council through letter Ex.DW1/O. Marking of the complaint by Medical Council of India to Punjab Medical Council disclosed by contents of Ex.DW1/P. No document produced to show as to what was the result of the enquiry conducted by the Medical Council of Punjab or as to what was the order passed by the Medical Council of India. Even if that record may not have been produced, but despite that above referred documentary evidence along with contents of affidavit Ex.DW1/1 of OP2 enough to establish that Op2 has been found innocent in the enquiry conducted by the Civil Surgeon, Ludhiana with respect to the allegations of medical negligence levelled in this complaint and even relative of the complainant namely Roop Chand Sedha disclosed DSP, Khanna as if complainant is satisfied with the treatment provided by OP2.

12.              Indoor patient admission record of the complainant in OP1 hospital of date 19.9.2013 produced on record as Ex.DW1/C by OP1 and OP2 for establishing that an operation through Appendicectomy was done for acute supportive appendicitis. Operation on 19.9.2013 through Appendicectomy was done is a    fact borne from the contents of Ex.DW1/C. After performing this operation, medicines were prescribed as revealed by contents of prescription slip Ex.DW1/D. Treatment chart record Ex.DW1/E along with record of reports of laboratory Ex.DW1/F and Ex.DW1/G has been produced. Perusal of ultrasound report Ex.DW1/H reveals that appendix seems to be inflammed. Coils of gut were seen around. Urinary bladder was found normally distended. Even the photostat copies of ultrasound scan films are annexed with this report. Even then to be more sure, second ultrasound scan from Ruchi Scan Centre, Khanna was got conducted of whole of the abdomen is a fact borne from the contents of report of that centre dated 19.9.2013 placed on record as Ex.DW1/I. The observations recorded in this report Ex.DW1/I are as under:-

“Bowel:- On high frequency scanning there is evidence of a blind ended, aperistaltic, non-compressible, tubular structure arising from the base of Caecum with a diameter of 9 mm- suggestive of appendicitis. Appendix is seen at a higher position extending in right lumbar region. No obvious periappendiceal fluid collection/lump formation seen.”

13.              From perusal of this report Ex.DW1/I, it is made out that appendix was seen at a higher position extending in right lumbar region. Removal of appendix up to that higher position extending in right lumbar region as such certainly required to be done.  Submissions advanced by counsel for Op1 and OP2 as such has force that tissue dissection for removal of appendix has to be done at higher position extending up to the right lumbar region. After doing Appendicectomy, small amount of bleeding was found present and hot sponge was applied.  For controlling bleeding, sponge was put in. Tube drain even was inserted as per operation notes. As the tube drain was put in for draining out the bleeding and as such, act of putting of drain pipe is not an act of medical negligence at all. Reports Ex.DW1/H and Ex.DW1/J virtually are one and the same thing.  

14.              As per medical study of R.F.Rintoul of operation of Appendix, the base of the appendix is variable in position. The appendix may occupy one of several positions (1) it may curl round the lower pole of the caecum and pass upwards on its lateral side- paracolic position (3%) (2) it may pass upwards behind the caecum- retrocaecal position(70%) (3) it may extend more or less transversely to the left, passing either in front of or behind the terminal part of the ileum (2%); (4)it may hang downwards into the pelvis-pelvis position(25%) and the retrocaecal and pelvic positions are the commonest.   

15.              Further as per this study, in most cases, access through the smaller incision is adequate and allows the patient to make a rapid recovery. However, in small proportion of cases, difficulty is encountered and the incision is then enlarged. An alternative approach is the muscle-cutting iliac incision (Rutherford Morison). Whenever difficulty is encountered, especially when the appendix occupies the retrocaecal position, it may be necessary to enlarge the wound, to pack off the rest of the peritoneal cavity, and to free the appendix under direct vision. In this case also, appendix was inflammed as per ultrasound scan report Ex.DW1/H and this appendix was seen at higher position extending in right lumber region as per ultrasound scan report Ex.DW1/I and as such, incision had to be extended for having access to appendix upto the right lumber region i.e. upto the higher position. As and when this incision at high level to take place, then certainly tightness of muscle bound to be there resulting in bleeding. So, in      such circumstances, it was but natural for OP2 to put the drain pipe at higher          level i.e. up to the level of right lumber region because incision had to be extended up to that extent for having access to the appendix.

16.              Further, as per the produced study of surgical drains, indications, management and removal (produced on record in the shape of photostat copies), drain is put for preventing the accumulation of fluids (blood, puss and infected fluids). Management is governed by the type, purpose and location of the drain. That drain should be put in secured position, so that dislodgment thereof may not take place. These drains generally should be removed once the drainage has stopped or becomes less than about 25 ml/day. Even as per this study record, the patient has to be warned that there may be some discomfort when the drain is pulled out. Doze of pain relief even may be given before removal of drain. So, in view of this produced record of medical surgery study, it is obvious that due precaution was required to be taken by Op2 while putting the drain pipe, so that in case of uncomfort, the complainant may not dislodge the said drain. As        purpose of putting the drain was to drain out the infected fluids, puss and blood from  near and around areas of surgical incision and as such, it was but natural    for OP2 to put the drain pipe at higher level in right lumber region because he had to dissect tissue upto that level for having access to the appendix. That was done by OP2. As drain in view of emergency circumstances was put at higher level and as such, stitching of the same, for preventing dislodgment, had to be done upto the end level. That actually as such was the cause due to which removal of drain pipe was not possible easily. It is on account of this that Ops suggested the complainant to come on 29.9.2013 or 30.9.2013 with empty stomach, so that removal of drain pipe may take place under anesthesia.

17.              Even the record of treatment of date 23.9.2013 Ex.DW1/S shows that the complainant felt severe pain in right lumber region, radiating to right side chest and back upto neck. In view of that felt severe pain, certainly it was not possible for OP2 to take out the drain pipe at earliest. When treatment on 29.9.2013 was got by the complainant, then Appendicectomy had already been done 5 days earlier is a fact borne from the contents of Ex.DW1/S itself. As operation for acute supportive Appendix was done on 19.9.2013 is a borne from the contents             of medical bill Ex.DW1/T and the concerned treatment chart record and as such, in view of incision taken to higher level, it was but natural for OP2 to be sure that drainage of blood or puss stops first. Only on such stoppage, OP2 could have removed the stitches. So, if removal of drain pipe was suggested by OP2 through  anesthesia administration, then there was nothing wrong in that respect.

18.              Un-exhibited affidavits of Dr.Harjeshwar Singh Bajwa, Dr.Dharam Paul, Dr.Daljit Singh, Dr.Bhagwant Singh and Dr.Maninder Singh Bhasin even shows that in their opinion, operation was done as per standard surgical procedures and norms. Even as per these affidavits, in view of contents of operative notes and in view of dissection done, possibility of collection of puss in abdomen postoperatively was all the more there. Even as per these affidavits, the inserted drain pipe has to be removed as and when discharge from the drain stops. This removal of the drain possible only after cutting the anchoring stitch. Sometimes, it gets entangled in the omentum, intestines or gets kinked or become adherent as per these affidavits. It is the case of Op1 and OP2 that puss was present in right paracolic gutter and that is why pus suction was done. Small amount of bleeding was present from the mesentery side is also the case of OP1 and OP2. Tube drain was put in right paracolic and caecum area is also the case of OP1 and OP2. As the complainant got apprehensive and tightened the muscle resulting in the complaint of pain and that is why stitches not removed on 28.9.2013 is also the case of OP1 and OP2. Removal of drain at earliest as such was not done for preventing post operation complications. Keeping in view the high level of inserted drain in the body, anesthesia was required for removal of the same and that is why Op1 and OP2 contacted Anesthetist. However, the complainant himself did not visit OP1 or OP2 on the appointed date and as such, fault lays with the complainant in that respect. So, entire discussed evidence available on record establishes that Op2 did whatever was required in providing treatment in question to the complainant as per standard procedures and norms. Being so, complainant is unable to prove as if it is a case of medical negligence or deficiency in service of any type in providing the treatment. Ex.C1 is the same document as is produced on record as Ex.DW1/T, whereas, Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 are the same things as is Ex.DW1/S.

19.              Perusal of Ex.C4 reveals that the complainant was admitted in emergency in Civil Hospital, Khanna and Anesthetist was called for conducting surgical operation for removal of drain is a fact borne from the contents of Ex.C5 to Ex.C11. In view of that claim of OP1 and OP2 is correct that drain pipe could not have been removed without putting the complainant under anesthesia. Even the complainant has not examined any expert for proving that treatment in question was not required. Production of such expert contended to be not essential in view of law laid down in case titled as Renu Aggarwal vs. Director, Christian Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana and others-2015(3)CLt-157(Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh). However, facts of the reported case are quite distinct, than those of facts of the case before us because in the reported case, necessity of examining the expert was not felt after finding that metallic substance was left inside the abdomen during surgical operation. However, in the case before us, production of expert was essential for establishing that treatment in question was not provided as per medical standard procedures and norms. So, benefit from the ratio of above cited case can’t be gained by the counsel for the complainant.

20.              As neither it is a case of medical negligence and nor of adoption of unfair trade practice and as such, complaint deserves to be dismissed.

21.              Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint dismissed without any order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

22.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                      (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                      (G.K.Dhir)

                       Member                                                President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:07.02.2017.

Gurpreet Sharma.