Vijay kumar filed a consumer case on 08 Mar 2016 against Medanta Global Health Pvt Ltd. in the Gurgaon Consumer Court. The case no is CC/374/2015 and the judgment uploaded on 26 May 2016.
Vijay Kumar Vs Medanta Global and others (CC No.374 of 15)
Present Shri Kuldeep Singh, Adv for the complainant.
ORDER
Heard.
The complainant in his complaint has alleged that he suffered bullet injuries on abdomen on the accidental fire caused by his friend on 04.10.2013 and he was taken to OP-1 and during treatment some complication was developed due to negligence in surgery. The negligence during survey on the part of the OPs was on the nature/grounds as mentioned in Para No.5 of the complaint. The complainant was again re-operated but there was no recovery in the condition of the complainant. The complainant has filed the present complaint alleging medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties and sought compensation of Rs. 20 Lacs. .
2 After receipt of the complaint this Forum referred the matter to Civil Surgeon, General Hospital, Gurgaon for constitution of Medical Board for obtaining its expert opinion vide order dated 20.07.2015 in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in case Martin F.D’Souza Vs Mohd. Ishfaq (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases 1 and in view of the order of this Forum dated 20.07.2015 the medical board submitted report dated 04.09.2015.
3 We have gone through the written submissions as well as law laid down in V.Kishan Rao Vs Nikhil Super Specialty Hospital & Ano 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 929 and A.Srimannarayana Vs Dasari Santakumari & another 2013(9) SCC 496.
4 However, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case it emerges that the Medical Board was constituted by the Civil Surgeon, Gurgaon in compliance of the direction of this Forum given vide order dated 20.07.2015 and the Medical Board has submitted the following report dated 04.09.2015 which reads as under :-
“The operating surgeon is a well qualified surgeon and competent to do such procedures.
The patient was a case of gunshot injury to abdomen, he was operated and exploratory laprotomy was done on 05.10.2013 and right hemicolectomy with covering ileostomy with retrieval of bullet with peritoneal lavage was done. We are of the opinion that this decision was taken as per protocol in such injuries.
The patient had intra abdominal abscess for which again exploratory laprotomy with drainage of right perinephric abscess was done on 04.11.2013. We are of the opinion that since the first laprotomy was done in emergency and there was no time for bowel preparation which is usually done in routine colonic surgeries. When such colonic procedures are done in emergency then some intra abdominal infection is expected in some cases.
The ileostomy closure was done on 08.05.2014.
At present patient has incisional hernia at the operation site. We are of the opinion when multiple surgeries are carried out on abdomen such problems can occur in any case.
The committee is of the opinion that the treatment given by the operating doctor at Medanta Hospital was as per standard protocol in such cases. The other complications which occurred after surgery including infection can be termed as complication of the procedure and not negligence.”
5. Therefore when the Medical Board has categorically held that there was no medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties and as such for want of evidence it will be of no use to summon the opposite parties to face trial. Therefore, no case of summoning the opposite parties is made out for want of medical negligence and thus, we dismiss the present complaint. The copy of the order be supplied to the complainant free of costs.
File be consigned to the records after due compliance.
Announced (Subhash Goyal)
08.03.2016 President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Gurgaon
(Jyoti Siwach) (Surender Singh Balyan)
Member Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.