Haryana

StateCommission

A/764/2019

UNIVERSITY OF MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCE - Complainant(s)

Versus

MEENAKSHI - Opp.Party(s)

NILESH BHARDWAJ

16 Jan 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.764 of 2019

Date of Institution:02.09.2019

Date of decision:16.01.2020

 

1.      University of Medical & Health Science through its Registrar.

 

2.      Director, Pt. B.D.S., PGIMS, Rohtak, University of Health, Science Rohtak.

 

3.      Medical Superintendent PGIMS, Rohtak.

 

4.      Doctor M.S. Griwan, Senior Professor and Unit Head Surgery-II, PGIMS, Rohtak.

 

5.      Doctor Nityasha, Professor Surgery, Unit-V PGIMS Rohtak.

 

…Appellants

Versus

 

1.      Meenakshi W/oSh.Ranbir Singh R/o H.No.712/10 Ram Gopal Colony, Rohtak.

 

2.      Dr.Raju Ranjan, Ex-PG Student, Unit II PGIMS, Rohtak.

 

3.      State of Haryana through Collector Rohtak.

…Respondents

 

CORAM:   Mrs. Manjula, Presiding Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellants.

 

                                      O R D E R

 

MANJULA, PRESIDING MEMBER:

 

The appeal has been preferred against the order dated 08.08.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (in short ‘District Forum’) vide which the complaint was allowed and directed the OP Nos.1 to 6 jointly and severally to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of medical expenses, mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

2.      The brief facts giving rise to the complaint are that she approached PGIMS Rohtak  for her treatment on 30.01.2015 as there was some swelling (Knot) in the right hand.  She got treated by O.P.Nos.5 and 6.  O.P. No.6 operated her on 13.03.2015 without obtaining the consent. At the time of operation, she was not unconscious and was continuously crying with pain.  O.P.No.6 did not call anesthesia expert and applied local anesthesia only to sedate the complainant.  She felt that her hand was losing its working. After operation, the hand of the complainant did not work properly. She went to Medanta Hospital Gurgaon on 07.04.2015 and during the investigation, the treating doctors found that “overall combined ultrasound and MRI findings are suggestive of almost complete tear of  radial nerve (sunder land IV) with an abnormal looking 2.5 cm segment of the radial nerve.  The epineurium of the nerve cannot be clearly identified at this site with possibly intervening scaring/a few intake nerve fascicles”.  The nerve of the hand of complainant had been cut during her operation in PGI, Rohtak due to carelessness and negligence on the part of treating doctors who was only a student. Her second operation was performed by doctors of Paras Hospital. She spent Rs.1,50,000/- on her treatment, medicines, tests etc.   The complainant has become permanently handicapped to the extent of 21% visa vis a vis her arm due to negligence of respondent Nos.5 and 6. The act of O.Ps. is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service.

3.      Notice was issued against the opposite parties.  Opposite parties filed written statement.  O.Ps. stated that there was some superficial swelling in the right arm of the complainant not in right hand. She approached OP on 30.01.2015 in OPD of surgery, Unit II.  After clinical investigation, she was planned for excision biopsy in minor O.T.under local anesthesia.  She was operated by O.P.No.6, second year surgery resident after explaining the procedure.  All the necessary precautions were taken by the treating doctors. There was no inter operation complication. The patient followed up in OPD on 17.03.2015 with the complaint of weakness in right hand and the patient was referred to Orthopaedic OPD.  Her post operative NCV study of right radical nerve was found normal. Orthopaedic Surgeon advised her conservative treatment. She followed in surgery OPD on 20.03.2015 with the complaint of wrist drop. She was referred to Neurology for opinion, who advised physiotherapy.  Her sutures were removed on 04.03.2015.  On  27.03.2015 she was referred to occupational therapist for needful.  She followed up on plastic surgery department.  Her LAMA case was sent by the plastic surgery department to the M.S. Office  for necessary action. She never turned up in the O.P.institute. She did not take proper follow up for her treatment. Thus there was no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

4.      After hearing both the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint and granted above-said relief.

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P.Nos.1 to 5-appellants have preferred this appeal.

6.      The argument has been advanced by Sh.Nilesh Bhardwaj, the learned counsel for the appellant. With his kind assistance the entire file has also been properly perused and examined.

7.      Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, the learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that institute/university is not liable for any act of personal/individual negligence on the part of the doctors. All the necessary precautions were taken during surgery by the treating doctors. The operation was conducted successfully by the treating doctors. Due and diligent care was given to the patient before, during and after the procedure. She left the institute without information and permission of the treating doctors.  She did not follow the proper treatment, which is actually against medical advise.  Learned District Forum has wrongly allowed the complaint  and as such while accepting the appeal in toto, the impugned order be set aside and complaint be dismissed.

8.      It is not disputed that the first surgery was  conducted on 13.03.2015 at PGIMS Rohtak. It is also not disputed that second surgery was done by the doctors of Paras Hospital.  It is also not disputed that  she went to Medanta Hospital Gurgaon on 07.04.2015.    It is also not disputed that treating doctors of Medanta Hospital found that “overall combined ultrasound and MRI findings are suggestive of almost complete tear of  radial nerve (sunder land IV) with an abnormal looking 2.5 cm segment of the radial nerve.  The epineurium of the nerve cannot be clearly identified at this site with possibly intervening scaring/a few intake nerve fascicles”. 

9.      It is clear case of ‘Res Ipsa Loquitor’ where the facts speak for themselves.  Issue cropped up instantly after the procedure/surgery was conducted by  Respondent No.6 ( a student of 2^nd year) without seeking the consent of the complainant.  It is very sad that complainant’s cries due to excruciating pain at the time of surgery were ignored mercilessly.  Protocol was also ignored.  Anaesthetist was not called to sedate the patient. The nerve of hand of complainant was cut accidently during her operation in PGI, Rohtak due to carelessness and negligence on the part of treating doctor i.e. respondent No.6.  As per the report of Medical Board dated 04.05.2017, it was opined that due diligence has been followed in the procedure, but, this report was silent about the consent. Since, OP No.6 operated the complainant on 13.03.2015 without obtaining the consent of the complainant.  The permanent  disability certificate to the extent of 21 % was issued by the Civil Surgeon Rohtak.  Thus, there is clear cut negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Therefore, learned District Forum had rightly granted  lump-sum compensation to the complainant.  I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order regarding quantum of compensation on account of medical expenses, mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses. Thus, there is no merit in the present appeal and hence, the present appeal stands dismissed in limine.

 

16th  January, 2020                                               Manjula                                                                                                                                 Presiding Member                                                 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)