27-04-2015 - The reasons for delay in disposal of this appeal can be seen from the order sheets.

1.       Heard the parties on the prayer for condoning the delay of about 33 days in filing this appeal.

2.       On being satisfied with the grounds, the delay is condoned.

3.       Learned counsel for the O.P.1-appellant (Doctor in short) assailed the impugned judgement on various grounds. He further submitted that the complainant could not prove deficiency in service on the part of the Doctor. He lastly submitted that from tenor of the impugned order it will appear that the learned District Forum was somewhat biased against the Doctor.

4.       On the other hand, the complainant- R-1 fully supported the impugned order and submitted that it should not be interfered with.

5.       Inspite of valid service of notice none appeared for the O.P. No. 2,3,4 and 6 – R-2,3,4 and 6. O.P. No.5 – R-5 Doctor R.K. Singh) appeared through counsel and filed Valalatnama and written note of argument.

6.       The case of the complainant-R1 in short was that on 8.8.2006, the Doctor was approached for the treatment of her husband for Gall bladder stone. Accordingly the operation was done on 7.8.2006 and her husband was discharged from the hospital on 10.9.2006. On the same day of discharge, her husband felt pain in the stomach. The Doctor was approached on Mobile, who advised some medicines but the pain became unbearable and there was Urinary problem also. It was learnt that the Doctor had gone to Hyderabad. His assistant doctor, after consulting the Doctor- appellant   on mobile,  prescribed further medicines but the pain remained unbearable and urine was not passing and therefore on the advise of the Doctor- appellant, her husband was readmitted in the hospital but as there was no improvement,the Doctor on mobile , advised to get him admitted in another hospital namely Gurunanak Hospital. The condition of the patient had deteriorated severely when he was admitted in the hospital on 12.8.2006. After certain investigations another operation was held by Dr. R.K.Singh – R-5, (another Doctor) on 13.8.2006 but the patient died on 14.6.2006 in the hospital. It was also alleged that the Doctor was also one of the consultant in the Gurunanak hospital.

                 Therefore, it was alleged that the Doctor either did not have sufficient knowledge for the proper use of apparatus of Laparoscopic operation, which caused complication and damage to some vital internal organ or urinary system of the deceased causing his death. The operation was not conducted by the Doctor with the proper and adequate care and caution. The damage to  other vital internal organ was fully known to Doctor and the O.P.3 and 4 i.e. Dr. Rajesh Hawra, Doctor Veejeta  , the  assistants of the Doctor- appellant and it was known to O.P.5- Doctor  R.K.singh and other Doctors of Gurunanak Hospital but they attempted to conceal the said fact.

7.       The appellant- Doctor denied and disputed the allegations. Learned Counsel submitted that before his death, the deceased was diagnosed and treated for pancreatitics at Gurunanak Hospital but the blame has been thrown on the appellant- doctor.

8.       O.P.No.5-Dr. R.K. Singh, iteralia denied that he had told the complainant’s attendant of any damage caused to the patient by the Doctor- appellant or any other Doctor when the patient was admitted in Gurunanak Hospital. He was diagnosed of having peritonitis after certain investigation. When his condition did not improve by medication, Laprotomy (open abdomen) surgery was done after taking consent of risk of life from the complainant. Unfortunately the patient died and there was no fault of any Doctor.

9.       The learned District Forum interealia held that the evidence of the appellant-Doctor in para 7 amounted to his admission when he said  that had he been informed about the present condition of the patient with regard to pancreatitics, he would have altered  and monitored the treatment  accordingly. It also observed that, the Doctor did not try to find out the real cause of pain in the abdomen which was definitely not due to the complain of Gall Bladder stone, but it was due to pancreatitics.

10.     Such findings are wrong. Learned District Forum made out a third case. The allegation of the complainant was that the laproscopic surgery was not done properly by the Doctor- appellant. It was not his case that correct diagnosis was not done by the Doctor- appellant.  Admittedly, before laparoscopic operation of Gall Bladder, the appellant- Doctor got the ultra sound and other tests of the patient done, from which it appeared that he had Gall Bladder stone. Accordingly the Gall Bladder and the appendix were removed. There is nothing to show that from the ultra-sonography of whole abdomen and the other tests got done by the appellant-Doctor, pancreatitics could be diagnosed. Therefore, the Doctor rightly said that if the patient was suffering from pancreatitics and had he been informed about it, he would have altered and monitored the treatment accordingly. Further even according to the complaint petition itself, the appellant-Doctor was approached for the problem of stone in the Gall Bladder. The complainant could not prove that pancreatitics, which was diagnosed and treated at the Gurunanak Hospital, was existing when the appellant- Doctor was approached.

11.     There is no material on which the learned District Forum could observe that had the appellant- Doctor been careful enough, there was no reason why the real cause of pain in the abdomen would not have been located in the  ultra sound. It may be noted that there was no sign of panceatitics in the ultra sound report. O.P. No.5 Dr. R.K. Singh has categorically denied any alleged negligence done by the appellant-Doctor in performing the Laparoscopic   surgery of the patient. There is nothing to show that in the Laprotomy done at Gurunanak Hospital, any injury to any organ was found. No post mortem was held. Thus there is nothing to connect the death of the patient, with the laparoscopic operation done by the appellant-Doctor.

12.     It appears from the tenor of the impugned order that the learned District forum approached the case in a biased manner.

13.     After hearing the parties at length and going through the materials on record, we are of the view that the complainant could not prove deficiency in service on the part of the appellant-Doctor.

14.     In the result, the impugned order is set aside, the appeal is allowed, and the complaint is dismissed.  

   This matter was heard by the bench consisting of the President and the Member Mr. Ajit Kumar.  After the order was dictated with his consent, Mr. Ajit Kumar had to rush to Bombay for treatment of cancer.  He informed that he may not be available for about a month.  Therefore this order is being pronounced and signed by the President,  Keeping in view the judgement of Hon’ble Kerala High Court dated 25.02.2013, passed in W.P. (C) No.30939 of 2010 (N) - P.K. Jose - vs - M. Aby & Ors.

                   Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.

          Ranchi,

          Dated:- 27-04-2015