Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/434/2018

Rajiv Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research - Opp.Party(s)

Divay Sarup

15 Oct 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/434/2018
Date of Institution	:	04/09/2018
Date of Decision	:	15/10/2019

 

Rajiv Sharma r/o 1723, Mauli Jagran, Chandigarh

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.       The Director, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh.

2.       Dr. A.K. Mandal, HOD, Urology Department, PGI, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Divay Sarup Sharma, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OPs

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.           The allegations as set out in the consumer complaint, in brief, are deceased Sh. Raj Sharma, son of the complainant, was under the treatment of OPs since 3.5.2011 for management of renal stones in his right kidney. The genesis are deceased, Sh. Raj Sharma was suffering from Atlanto axial dislocation and due to this complication he was bed ridden for several years and was also taking treatment from neurosurgery department for his neurological complications and for urology problem he was referred to OP-2.  Further case is, for removal of stones in kidney investigation was done in December 2011, but, the stones did not clear completely even after extra shock wave lithotripsy treatment.  OPD doctor had advised for removal of kidney stone and referred to OP-2 and OP-2 did not perform the surgery as the patient was at poor risk for surgery and was unable to face anesthesia. Severe infections developed and he was also referred to AIIMS, New Delhi and they had advised not a fit case for surgery in view of the attending complications of disease of Atlanto axial dislocation.  Later on, complainant’s son died on 11.9.2017 due to negligence of OP-2 as he did not perform the surgery.  Hence, the present consumer complaint with the prayer for directing the OPs to reimburse Rs.1.00 lakh incurred on the treatment, Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and Rs.25,000/- on account of litigation expenses. 
2.         OPs contested the consumer complaint, filed their joint written reply and, inter alia, raised preliminary objections of consumer complaint being not maintainable and also time barred. Their case is, son of the complainant late Sh. Raj Sharma besides stones in kidney was also suffering from paralysis of the whole body below the neck including both upper and lower limbs.  In these circumstances, for the open surgery of the kidney stone, he was unable to bear anesthesia required for the same.  His system was so weak, had the surgery been done, it could have led to collapse of lungs and pneumonia.  This could have been life threatening. Therefore, the complainant was asked to keep the child under close follow up and consider surgery when he develops significant symptoms due to these residual renal stones and infective complications.  Hence, the matter of medical negligence on the part of the OPs is out of question. On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.         Despite opportunity, rejoinder was not filed by the complainant.
4.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.         We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. After perusal of record, our findings are as under:-
6.         Per pleadings of the parties, the admitted facts are, besides stone in the right kidney, deceased Sh. Raj Sharma, son of the complainant, had other serious complications i.e. Atlanto axial dislocation and was paralysed and confined to bed.  It is further his case, on account of this problem open surgery for the removal of kidney stone was not advised.  This is own admitted allegations put forth in the consumer complaint.
7.         The allegations made in the consumer complaint further refers, on being referred to AIIMS, New Delhi, complainant had met the expert Dr. S.S. Kale and as per his own opinion, it was not a fit case for surgery for removal of kidney stone because of other complications of he being paralysed and his system had also become weak. Thus, the complainant himself admits the AIIMS doctor i.e. the highest institution of medical science at national level, had also found the case not fit for surgery.  Now where remains the question for performance of surgery by OP-2 against the other complications which the son of the complainant had already developed and was confined to bed.
8.         The expert doctors i.e. OPs as well as doctor from AIIMS, New Delhi, specialists in the subject, had found it a case unfit for open surgery regarding the removal of stone.  Now it is not the business of the complainant to suggest the experts that they should have gone for the open surgery for the removal of the kidney stone.  Treatment part is to be done by the experts i.e. the doctors and it is not to be suggested by the patient or his natural guardian. True it is, complainant had lost his son in the prime of his life and his love towards his son seems to be a blind one and, therefore, he is cursing the doctors for the death of his son.  There is no iota of evidence to show there was any medical negligence on the part of the OPs.  They have done their duty as per the research done and referred in the medical text books and treatment part is not to be suggested by the patient/complainant. Had the OPs performed the surgery, he could have died of pneumonia or other sort of infections as he was already paralysed and even then the complainant would not have felt satisfied as in that eventuality his son was also to lose his life. Whatever treatment was feasible in the medical science as per research, was done by the OPs and they cannot be blamed for any medical negligence rather they have performed their duty. It is a case of no evidence of medical negligence on the part of the OPs.
9.         In view of the above discussion, the consumer complaint being meritless is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
15/10/2019	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President