Delhi

East Delhi

CC/436/2012

Mahipal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

R G Stone - Opp.Party(s)

29 Aug 2012

ORDER

                DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM-EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

               CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                                               

Consumer complaint 436/2012                                                                                                

 

In matter of

 

Mr Mahipal Singh s/o Sh Late B D Singh

R/o E 422, Gali no. 5, Nr Yadram Mandir

East Babarpur, Shahdara, Delhi…110092…………….……………………………..……………….….Complainant

 

                                                                    Vs

1-The Manager/ Head

M/s-R G Stone Urology & Laproscopy Hospital

Unit of R G Scientific Enterprises Ltd.

Regd office F 12, East of Kailash, New Delhi 110065

 

2-Dr Kapil Agarwal

Incharge RG Stone Urology Hospital

Unit of R G Scientific Enterprises Ltd.

Branch Office 18, Gagan Vihar, Delhi 110092

 

3-Dr Bhim Sen Bansal

Chairman & managing Director

M/s-R G Stone Urology & Laproscopy Hospital

Unit of R G Scientific Enterprises Ltd.

Regd office F 12, East of Kailash, New Delhi 110065

 

4-The Manager/Head

M/s Max Super specialty Hospital,

Unit of Balaji Medical & Diagnosis Reaserch Centre,

Regd Office-108A Indraprasth Extn.

Patpargunj, Delhi.110092

 

5-Dr(prof) Anil Arora

I/c & HOD Ortho.

M/s Max Super specialty Hospital

Regd Office-108A Indraprasth Extn.

Patpargunj, Delhi.110092

 

 

 

 

6-The New India Asso. Co. Ltd.

Through Branch manager

122-124, Model Basti, Delhi 110005                                                                                      

                                                                                          

                                            

7-Dockland Services Ltd through its Manager &    

                                                                  

8-United India Aso. Co. Ltd-through its Manager

Office- Capital Cinema Building, Vidhan Sabha Marg,

Lucknow..……………………………………………………………………………………………..…Respondents

 

                                                                                                             Date of Institution - 22/05/2012 

                                                                                                                 

                                                                                                              Date of Decision -   02/02/2016                                                                                                                                                         

Order by  Dr P N Tiwari, Member : 

The brief facts

Mr Mahipal Singh, complainant, an employee of DTC had Hernia on both side. He approached OP 1 hospital for his problem. OP1 hospital advised to consult OP2 who is near to his place. Complainant consulted OP2 doctor who is a general surgeon works with OP1. OP2 examined the complainant and advised operation to be done immediately. A package of Rs 50,800/ was given for operation of Hernia was given which includes all investigations, operation, indoor treatment.  The package amount was approved by DTC. Thereafter complainant got admitted on 31/10/2011 and operation of Left Inguinal Hernia was done on the same day and complainant was discharged on 01/11/2011. The discharge summery of OP1 says that complainant had no heart disease, Diabetes or Tuberculosis except hypertension for the last 30 years.

Complainant got again admitted on 03/11/2011 for severe pain at operation site. OP2 admitted and after investigation and treatment, he was discharged on 05/11/2011. This time all the cost was born by the complainant. As per complaint, his expense was of two lakh. Even after second admission, he did not get relief, so consulted Deepak Memorial hospital who adviced for CECT scan. He was advised to consult OP2 with report of CECT as his operation has failed. Complainant visited OP2 with CECT report. He was given some medicines with follow up. Even at this time also complainant did not get any relief. Thereafter complainant visited Dr Anil Arora, OP5 at OP4 Max Super specialist hospital. Here he was advised for MRI test which was done on 21/01/2012 at Dr Anand Imaging centre at Preet Vihar, Delhi.

The report showed collection of fluid /pus around operation site. On the advice from OP5, complainant revisited OP2 with MRI report on same day.                                                          

This time, OP2 did some small surgical procedure on the basis of MRI report and opined that complainant had bone tuberculosis and referred back to OP5 Dr Anil Arora, who started treatment for bone tuberculosis for 45 days but complainant did not get any relief. Thereafter he went to AIIMS where X Ray pelvis and hip joint was done suspecting Infection or bony injury. The report did not show bony injury or tuberculosis.                                                                                                                                                          

The complainant thereafter went to LNJP Hospital on 28/03/2012. There he was told that infection has occurred at operation site and was advised to visit again.                  

Complainant did not get any satisfactory advice so at last he went to SDN hospital at Shahdara, Delhi on 12/04/2012. After examination, he was told that his vessels has een compressed due to infection so jelly has to be removed. After mild operation, complainant got relief. Complainant claimed Rs Four lakh as damages against OP 1 to 5 and Rs 2 lakh fifty thousand for medicines, conveyance and other expenses and Rs 50,000/- as cost of case. As amount paid by DTC is Rs 49,500/ so he claimed total cost Rs 6,50,000/-.

After perusal of complaint and treatment records, notices were served to all OPs. Written versions were filed by each OPs. All OPs broadly refuted allegations of complainant but OP 1 hospital admitted that they have received sum of Rs 74,134/. In addition to this, OP2, Dr Kapil Agarwal, has paid Rs 10,000/- from his credit card to OP1 hospital.

After scrutinizing all the evidences and written versions submitted on affidavit which are on record, it is seen that case pertains to operation of Left Inguinal Hernia which was done by OP 2 who is a super specialist in general surgery. Post operative case resulted in infection at the operation site which he could not diagnose. For this deficiency in act, complainant had to bear harassment and huge financial expenditure. This showed deficiency in his act of general surgery in post operative care. The complainant visited number of times to OP2 and undergone repeated admission and re operation by OP2 could not diagnose the infection.                 

Complainant was repeatedly visiting him with various reports in constant pain at operation site and was unable to walk. More so, realizing deficiency and negligence in post operative hernia operation, OP2 paid Rs 10,000/- from his credit card to OP1 hospital. In addition to this, OP1 hospital gave maximum concession in hospital bills which were paid by complainant.

The OP 2 failed to make the proper diagnosis in post operative case led complications which has resulted in to pain, suffering, harassment and huge financial expenditure to the complainant. Complainant has to visit number of doctors and OP 2 repeatedly as well. He was at last diagnosed at SDN Hospital at Shahdara, Delhi that mash put by OP2 got infected which has resulted compressing of deeper vessels. This was the mother of all problems.

OP2 referred complainant to OP5 who is an orthopedic surgeon, smacks nexus between the two doctors. Inguinal Hernia has nothing to do with orthopedic discipline and no part of its treatment can be accepted to be connected with orthopedic specialty. OP5 was not competent in the field of Tubercular treatment and operation of Inguinal Hernia is in the domain of General surgery only. Infection if occurred for tuberculosis, the case may have to be referred to physician. In this case OP5 without going through proper examination and investigation, jumped upon the conclusion that complainant is suffering from Tuberculosis and started treatment of tuberculosis. It is a well known fact that medicines for tuberculosis are to be taken for a specified period ie for 6 month or 9 month as per the case and course opted by the physician.

It is well established fact that any break during the course of treatment makes the earlier treatment ineffective and there are strong chances of resistance in treatment of tuberculosis infection. The entire act of OP5 is contrary to established medical practice and procedure as such he cannot be given the benefits of observations made in case of Martin D Seuza which has been decided by Honble Supreme court. The suffering at the hands of OP5 are because of OP2 who referred the complainant to OP5. As such OP2 is squarely liable apart from his incompetency to put mash at operated Hernia site.

                   

Both the doctors have violated their Hippocratic Oath. The poor patient see the doctor as his Masiha who could remove his sufferings and if the same Masiha turn out to be ‘bucher’, the faith is shuttered. These days greed of money has resulted in developing such nexuses between doctors and they do all illegal acts in the course of treatment. At the time of admission at OP1 hospital, complainant had no symptoms or past history of treatment of tuberculosis. Due to negligent and deficient act of OP2 and OP5, complainant suffered huge financial loss, harassment and mental agony.

Complaint is allowed. We direct OP 1 and OP2 to pay jointly to complainant sum of Rs 74,134/-with 9% interest from the date of filing of this complaint till realized. The OP1 will also refund amount Rs 49,500/-received from DTC under package charges.

We also award compensation of Rs 50,000/ to be paid by OP2 and Rs 50,000/- by OP5 directly to the complainant which will include compensation for harassment, mental pain and agony. The awarded amount shall be paid within 45 days from the date of this order. If not paid the complainant shall be entitled to get 9% interest till paid. The OPs may claim from Insurance co. if they are insured at that time, as per the laws.

A copy of this order be sent to the chairman of Medical Council of India, Chief Secy. Govt of NCT and also to the Secy. Health, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, Govt. of India for taking necessary action in their respective parts. A copy of action taken is to be sent to this Forum.

The copy of this judgment be provided to both the parties as per rules.  

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari                                                                                                        Md Poonam Malhotra    

   Member                                                                                                                         Member

                                                             

                                                                     Mr N A Zaidi

                                                                        President