Haryana

StateCommission

A/993/2015

DR.SUDARSHAN CHUG - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJESH KALSON - Opp.Party(s)

G.D.GUPTA

17 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.993 of 2015

Date of the Institution: 13/20.11.2015

Date of Decision: 17.05.2016

 

Dr.Sudarshan Chug, Saraswati Mission Hospital, Pehowa, Tehsil Pehowa,Distt. Kurukshetra.

…..Appellant

Versus

1.      Rajesh Kalson S/o Late Shri Telu Ram, R/o H.No.1409, Sector-4, Urban Estate Kurukshetra & Others.

…..Respondent

2.      M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd, 54, Janpath Connaught Place, New Delhi through its Branch Manager, Railway Road, Kurukshetra.

    …..Performa Respondent         

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.G.D.Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr. Kunal Garg, Advocate counsel for the respondent No.1.

                   Mr.S.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

 

 

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          It was  alleged by the complainant that on 06.12.2012 he was referred to Mission Hospital Pehowa for treatment.  On 07.12.2012 he was operated by opposite party (O.P.) as a case of Fisure +H.  Actually he was a case of fistula in A which was not diagnosable and could be operated upon at Mission Hospital Pehowa, but, even then O.P. operated upon just to earn money.   Bleeding started since operation and there was no improvement.  He went to Mission Hospital Pehowa so many times for review and spent Rs.5000/-.  Finally O.P. asked him to get endoscopy/signoidoscopy  done from any hospital and thereafter he could given treatment.  He was referred to Hospital Silver OKAS Mohali Chandigarh on 15.02.2013. They also advised for  Colonoscopy, which was done on 01.04.2013 and 12.04.2013, but, problem was not detected, though there was continuous bleeding.  Lateron he was referred to ECHS Ludhiana for further treatment.  As one of his friends was operated at Appolo Ludhiana, he was referred to  Christian Medical Collage & Hospital (CMC), Ludhiana because senior surgeons and doctor of gastronology were available. He remained admitted at CMC Ludhiana from 25.05.2013 to 11.06.2013.  After MRI,Endoscopy and Colonoscopy he was found to be a case of Fistula ANO.  He remained admitted from 18.06.2013 to 02.07.2013 and 01.10.2013 to 25.10.2013.  Though cost of treatment was to be borne by defence department, but, he spend Rs.40,000/- on transportation.  Due to operation by O.P. without proper diagnose, he suffered mentally as well as physically.  He be awarded compensation as prayed for.

2.       O.P. filed reply controvering his averments and alleged that  at the time of admission clinically he was a case of fissure with Haemorrhoid, for which he was operated upon with due  diligence and utmost care.  Sigmoidoscopy was normal even after two months of surgery, which was showing that operation was perfect. After one and a half month of surgery he developed fistula ANO which was diagnosed and treated at CMC Ludhiana. If there was some complaint regarding Fistula he should contact CMC Ludhaina and not him.  Fistula, Fissure and haemorrhoid  could co-exist.  Fistula could remain dormant and  re-surface anytime in person’s  lifetime.  Complainant was never examined by him after 28.01.2013. There was slight  discharge as per rectum (serosangious) and was diagnosed as a case of Ulcerative lesion in rectum & was referred for Sigmoidoscopy to the higher center. As per norms, in most of the cases Fistula can be diagnosed by physical examination alone and MRI is not required. If the history is suggestive then only MRI is got done.  He was having experience of 28 years and operated so many cases of Fistula. There was no complaint from anyone. The allegations leveled by the complainant were altogether false and frivolous.

3.       After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (In short “District forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated  14.10.2015 and directed as under:-

“xxxx we partly accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (One lac only) to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing complaint i.e. 06.03.2014 and till its realization and further to pay the amount of Rs.10,000/- on account of mental, physical harassment and agony.”

4.       Feeling aggrieved therefrom, opposite party No.1 has preferred this appeal.

5.       Arguments heard. File perused.

6.       Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that at the time of admission complainant was a case of fissure with Haemorrhoid and that is why the operation of fissure was done.  For one and a half month he was not having any problem.  It shows that fistula ANO must be dormant.  Appellant was having facility to diagnose  and operate fistula at his clinic.   As per complainant when Sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy was done on 01.04.2013, fistula ANO was not detected.  This problem came to the notice at CMC Ludhiana. So it cannot be alleged that there was any negligence on the part of the appellant-O.P.No.1.

7.       This argument is of no avail.  If we go through the evidence available on the file then it will be clear that appellant did not  take the measures which should have been taken before operation.     As per his version he had conducted more than 137 operations and was having experience of 28 years.  As per letter head of Saraswati Mission Hospital EX.C1/C to Ex.C1/E, O.P.No.1 is  Gyneocologist,  whereas this was the case of gastronology.  In such a situation he should have been more careful and should have got the proper tests conducted.  If there was some doubt, then the patient must have been referred for further examination. Performing so many operations is no ground to presume that there was no negligence on the part of appellant.  From the perusal of discharge summary of CMC Ludhiana Ex.R-9, complainant was having cronic fistula in ANO.  It was a case of intersphinteric fistula in ANO with internal and external openings.  As per pleadings of appellant he was admitted on 06.12.2012 with history of pain and bleeding from rectum H/O difficulty in defecation H/O HTN  and had a clinical picture of fissure with Haemorrhoid for which he was operated upon.  It is no-where alleged in reply of this para that necessary tests were conducted on that day.  Before operating any person, it is the duty of the doctor to get the necessary tests done.  When there was lapse on his part, the burden cannot be shifted if the problem was not detected in subsequent test, particularly after operation. The first step of the appellant was wrong i.e. operating complainant without proper tests.  He straight away jumped to conclusion of fissure with Haemorrhoid.  Learned District forum has rightly opined that the operation was done without proper diagnoses.  The findings of the Learned District forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed.  Resultantly appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

8.  The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-  deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

May 17th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.