Delhi

North East

CC/16/2017

MR. ANWAR AHMED - Complainant(s)

Versus

SAMRA HOSPITAL & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

13 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 16/17

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

		Mr Anwar Ahmed S/o Mukhtiyar Ahmad, R/o 5089, Gali No. 1, Kaushikuri, Old Seemauri, Delhi 110031		Complainant
		Versus
	1.       2.       3.       4.           5.	Samra Hospital C4/70A, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi 110053   Dr. Abdul Khalique, C4/70A, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi 110053   Dr. Abdul QadirKha, C4/70A, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi 110053   The Medical Superintendent, LokNayak Hospital 2, Near Delhi Gate, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, New Delhi, Delhi 110002              The Oriental India Insurance Company Ltd.,4E/14, Azad Bhawan, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi 110055		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		12.01.2017 25.07.2023 13.09.2023

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that in the month of March 2016, Complainant was having continuous pain in lower abdomen. On 12.03.2016, Complainant approached the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 1 referred to the Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3 who advised the Complainant for several blood and urinal test. Test was conducted for which the Complainant paid a sum of Rs. 1,100/-. Complainant was diagnosed problem of knot as well as swelling in hernia and was advised surgery by the Opposite Parties. On 22.03.2016, Complainant was admitted in Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital and hernioplasty surgery was done in the right side of abdomen. Complainant got discharged on 25.03.2016. Complainant paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for the said surgery. After reaching the home, Complainant was having persistent pain in the operated area and pus and water was coming out from the operated area. On 26.03.2016, Complainant again visited the Opposite Party No. 1 and shown his problem to Opposite Party No. 3. Complainant continued visiting the Opposite Party no. 1 on various dates. Complainant spent Rs. 50,000/- towards medicines, fees and travelling expenses. Complainant was having pain and pus was coming out from the operated area. Complainant did not get any relief from infection and pain even for more than one and half months from the treatment given by the Opposite Parties. On 19.04.2016, Complainant approached the Opposite Party No. 4 and Opposite Party No. 4 advised the Complainant to inform the issue with Opposite Party No. 2. As advised, Complainant approached the Opposite Party No. 2 and intimated about the severe pain infection and pus from the operated area. Opposite Party no. 2 asked the Complainant to deposit Rs. 15,000/- for further treatment or otherwise to leave. Complainant showed inability to pay Rs. 15,000/- and again approached the Opposite Party No. 4. Opposite Party No. 4 advised daily dressing in OT for which the Complainant had to incur daily travelling expense and the total travelling were Rs. 50,000/- for this purpose. On 15.07.2016, Complainant was admitted in Opposite Party No. 4 hospital and treatment/dressing was done daily apart from medicines. Complainant was discharged on 21.07.2016 but pus could not be stopped despite daily dressing. On 31.08.2016, Complainant again admitted in Opposite Party No. 4 hospital for a surgery. During operation the treating doctors of Opposite Party No. 4 found a towel weighing 500gms inside the operated part of stomach which was taken out from the stomach. Complainant got discharged on 01.09.2016 but regular dressing was being taken by the Complainant from the Opposite Party No. 4. Hence, there is deficiency on the part of Opposite Party No. 1, Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 3. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Parties to pay jointly and severally an amount of            Rs. 3,50,000/- along with interest 18 % p.a.. Complainant also prayed for        Rs. 15,00,000/- towards compensation  and Rs. 25,000/- on account of litigation expenses.
2. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 3 despite service of notice to contest the case. Hence, Opposite Party No. 3 has been proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 10.07.2017.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2

3. Written statement was filed by Opposite Party No. 2. During the pendency the Opposite Party No. 2 submitted that the written statement filed by him be also treated as written statement of Opposite Party No. 1 as well. This fact is reflected in the order sheet dated 25.05.2017. The case of the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 is that the complaint is false and there is no negligence on their part. It is stated that the Opposite Party No. 2 is a qualified surgeon. It is stated that the Complainant was diagnosed large, complete, irreducible Right Inguinal hernia. Surgery of Right Inguinal Mesh Hernioplasty was performed diligently, prudently and with utmost care and caution. It is stated that the patient himself was responsible for infection as he was not coming regularly for dressing and treatment. The Complainant was advised for re-surgery free of cost and for removal of the mesh which got infected. The mesh is a foreign body and sometimes this mesh is not tolerated by the body and it has to be removed after few days. The allegations of the Complainant have been denied and it is prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 4

4. The Opposite Party No. 4 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that it is not a necessary party. It is sated that the Complainant has no cause of action against it. It is admitted that after surgery a towel was found inside the operated part of the stomach of the Complainant. It has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 5

5. The Opposite Party No. 5 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the complaint is not maintainable. It is stated that there is no privity of contract between the Complainant and it. it is admitted that             Dr. Abdul Khalique, Samra Hospital was insured vide policy no. 272200/48/2016/15695 for the period from one year i.e. 07.11.2015 to 06.11.2016 for “Professional Indemnity-Doctors” only, subject to the warranties and clauses of the insurance policy. It has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties

6. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

7. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2

8. To support his case and the case of Opposite Party No. 1, Opposite Party No. 2 Dr. Abdul Khalique has filed his affidavit, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 as mentioned in the written statement.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 4

9. To support its case Opposite Party No. 4 has filed affidavit of Dr. J.C Passey, Medical Superintendent, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party No. 4 as mentioned in the written statement.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 5

10. To support its case Opposite Party No. 5 has filed affidavit of Sh. Sunil Gupta, Sr. Divisional Manager, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party No. 5 as mentioned in the written statement.

 

Arguments & Conclusion

11. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and Ld. Counsels for the Opposite Party No. 1, Opposite Party No. 2, Opposite Party No. 4 and Opposite Party No. 5. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Opposite Party No. 5. The case of the Complainant is that he was operated by Dr. Abdul Kahlique i.e. Opposite Party No. 2 who runs hospital i.e. Opposite Party No. 1. The case of the Complainant is that after the surgery was performed pus and water was coming out from the operated part. The case of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party No. 2 was negligent in performing the surgery as a towel had been left in his stomach during the surgery which was later on removed by the doctors of Opposite Party No. 4. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 is that the Opposite Party No. 2 is a qualified doctor and surgery was performed with due care and caution.
12. Now the question is that whether Opposite Party No. 2 was negligent in performing the surgery. Report/order dated 29.04.2019 of Delhi Medical Council has been filed on record. The relevant part of the Delhi Medical Council report/order is reproduced as under:

“2. It is apparent based on preponderance of probability and the sequence of events viz. non-healing wound and pus discharge from the wound site, that the cause of the complainant’s medical condition, was the foreign body (a mop) left inside his body, by Dr. Abdul Khalique, whilst performing the surgical procedure of hernioplasty on 22^nd March, 2016 at the Samra Hospital. This act of medical negligence caused immense suffering to the Complainant.

3. It is also noted that only an application dated 14^th March, 2016, seeking registration of Samra Hospital with the Directorate of Health Services, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, has been filed an no certificate of registration by the Directorate General of Health Services, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, has been placed on record. It is, thus, apparent that Dr. Abdul Khalique performed the surgery on 22^nd March 2016 on the Complainant at an unregistered hospital.

 

In the light of the observations made hereinabove, it is the decision of the Disciplinary Committee that Dr. Abdul Khalique failed to exercise reasonable degree of skill, care and knowledge in the treatment of the Complainant which was expected of a prudent doctor. The Disciplinary Committee recommends that the name of Dr. Abdul Khalique (Delhi Medical Council Registration No. 16900) be removed from the State Medical Register of the Delhi Medical Council for a period of 90 days. A copy of this Order be also sent to the Directorate General of Health Services, Govt. of NCT of Delhi for taking appropriate action under the Delhi Nursing Home Registration Act against Samra Hospital for operating without registration with the Directorate General of Health Services, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.”

 

13. It has come on record that doctors of Opposite Party No. 4 i.e. LNJP Hospital have treated the Complainant and Complainant was admitted in LNJP Hospital on 31.08.2016 for treatment. It has come on record that the Complainant was operated upon by the doctors of Opposite Party No. 4 and during operation a towel was found inside the operated part of the stomach. This fact clearly shows that the Opposite Party No. 2 was negligent and careless while performing the surgery of the Complainant on 22.03.2016.
14. In view of the report/order of Delhi Medical Council coupled with the evidence of Opposite Party No. 4, it is prove that the Opposite Party No. 2 i.e. Dr. Abdul Khalique has failed to exercise reasonable care and he was negligent in treatment of the Complainant while performing the surgery of the Complainant.
15. Therefore, the complaint is allowed. Complainant has spent Rs. 50,000/- towards medicines, consultation fees and travelling expenses etc. It has been held in the report/order of Delhi Medical Council that Dr. Abdul Khalique i.e. Opposite Party No. 2 has performed the surgery on 22.03.2016 on the Complainant at an unregistered hospital. Therefore, Opposite Party No. 2 i.e. Dr. Abdul Khalique shall pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the Complainant on account of medicines, consultation fees and travelling expenses etc. along with interest @ 6 % p.a. form the date of filing the complaint till recovery. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the degree of carelessness and negligence on the part of Opposite Party No. 2 i.e. Dr. Abdul Khalique, Dr. Abdul Khalique shall pay an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental agony and harassment along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery. Dr. Abdul Khalique i.e. Opposite Party No. 2 shall also pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainant towards the litigation charges along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
16. Order announced on 13.09.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President