FINAL ORDER
The case of the complainant, Abdus Salam Ahmed is that his wife Firoza Khatun was suffering from anemia/bloodlessness. She was treated by doctor and admitted to hospital. The USG of his wife was done in the O.P. No.1, Spandan Diagnostic Centre and he was informed by the said centre that his wife was suffering from liver cancer and she would not survived. Then he went to Vellore with his wife for her treatment after selling land. After examination it was detected that a tumor was formed in her uterus but operation could not be done due to deposition of water in her liver. She was advised to take medicine and after taking medicine she was able to walk and take food properly. She was brought for operation. Her USG was done in Spandan Diagnostic Centre. But the doctor was not agreed to perform operation as there was note Liver Cirrhosis in the said report. She was given blood and she was brought to house. After lapse of time said tumor was increasing and at the time of menstruation she was discharging huge blood. Medicines were applied but in vain. She was admitted to hospital and after giving blood she was discharged. She was again admitted to hospital for discharge of huge blood and discharged after giving blood.
It is further case of the complainant for operation again USG of his wife was done in O.P. No.2, Kosturi Diagnostic Centre and it was reported to him that his wife had been suffering from liver cancer and Biopsy was to be done.
It is the further case of the complainant that her USG was again done in O.P. No.1, Spandan Diagnostic Centre and report revealed cirrhosis of liver. Doctor did not agree to render operation to her.
It is the next case of the complainant that again USG of his wife was done in O.P. No.3, Devi Diagnostic Centre and there report also revealed cirrhosis of liver and doctor refused to render operation due to said note.
Lastly she was brought to Bangalore, Vydehi Hospital and operation of her tumor was done there considering that her liver was normal.
Hence, this case against the O.Ps for issuing wrong report.
Inspite of due service of notice O.P. No.1, spandan Diagnostic Centre has not appeared before this Forum and the case is ran ex-parte against them.
O.P. no.2, Kosturi Diagnostic Centre has contested the case by filing written version denying all material allegation of the complainant.
It is the specific case of the O.P. No.2 that on 10-03-09 the patient Firoza Khatun came to Kosturi Ultrasound Clinic for USG of whole of abdomen being referred by Dr. J. Ghosal, M.D. But the complaint has not produced the follow-up prescription of Dr. J. Ghosal. In other words the complainant has suppressed the same with ulterior motive.
It is the case of the O.P. No.2 that the USG of whole abdomen was done on 10-03-2009 by this O.P and on the basis of said USG this O.P gave impression Hepatic parenchymal disease with mild splenomegaly, Enlarged uterus containing large anterior wall myoma (fibroid) with further advise for having biopsy of liver. The term Splenomegaly means enlargement of spleen, the impact of liver disease.
It is the further case of the O.P. No.2 that prior to the date of above USG examination the above patient was examined at CMC, Vellore in the Department of Gastro-enterology & Hepatology. The doctor of CMC observed that the patient was suffering from chronic liver disease with portal hypertension with finding of USG feature of chronic liver disease, splenomegaly fibroid uterus having high bilirubin 2.2 (the normal range is up to 1), SGOT-74, SGPT-50. So there is sufficient corroboration regarding the findings of USG done by this O.P with the finding of CMC, Vellore.
It is the further case of the O.P. No.2 that the finding of USG done by this O.P on 10-03-2009 are also identical not only with the report of CMC but also with the other USG report done by Spandan Medical Diagnostic Clinic dated 25-04-2008, 16-04-2011 and the USG done by Devi Diagnostic Centre on 10-05-2013. As such it is crystal clear that the patient had been suffering from chronic liver disease with other ailments.
It is the further case of the O.P. No.2 that the patient party obtained the report from the counter of Kosturi Ultrasound Clinic with film and nowhere in the report of USG done by this O.P there is a single whispering that the patient had liver cancer. Liver biopsy was advised to confirm the USG findings. Liver biopsy is actually the confirmatory test not only for liver cancer but it is also done to confirm parenchymal disease also.
It is the further case of the O.P. No.2 that this O.P being an experienced and qualified doctor performed the USG of whole abdomen of the patient on 10-03-2009 with much care and skill up to his knowledge and there was no negligence on the part of this O.P.
It is the further case of the O.P. No.2 that due to the USG report of this O.P dated 10-03-2009 the patient suffered nothing as such the complainant is not entitled to any compensation as claimed or any part thereof from this O.P.
Ultimately, the O.P. No.2 prayed for dismissal of the case.
O.P. No.3, Devi Diagnostic Centre has also contested the case by filing written version denying all material allegation of the complaint.
It is the specific case of the O.P. No.3 that the patient Firoza Khatun came to Devi Diagnostic Centre on 10-05-2013 for USG of whole abdomen being referred by Dr. Dinabandhu saha.
It is the case of the O.P. No.3 that the USG of whole abdomen was done on 10-05-2013 by this O.P and on the basis of said USG this O.P gave impression cirrhosis of liver, mild splenomegaly, bulky uterus with a fibroid in posterior wall of body & fundus with further advise to correlate clinically and with other relevant investigations.
It is the further case of the O.P. No.3 that prior to the date of above USG examination the above patient was examined at CMC, Vellore in the Department of Gastro-enterology & Hepatology. The doctor of CMC observed that the patient was suffering from chronic liver disease with portal hypertension with finding of USG feature of chronic liver disease, splenomegaly fibroid uterus having high bilirubin 2.2 (the normal range is up to 1), SGOT-74, SGPT-50. So there is sufficient corroboration regarding the findings of USG done by this O.P with the finding of CMC, Vellore.
It is the further case of the O.P. No.3 that the finding of USG done by this O.P on 10-05-2013 are also identical not only with the report of CMC but also with the other USG report done by Spandan Medical Diagnostic Clinic dated 25-04-2008, 16-04-2011 and the USG done by Kosturi Diagnostic Centre on 10-03-2009. As such it is crystal clear that the patient had been suffering from chronic liver disease with other ailments.
It is the case of the O.P. No.3 that in the report of CMC it was specifically mentioned that the patient had mild ascites i.e. collection of water in the abdominal cavity as such it is evident that the patient had chronic liver disease (Cirrhosis).
It is the further case of the O.P. No.3 that it is not at all correct that due to liver disease the operation for uterine fibroid was prevented. The patient and/or the complainant was so negligent that when the patient had been suffering from multiple diseases from or earlier than 25-04-2008, they did not care to undergo operation even at Vellore, CMC or lastly at Vydehi Institute of Medical Sciences & Hospital at Bangalore in between 30-05-2013 to 08-06-2013, while the patient was admitted there.
It is the further case of the O.P. No.3 that due to the USG report of this O.P the patient suffered nothing as such the complainant is not entitled to any compensation as claimed or any part thereof from this O.P.
Lastly, the O.P. No.3 prayed for dismissal of the case.
In the light of the facts and circumstances the following moot points came out for consideration to reach a just decision.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant is a Consumer of the O.Ps as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the Opposite Parties any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant and are the opposite parties liable in any way to compensate the Complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully and also perused entire Xeroxed/original documents in the record and heard argument of both parties.
Point No.1.
Evidently, USG reports of the wife of the complainant viz Firoza Khatun were done by the O.P. No.1 to 3, Diagnostic Centre on receiving payment and they issued reports in her favour.
So the complainant is consumer under the O.Ps diagnostic centre.
Point No.2.
All the O.Ps have their centre within Cooch Behar town.
Total claim of this case is Rs.7,40,000/- which is far below than pecuniary limit of this Forum i.e. Rs.20,00,000/-.
So this Forum has both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case.
Point No.3 & 4.
Evidently the wife of the complainant Firoza Khatun was under prolonged treatment in different hospitals of Cooch Behar, CMC, Vellore and Vydehi Hospital, Bangalore.
It is the case of the complainant that in course of treatment USG of his wife were done on several times at O.P. No.1, Spandan Diagnostic Centre, O.P. No.2, Kosturi Diagnostic Centre and O.P. No.3, Devi Diagnostic Centre and they issued reports contending Cirrhosis of lever and on seeing such reports doctors did not take risk of operation, but said reports were wrong.
She was firstly taken to CMC Hospital, Vellore. Lastly she was taken to Vydehi Hospital, Bangalore and operation of her tumor was done there and she has been completely cured.
We find that USG reports issued by the O.P. No.1, Spandan Diagnostic Centre dated 25-04-2008 has been marked as Annexure-1 and dated 16-04-2011 has been marked as Annexure-4, report issued by the O.P. No.2 Kosturi Diagnostic Centre dated 10-03-2009 has been marked as Annexure-3, report of the O.P. No.3, Devi Diagnostic Centre dated 10-05-2013 has been marked as Annexure-5 and report of CMC Hospital, Vellore dated 12-05-2008 has been marked as Annexure-2.
We find that in all USG reports of the O.P. No.1,2 & 3 in respect of Firoza Khatun show that she had been suffering from Cirrhosis of lever.
We find that all three different diagnostic centre on different dates from 25-04-2008 to 10-05-2013 in same tune reported that she was patient of cirrhosis of liver.
We further find that Annexure-2 i.e. medical report of CMC Hospital, Vellore also reveals that said patient Firoza Khatun had been suffering from chronic liver (old) disease with portal hypertension anemia for evolution, Fibroid uterus. It is also reported that grossly heterogenous liver, focal lesions cannot be ruled out, suggest AFP correlation and further imaging if indicated to r/o isoechoic/small lesions. Splenomegaly, Mild ascites, Fibroid uterus as described.
So, it is clear that all 4 USG reports issued by O.P. No.1 to 3 are consistent with report of CMC, Vellore and it cannot be said the reports issued by O.P. No.1 to 3are wrong reports.
It is the specific case of the complainant that the O.P. No.1, Spandan Diagnostic Centre and O.P. No.2, Kosturi Diagnostic Centre reported that his wife had been suffering from liver cancer and she would not be survived.
But on perusal of the Annexure-1,3 & 4 i.e. USG reports issued by the O.P. No.1 & 2, we do not find any such whisper that they reported to the complainant that his wife was suffering from liver cancer. Both the O.P. No.1 & 2 flatly denied the allegation that they have ever reported to the complainant that his wife was suffering from liver cancer.
It appears from the Annexure-3 i.e. report issued by the O.P. No.2 that the patient Firoza Khatun was advised for liver biopsy.
We find from the volume two of Harrisonis Principles of internal medicine that said authority opined that precutaneous needle biopsy is safe, simple and valuable method for the diagnostic evaluation of liver disease. Diffuse parenchymal disorders such as cirrhosis.
So, it cannot be said that the O.P. No.3, Devi Diagnostic Centre was wrong by advising the patient Firoza Khatun for liver biopsy.
In view of the facts and circumstances stated above and materials on record we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of any of the O.Ps.
Accordingly the case fails.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that,
The DF Case No.128/2013 be and the same is dismissed on contest without any costs.
Let plain copy of this Final Order be supplied, free of cost, to the concerned party/Ld. Advocate by hand/be sent under Registered Post with A/D forthwith for information and necessary action, as per Rules.
Dictated and corrected by me.
President President
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
