Delhi

North East

CC/166/2017

Smt. Sangeeta - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Medical Superintendent Manager, Ganpati Nursing Home & Maternity Centre - Opp.Party(s)

02 Aug 2022

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. 166/17

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

In the matter of:

 

	Smt. Sangeeta W/o Shri Anuj R/o C-9, Amar Colony, East of Gokalpur Near Ravidas Mandir, Delhi-110094	Complainant
	Versus
	Ganpati Nursing Home & Maternity Centre G-50, West Gokalpur, Village Delhi-110094	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF ORDER:

23.05.2017 27.05.2022 02.08.2022

 

 

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 the Complainant visited the Opposite Party hospital i.e. Ganpati Nursing Home & Maternity Centre on 10.10.2015 for pain due to stones in Gall Bladder and admitted on the same day. It is alleged that Opposite Party advised her to go for laparoscopic. It is alleged that Opposite Party conducted the manual surgery instead of laparoscopic. The Opposite Party fitted the tube due to which the blood from Complainant’s body was lost. It is stated that she was discharged from the Opposite Party Hospital on 13.10.2015 and Opposite Party told her to come in OPD on 14.10.2015 in the evening. It is alleged that Complainant went to Opposite Party, OPD on 14.10.2015 and the blood was not stopped to flow and Opposite Party doctors stitched without giving any anaesthesia due to which Complainant had to admitted for two days and discharged her on 16.10.2015. It is alleged that still Complainant was suffering from pain and losing blood from the tube persistently.
2. Complainant went to GTB Hospital, OPD on 17.10.2015 where doctors checked her and referred to G.B. Pant, Hospital, OPD on 20.10.2015 and thereafter the Complainant remained under supervision of G.B. Pant, Hospital up to re-operation. Complainant again visited the G.B. Pant Hospital on 19.10.2015 & 20.10.2015 and the doctors of G.B. Pant, Hospital after examined her told that procedure of operation was wrongly conducted by the doctor of the Ganpati Nursing Home and the nerve was wrongly cut down by the doctor of the Opposite Party.  Complainant stated that G.B. Pant, Hospital doctors advised to Complainant to get re-surgery for relief or pain free. It is alleged that due to medical negligence of Opposite Party Complainant had to re-surgery on 07.03.2016 and discharged on 13.03.2016. Thereafter, the Complainant visited for regular check up in the G.B. Pant, Hospital OPD for one year and again Complainant admitted in G.B. Pant, Hospital due to negligence of Opposite Party. It is alleged that Opposite Party had not given her any written prescription and diagnosis and it clearly shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Party. Complainant has filed written complaint to the police station. Complainant sent legal notice to Opposite Party on 16.11.2015 and 18.11.2015 vide registered speed post and Opposite Party did not reply the said legal notices. It is alleged that Complainant suffered mental, financial and physical harassment due to negligence of Opposite Party.
3. Complainant has prayed for issue direction to Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- as mental agony and wrong treatment along with interest @ 24% p.a . She has also claimed Rs. 22,000/- as litigation charges.
4. Complainant has attached copy of police complaint dated 30.10.2015, copy of legal notice dated 16.11.2016, copy of MRI report dated 26.10.2015, copy of ultrasound report, copied of OPD slips of Govind Ballab Pant Institute, copy of USG abdomen report, copy of consent form, copy of ERCP report and copy of Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, OPD slip dated 17.10.2015.

Case of the Opposite Party

5. Opposite Party contested the case and filed written statement. It is alleged that complaint of the Complainant is not maintainable as the Complainant has concealed the fact that before filing this complaint she has already been filed a complaint no. 507/2015 which was dismissed in default vide order dated 02.09.2016.
6. It is stated by the Opposite Party that Complainant has visited the hospital complaining acute pain in stomach off and on. Opposite party after examining her done ultrasound and it was revealed that she is suffering from “Cholelithaisis with impending Mucocel GB with cystitis”. It is stated that due to complicated situation of Complainant Opposite Party doctor advised her to go for surgery for removal of Gallbladder. It is alleged that Complainant and her father was explained about the complication of surgery.  It is alleged that it was told to Complainant and her father that in case of internal complications attributed to the various factor the surgery would be performed through conventional surgical method and Complainant signed the consent form.  It is stated that in spite of best efforts the operation was not possible via laparoscopic method since the gallbladder was adherent with surrounding organs and surgery was then carried out through conventional method in the knowledge of relatives.
7. It is alleged that Complainant has concealed medical report dated 14.07.2016. It is submitted by the Opposite Party that Complainant has signed the consent form and Complainant has voluntarily undertaken to perform laparoscopic & open surgery as well. Opposite Party prayed for dismissal of the complaint of the Complainant.

Rejoinder to the Written Statement of Opposite Party

8. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein Complainant has denied the preliminary objection raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

 

 

Evidence of the Complainant

9. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein she has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

10.  In order to prove its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Dr. Deepak    Chauhan, medical superintendent of Ganpati Nursing Home & Maternity Centre R/o C1/11 A Yamuna Vihar.

 Arguments and conclusions

11.  We have heard the Learned counsel for the parties. We have also          perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties.

      The case of the Complainant is that she went to the Opposite Party hospital for surgery of Gall Bladder. Her surgery was conducted on 10.10.2015. It is her case that surgery was conducted negligently and by conventional method instead of Laparoscopic surgery. It is the case of the Complainant that due to the negligence of the Doctors of the Opposite Party hospital her health deteriorated and thereafter, she had to get treatment from other hospitals.

                  On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Party is that the surgery of the Complainant was conducted carefully and with due diligence. It is the case of Opposite Party that there is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. It is also the case of Opposite Party that medical opinion was taken from Delhi Medical Council. Vide order dated 14.07.2016 the Delhi Medical Council has held that there was no negligence on the part of the Opposite Party.

                  It is an admitted fact that Complainant was operated by Opposite Party hospital. It is also an admitted fact that Delhi Medical Council has given its opinion vide order dated 14.07.2016 whereby it was held that there was no case of medical negligence. The operative part of the said order is as under:

In view of the above, it is opined that CBD injury in this case may be because of operative difficulties due to adhesions around Gall Bladder, which does not amount to negligence as this can happen in difficult Gall Bladder Surgery.

In view of the observations made herein-above, it is, therefore the decision of the Executive Committee that prima-facie no case of medical negligence is made out on the part of doctors of Ganpati Nursing Home & maternity Centre in the treatment administered to Smt. Sangeeta.

In our considered opinion, we cannot go beyond the opinion given by the medical experts i.e. Delhi Medical Council. Therefore, in view of the finding given by the Delhi Medical Council we do not find any   merit in the complaint and the complaint is dismissed accordingly.

      Order announced on 02.08.2022. 

    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