Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/418/2012

Champa Devi S/o.Prem - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tilak Raj Chhabra Memorial Hospital. - Opp.Party(s)

Kaushal Kalyan

14 Jun 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                    Complaint No. 418 of 2012.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 30.04.2012

                                                                                    Date of decision: 14.06.2017.

 

Champa Devi aged about 49 years, wife of Shri Prem R/o village, Ganouli, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar.

           

                                                                                                          …Complainant.

                                    Versus
 

1. Tilak Raj Chhabra Memorial Hospital, Bilaspur Bye pass Road Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.
2. Dr. Kavita Chhabra C/o Tilak Raj Chhabra Memorial Hospital, Bilaspur Bye pass Road Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.
3. United India Insurance Company Limited, 60, Janpath Cannaught Place, New Delhi-110001 through its Professional Medical Establishment.

  (Insurer of respondent No.1 having policy No.040100/46/10/32/00001950 w.e.f. 26.07.2010 valid upto 25.07.2011).

4. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 60, Janpath, Canaught place, New Delhi-110001 through its Professional indemnity (Insurer of respondent No.2 bearing policy No.040100/46/10/35/00002638 valid from 01.09.2011 to 31.08.2012).         

 

                                                                                              …Respondents.  

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER

 

Present:            Sh. Anil Kamboj, Advocate, counsel for complainant.  

                        Sh. Sushil Garg, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.1 and 2.

                        Sh. V.K. Sharma, Advocate for OP No.3 and 4.

 

ORDER (Ashok Kumar Garg, President)

 

1.                     The present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 amended upto against the respondents (hereinafter will be referred as OPs).

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainant was having problem in her secret parts i.e. in Vagina as the internal part of the vagina of the complainant was coming out, therefore, the complainant approached the OP No.2 Doctor who after checking the complainant disclosed to the complainant that there is a problem in uterus of the complainant and advised the complainant to get admission in the hospital for treatment. Accordingly, the complainant got admitted herself on 10.06.2011 and the OP doctor gave some medicine and injections to her. But the complainant never gets any relief from the treatment given by the OP Doctor and in this regard, several times told to the OP doctor that she is not getting any relief from the treatment. After two days i.e. 12.06.2011, the OP No.2 said to the complainant that the uterus of the complainant is required to be removed from its place and after removing uterus the internal part would not came outside the Vagina and it will get relief very soon and further told that in order to get remove the uterus of the complainant, it is necessary to get operation of the abdomen of the complainant and remove the uterus. Accordingly, on 12.06.2011, OP No.2 doctor conducted the operation of the of the complainant and removed the uterus and at that time he was assured that now she will get immediate relief but it was very astonish for the complainant as the problem remained untouched after the operation also and the complainant remained under the same problem and could not get any relief. The complainant remained admitted in the hospital of the OP No.1 and 2 till 18.06.2011 but the complainant never got any relief and suffered a heavy pain in her Vagina and as well as stitches also. But the OPs doctor did not care for the same and in arbitrary manner and with the great negligence discharged the complainant in the paining conditions from the hospital and a sum of Rs.11,000/- excluding medicine were charged from the complainant. After discharge from the hospital the condition of the complainant become critical and she faced more problem in her secret parts and regularly approached to the OPs Doctor but on 22.03.2011, the OP Doctor told to the complainant that she cannot be able to treat her and advice to get medicine from some other doctor. The complainant astonished to her such words from the OP No.2 doctor. Lastly, it has been prayed that the complainant is still under treatment and spent Rs.50,000/- her treatment due to the treatment given by the OP No.2 doctor which constitutes the deficiency in service and negligence on the part of treatment. Lastly prayed for directing the OPs to return the amount of Rs.11,000/- charged from the complainant and also to pay compensation of Rs.70,000/- and also to pay litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice OPs appeared and filed its written statement separately. OP No.1 and 2 appeared and filed its written statement jointly taking some preliminary objection such as complaint is misconceive, ground less, false has been filed just to harass and defame extort illegal amount from the OP No.2 Doctor; no cause of action arise against the OP No.2, No negligence or deficiency in service has been made by the OPs to the complainant; the complainant has concealed the true and material facts in the present complaint and true facts are that patient Smt. Champa Devi wife of Shri Prem, female age about 48 years came to the OPD of OP No.1 hospital on 09.06.2011 with the generally complaints of increased menstrual flow and irregular menstrual cycle for the last six (6) months. The complainant had consulted many local doctors in the past and took conservative treatment but of no avail. The Patient thereafter got investigations done on 09.06.2011 and was advised for Pap Smear and D & C but the patient and her attendant refused for the same and insisted for surgery as the patient already taken enough of conservative treatment in the last 6 months and there was no relief. Then the patient was asked to take physician consultation for hypertension and fitness for Surgery. After medical fitness for surgery from physician, total abdominal hysterectomy with B/L salpingo oophorectomy was done on 12.06.2011 under spinal anaesthesia. The post operative period was uneventful and the patient was discharged with no complaint on 18.06.2011 with the advice to come for follow up treatment after five days. Thereafter, the patient visited on 22.06.2011 for follow up treatment after surgery with the complaints of stomatitis and constipation and the proper medical treatment pertaining to the above symptoms, was given. No complaint of pain in vagina at stitch site was reported as is evident from follow up finding and complaints of patient. On subsequent follow up the patient complained of various other complaints like spotting P/V, pain in right lower abdomen, pain at abdominal stitch site, generalized weakness, numbness in both arms and the patient never complained of any problem in vagina. It was only on 22.03.2012 i.e. after a period of 9 months of surgery she came with the complaints of pressure in vagina. The OP No.2 doctor examined the complainant carefully and found that she was having no gynecological problem or any problem pertaining to surgery conducted on 11.06.2011 which could explain these symptoms.

In fact, the OP doctor advised the complainant to seek medical advice from physiotherapy for the ailment she was appearing to have at that time. Had such an episode of misbehaving, manhandling or threatening ever occurred, the complainant would have never visited the OP doctor hospital again on 30.03.2012 for follow up and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                     OP No.3 and 4 also appeared and filed its written statement besides some preliminary objection it has been mentioned on merit that proper investigation pertaining to disease were conducted by treating doctor. There was no post operative complication and the patient was the discharge when she was fit  to be discharged. Lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No. 3 and 4. 

5.                     Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated all the contents mentioned in the complaint and prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

6.                     Whereas on the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs reiterated the contents mentioned in the written statement and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

7.                     In support of his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit as Annexure C-X, photocopy of OPD slip/discharge card as Annexure C-1, OPD slip dated 02.07.2011, 18.07.2011 and 22.03.2012 as Annexure C-2 to C-4, photocopy of ration card as Annexure C-5 and closed the evidence.

8.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Dr. Kavita Chhabra as Annexure R1/A, photocopy of certificate of registration medical council  along with certificate of MS Obst. and Gync. as Annexure R1/1, photocopy of Insurance policy in the name of hospital as Annexure R1/2, photocopy of another Insurance policy as Dr. Kavita Chhabra as Annexure R1/3 and R1/4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.1 and 2.

9.                     Learned counsel for the OP No.3 and 4 also tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Kuldeep Singh, UIIC as Annexure R3/A, certified copy of insurance policy in the name of hospital as Annexure R3/1 to R3/4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.3 and 4.

10.                   We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

11.                   It is not disputed that complainant remained admitted in the hospital of the oP No.1 and 2 doctor from 10.06.2011 to 18.06.2011 which is duly evident from the discharge card (Annexure C-1). It is also not disputed that after discharging from hospital on 18.06.2011 the complainant was visited the hospital of the OP  No.1 and 2 as it is also duly evident from the OPD slip dated 02.07.2011, 18.07.2011 and 22.03.2012 (Annexure C-2 to C-4).

12.                   The only grievances of the complainant is that on 12.06.2011 the OP No.2 doctor conducted the operation of the complainant and removed the uterus and at for time she was assured that now she will get maximum relief but it was very astonished from the complainant that the problem was as it is i.e. remained untouched after the operation also and she get any relief and suffered a heavy pain in her stitches etc but the OPs doctor did not care for the same and discharge the complainant in careless manner which constitutes the deficiency in service  and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

13.                   Whereas on the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs No.1 and 2 argued at length that patient was properly examined, investigated, diagnosed and treated by the treating doctor as per prescribed norms of medical practice which are mentioned in the text books and generals of the subject concerned without deviating from normal prescribed of treatment. Moreover, the complainant has also failed to explain as to how the treating doctor was negligent at which/what stage of the treatment? But the OP was supposed to do which she did not do so? What the OP No.2 was not to supposed to do, but she did? and has drawn the attention of this Forum towards the case law delivered by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled as G. Ravender Rao and others Vs. Gulam Dastagir and others 2013(1) CLT P-594, wherein it has been held that “the appellants, who are well qualified doctors, treated the patient as per their best professional judgment and on the basis of diagnostic and clinical test from a well equipped laboratory –held, there is medical negligence or deficiency in service in the treatment of patient.

14.                   Learned counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 further relied upon the judgment delivered by National Commission titled as “Ajay Gupta Vs. Dr. Pardeep Aggarwal and other, 2007 (4) CPJ, P-64 (NC)” wherein it has been held that “treatment given contrary to established medical norms not proved – expert evidence or medical literature in the support of allegations not produced on record- complaint dismissed- Appeal against order dismissed”.

                        Further, in another citation as titled as “Kusum Sharma vs. Batra Hospital and medical Research Centre and other, 2010(1) CPJ, P-29 (SC), wherein it has been held that doctor not guilty of medical negligence long as they performed their duties  and exercise ordinary degree of professional skill and competence- medical negligence not proved in view of the settled principles of medical negligence. No relief entitled.

                        Another case law titled as V.Bhawani Vs. Dr. S. Shiva Subramanium 2013(1) CPJ, P-584 (NC) wherein it has been held that respondent, a well qualified doctor used his best professional judgment and required medical skills to diagnose appellants illness and thereafter conducted required surgery and also took due post operative care, including referring her to higher medical institution when it was stated necessary- negligence not proved.

                        Another case law has also been referred titled as “N. Krishana Reddy Vs. Christan Medical skills 2007(2) CPR 260, (NC), wherein it has been held that medical negligence must be established and not presumed. In the absence of expert evidence on behalf of complainant, no negligence or deficiency in service could be found against, the hospital and doctors.

15.                   In the present case, also the complainant has totally failed to prove medical negligence on the part of the OP No.2 doctor qua her treatment and operation of her uterus by tendering any documentary evidence or expert opinion in support of her case whereas the specific burden to prove or show “As to what have been done by the OP No.2 doctor which was not done or what was done which should not have been done was upon the complainant”. We have perused the discharge slip as well as other OPD slip (Annexure C-1 to C-4) but not a single iota of word has been mentioned from which it can be presumed that there was any negligence or carelessness on the part of the OP No.2 doctor. So in the circumstances noted above we are enable to held that OP No.2 doctor was negligent or deficient in proper providing medical services to the complainant as alleged in the complaint. Further the authorities titled as G. Ravender Rao and others Vs. Gulam Dastagir and others 2013(1) CLT P-594, “Ajay Gupta Vs. Dr. Pardeep Aggarwal and other, 2007 (4) CPJ, P-64 (NC), “Kusum Sharma vs. Batra Hospital and medical Research Centre and other, 2010(1) CPJ, P-29 (SC), V.Bhawani Vs. Dr. S. Shiva Subramanium 2013(1) CPJ, P-584 (NC), “N. Krishana Reddy Vs. Christan Medical skills 2007(2) CPR 260, (NC) (Supra) tendered by the OPs No.1 and 2 are fully applicable in the present case. Hence, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 14.06.2017.           

                                                                   (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                    PRESIDENT, DCDRF, YAMUNANAGAR

 

      (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)             (S.C.SHARMA)

       MEMBER                                             MEMBER