Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 439
Instituted on : 01.08.2022
Decided on : 30.07.2024.
Ganga @ Ganga Devi aged about 30 years wife of Sh. Pardeep resident of House No.17, Ward No.10, Panna Chhajjan, Tehsil Beri, Distt. Jhajjar.
-
- Yadav General Hospital in front of New Telephone exchange, Circular Road, Rewari Haryana through its Director Dr.Narinder Singh Yadav.
- Pt. B.D.Sharma, PGIMS, Rohtak through its HOD Surgery UNIT-II.
- United India Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Manager, Branch Office,. 16-M,.Gole Market, Maha Nagar, Lucknow-226006 & also having branch at Opp.D-Park Delhi Road, Rohtak vide policy no.0801022720P101834896 from 28.05.2020 to 27.05.2021 as Professional Indemnity Doctors Policy.
- Dr.Narender Singh Yadav Director/Doctor of Ganga Yadav Hospital in front of New Telephone Exchange, Circular Road Rewari(Haryana).
…….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.MohinderKhurana, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Harish C.Sikri, Advocate for opposite party No.1 & 4.
Sh.Vishal Bhatia Advocate for opposite party No.2.
Opposite party No.3 exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant are that complainant Smt. Ganga Devi felt pain in stomach and she contacted the opposite party No.1 for her treatment on 07.08.2020 and some empty stomach tests were conducted. Opposite party No.1 prescribed the operation of Gallbladder stoneof the complainant. The surgery of the complainant for removal of stone in gallbladder was performed by the opposite partyNo.1 &4 and they charged a sum of Rs.32000/- as surgery fee from the complainant for which even receipt has not been provided to the complainant. The said operation was performed by opposite party No.4 who is director/Doctor of opposite party No.1 hospital. Dr.Narender Singh Yadav is professionally insured through opposite party No.3 vide policy no.0801022720P101834896 from 28.05.2020 to 27.05.2021 as Professional Indemnity Doctors Policy. After the above said surgery the complainant never got relief from stomach pain and contacted opposite party No.1 &4 a number of times but opposite party no.1 has prescribed only pain killer and told the complainant that hersurgerywas successful and nothing to worry. When the pain of the complainant became intolerable, ultimately the family members of the complainant approached to Pt. B.D.Sharma PGIMS, Rohtaki.e. opposite party No.2 for her treatment. Various tests of the complainant were conducted in PGIMS, Rohtak and it was observed that there is metallic shadow inside the body of the complainant which is clearly a scar of part lapro-scope which has been negligently left during surgery by opposite party no.1. The X-Ray report of opposite party No.2 clearly mentioned in the discharge card that X-ray shows scalpel blade in right iliac fosse. It was also clearly mentioned in discharge slip of opposite party no.1 and X-ray report of opposite party No.2 that this blade is part of laproscope. The complainant was admitted in surgery unit-II of opposite party no.2 and got her surgery and removed the metallic surgical blade i.e. foreign body on 23.05.2022. The complainant remained admitted with opposite party No.2 and was discharged on07.06.2022. Complainant is still taking medicines for healing of her wounds due to negligent act of opposite party No.1 & 4. The complainant has to bear extra expenses on second surgery and also suffered financial loss and mental pain agony etc. This is clear cut negligence on the part of opposite party No.1 & 4 as they had left the surgical blade inside the body of the complainant during surgery, which has been confirmed by opposite party No.2. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party No.1,3& 4 may kindly be directed to refund the amount of Rs.32000/- charges as surgery fee from the complainant and also to pay the cost of medicines and other expenses during the second surgery alongwith interest @ 20% p.a. and respondent no.1 be directed to pay a sum of Rs.40 lacs as compensation on account of mental agony and pain suffered by the complainant and also to pay Rs.22000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that complainant for the first time contacted the opposite party on 07.08.2020, as a case of gall bladder stone and certain tests were suggested and got done. After thorough investigationthe patient was diagnosed as Cholelithiasis i.e. the condition of having gall stones and as such the patient was advised Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy, which was successfully performed on 08.08.2020 with no intra post operative complication and further the same do find mention in the discharge card annexed and relied upon by the complainant. After the procedure the patient never ever came to the opposite party any time till date and not even for removal of stitches. It is pertinent to mention here that in view of record placed and relied upon by the complainant before Chief Medical Officer at Jhajjar, the complainant had undergone first ultra sound on 18.01.2021 at Bharat Parkash Diagnostic Centre, having its main unit atBahadurgarh and its branch at Jhajjar and inthat report no blade or blade like object as alleged was seen in the abdomen. Again, on 22.03.2022 Ultrasonography(USG) was done at PGIMS Rohtak therein also the report does not show any blade or blade like object. Which leads to show that the contentions stated by the complainant in her complaint are prima facie false. The aforesaid report dated 22.03.2022 has also not been annexed by the complainant with a view to withheld the vital documents from the Hon’ble Commission and further intends to get undue favour from the Hon’ble Commission. It is submitted that the surgery of the complainant for removal of stone in gall bladder was performed by answering respondent in view of procedure as submitted above i.e. Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy, however, it is wrong that the opposite party charged a sum of Rs.32000/- as surgery fee from the complainant as alleged or that for which even receipt has not been provided to the complainant as alleged. It is submitted that the opposite party charged Rs.23000/- as per records of the hospital for the whole treatment. It is further submitted that after 09.08.2020 the complainant never approached the opposite party nor ever met the opposite party even for removal of stitches. It is submitted that the laparoscope use for Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy and the same does not contain any blade as its part, as it is totally a round tube without any joined part. It seems that the patient with the help of some local doctor or by RMP(Registered Medical Practitioner) has got inserted a small blade herself, with ulterior motive to blackmail the opposite party and further to get money extracted from the opposite party under the guise of present false complaint. It is also pertinent to mention here that the complainant has also concealed the vital fact of moving the complaint to CM Window against the opposite party. The enquiry was marked to Surgical Expert, by Chief Medical Officer, Rewari and in view thereof no overt act of medical negligence was found against the opposite party. It is wrong that this is a clear cut case of medical negligence on part of opposite party, as he has left the metallic surgical blade inside the body of the complainant during surgery or that the same has been confirmed by the opposite party no.2. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost. It is further submitted that opposite party No.1 is duly insured with United India Insurance company Limited i.e. opposite party no.3 vide policy no.0801022720P101834896 from 28.05.2020 to 27.05.2021 under Professional Indemnity Doctorspolicy and if the Hon’ble Forum comes to otherwise conclusion then the insurer will indemnify on behalf of the opposite party. Opposite party No.4 made a statement on dated 02.02.2024 that reply and Vakalatnama filed on behalf of opposite party No.1 be also read on behalf of opposite party No.1.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that the complainant approached in unit 4/II on 22.03.2022 where she was initially diagnosed by Dr.B.K.Arora and Dr. Anuj Yadav. It is further submitted that for diagnosing the problem of the complainant various tests were conducted and Dr.B.K.Arora has observed that there is metallic shadow in right iliac fossa(visible in films). Clinically it is a scar of port, lap, chole no metallic body palpable. As per record there is only X-Ray film taken at G.H. Rewari, but no X-RAY REPORT. However, CT report is attached at page no.57-59 which reports metal density foreign body in right lilac fossa, piercing right fossa subcutaneous fat, right lateral muscular abdominal wall parietal peritoneum intraperitoneal fat, anterior wall of cecum with adjacent fat stranding as described, dilated CBD and trace ascites. During surgery a metallic foreign body resembling surgery blade No.11 was removed from inter muscular plane in right iliac fossa. It is submitted that the medical negligence is to be assessed by Medical negligence board. There is no negligence on the part of O.P.No.2 and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
4. Opposite party No.3 did not appear despite service of notice through registered post. As such opposite party No.3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 26.10.2023 of this Commission.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Annexure- C1 to Annexure-C18 and closed his evidence on 06.01.2023. Thereafter after amendment of complaint and impleading of parties by the complainant, ld. Counsel for the complainant made a statement that evidence already filed on their behalf be read and closed his evidence on 19.03.2024. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.1 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and closed his evidence on 02.06.2023. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.2 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, document Ex.R2/1 and closed his evidence on 02.06.2023. Counsel for the opposite party No.1 & 4 made a statement that evidence already adduced by opposite party no.1 be also read on behalf of opposite party No.4.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
7. We have perused the documents placed on record by both the parties.As per respondent no.1 no foreign body was found near the abdomen in the ultra sound done on 15.01.2021. To prove this fact they have placed on record ultra sound report of complainant Ex.R2. It is further contended that after the procedure the patient never ever came to the opposite party any time till date and not even for removal of stitches. The complainant had undergone first ultra sound on 15.01.2021 at BrahamParkash Diagnostic Centre and in that report no blade or blade like object as alleged was seen in the abdomen. Again, on 22.03.2022 Ultrasonography(USG) was done at PGIMS Rohtak and therein also the report does not show any blade or blade like object which leads to show that the contentions stated by the complainant in her complaint are prima facie false. We have perused the document Ex.R2.Through this document it has been well proved that the complainant took continuous treatment just after the operation from the respondent upto January 2021. We have minutely perused the OPD card dated 22.03.2022(Annexure C6) issued by opposite party No.2 and in this document, it is mentioned that: “There is metallic shadow in right iliac fossa(visible in films).” As per, X-ray report mentioned in case summary Annexure C12, it is mentioned that : “Shows scalpel blade in right iliac fossa’, “foreign body in RIF in Intermuscular plane” and under the head ‘operation’ it is mentioned that: “foreign body removed on 23.05.2022”. We have also perused the reply filed by opposite party no.2 and in para no.11, it is submitted that CT report attached at page no.57-59 reports metal density foreign body in right lilac fossa, piercing right fossa subcutaneous fat, right lateral muscular abdominal wall parietal peritoneum intraperitoneal fat, anterior wall of cecum with adjacent fat stranding as described, dilated CBD and trace ascites. During surgery a metallic foreign body resembling surgery blade No.11 was removed from inter muscular plane in right iliac fossa. Meaning thereby,from the reply filed by opposite party No.2, discharge card Annexure C12 and other documents placed on record by the complainant, it is established that a foreign body i.e. surgery blade has been removed by the opposite party No.2 from the body of the complainant. However the plea taken by the opposite party no.1 that complainant might have got inserted a small blade herself from some other hospital is not supported with any authentic evidence. Leaving of blade in the body of complainant which is clearly visible in the ultra sound report and is removed by the opposite party no.2 is a clear cut negligence on the part of opposite party No.1 & 4 and there is no need of expert evidence in this case. Due to the alleged act of opposite party no.1 & 4, complainant continuously suffered from stomach pain from the date of surgery done by the opposite party no.1 & 4 till the surgery of removal of blade and her life was put in danger by the opposite parties. Hence the opposite party No.1 & 4 jointly and severally are liable to compensate the complainant. As per the reply filed by opposite party No.1, opposite party No.1 is fully insured with the opposite party No.3 vide policy no.0801022720P101834896 from 28.05.2020 to 27.05.2021 under Professional Indemnity Doctors policy which is placed on record as Ex.R1. Hence the insurer i.e. opposite party No.3 will indemnify on behalf of the opposite party No.1 & 4.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite partyNo.3 to compensate the complainant on behalf of opposite party No.1 & 4(jointly and severally) to the tune of Rs.1000000/-(Rupees ten lacs only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 01.08.2022 to till its realisation and also to pay a sum of Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service aswell as Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
30.07.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
.........................................
Vijender Singh, Member.
