State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
S. Ravinder Singh vs S. Ravinder Singh on 20 September, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.241 of 2006
Date of institution : 8.2.2006
Date of decision : 20.9.2011
1. S. RAVINDER SINGH SON OF S. DAYAL SINGH, RESIDENT OF
VILLAE DALEKE, TEHSIL AJNALA, DISTRICT AMRITSAR.
2. SMT. SURINDER KAUR WIFE OF S. RAVINDER SINGH,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DALEKE, TEHSIL AJNALA, DISTT.
AMRITSAR.
....APPELLANTS
Versus
1. RAM SARAN DASS KISHORI LAL CHARITABLE TRUST
HOSPITAL, GREEN AVENUE, AMRITSAR THROUGH ITS
PRINCIPAL OFFICER/DIRECTOR/TRUSTEES/MANAGER.
2. SH. D.P. SANAN, DOCTOR C/O KAKKAR HOSPITAL, GREEN
AVENUE, AMRITSAR.
3. SAINI HOSPITAL THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL
OFFICER/MANAGER/INCHARGE/DIRECTOR, MODEL TOWN, GT
ROAD, AMRITSAR.
4. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. THROUGH ITS
BRANCH MANAGER, COURT ROAD, AMRITSAR.
...RESPONDENTS
First Appeal against the order dated 22.12.2005 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Gurdaspur.
Before :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal President.
Mrs. Amarpreet Sharma, Member.
Mr. B.S. Sekhon, Member.
Present :-
For the appellants : None.
For respondent No.1 : None.
For respondent No.2 : Shri Updip Singh, Advocate.
For respondent No.3 : None.
For respondent No.4 : Shri Vinod Gupta, Advocate.
First Appeal No.241 of 2006. 2JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
The question to be determined in this case is whether respondent No.2 had committed medical negligence while operating Surinder Kaur appellant No.2 (in short "the patient") and whether hospital respondent No.1 is also liable?
2. Originally the complaint was filed by Ravinder Singh appellant alone. Thereafter the appeal was amended and the patient who had taken the medical treatment was also joined as complainant no.2 in the complaint. The appeal has also been filed by both the complainants.
Version of the appellants:
3. The patient had developed gallbladder stone. She was taken to the hospital respondent No.1 on 2.3.2001. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.3,000/- against receipt No.768 dated 2.3.2001. The patient was operated by Dr. D.P. Sanan respondent No.2 on 3.3.2001. The patient had undergone laparoscopic Cholecystectomy for symptomatic gall stone in Kakkar Hospital, Amritsar. Thereafter the patient felt pain in right hypochondrium and she also started vomiting. It was explored by the respondent No. 2 on 13.3.2001 on laprotomy. A drain was placed-billious fluid drained but the patient continued having pain in the abdomen. She was also vomiting and passing clay coloured stools. She also developed jaundice. The drain was removed on 27.3.2001. The respondents discharged the patient even when she was not fully recovered.
4. It was further pleaded that the patient was suffering from acute pain in her abdomen and vomiting also continued. The patient was taken to hospital respondent No.3 on 29.3.2001 where she was medically examined by Dr. Parveen Devgan M.S. of Saini Hospital. Respondent No.3 charged a sum of Rs.5,000/- for one night and without giving medical treatment, the appellants were advised to undergo E.R.C.P. test in Pruthi Hospital at Jalandhar. The patient was taken to Pruthi Hospital, Jalandhar on 30.3.2001. E.R.C.P. test was got done. It revealed that there was a complete cut of CBD and the patient was referred to the PGI, Chandigarh.
First Appeal No.241 of 2006. 3
5. It was further pleaded that the patient was admitted in PGI, Chandigarh on 21.3.2001 (it appears that the date is 31.3.2001). The only treatment left for the patient was fitting of artificial food pipe and with this artificial organ the patient has to live for her entire life. The patient has suffered due to medical negligence committed by respondents No.1 to 3. Respondents No.1 and 2 had not intentionally mentioned in the discharge report that there was a CBD injury which occurred at the time of the operation of the patient done by respondent No.2. The appellants have spent lakhs of rupees on the medical treatment of the patient. The patient was having two children, one son aged 12 years and one daughter aged 14 years and due to the medical negligence committed by respondents No.1 and 2, the appellants have suffered heavy financial loss while the patient has also suffered loss to her health. Appellant no.1 and his children were dependants upon the patient but because of the medical negligence committed by respondents No.1 and 2, the patient has become dependant upon appellant No.1. The appellants have also spent an amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs on the medical treatment of the patient. The appellants are also spending about Rs.2,000/- per day as the patient is on the bed continuously. The appellants have also suffered mental tension, harassment and agony for which the compensation amount is assessed to be Rs.2 lakhs.
6. It was further pleaded that respondent No.3 had charged Rs.5,000/- for one night without any treatment. Hence the complaint for recovery of Rs.4,75,000/- as compensation. Costs were also prayed. Version of respondents No.1 and 2:
7. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed the joint written reply. It was denied if the respondents have committed unfair trade practice or any medical negligence or if they have committed any deficiency in service while treating the patient. The complaint was not maintainable as it involves complicated questions of law and facts which need voluminous evidence and full-fledged trial. It was a contract First Appeal No.241 of 2006. 4 of personal service. Therefore the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was not maintainable.
8. On merits it was admitted that the patient was admitted in the hospital respondent No.1 and she was under the medical treatment of respondent No.2. The laparoscopic cholecystectomy was performed by respondent No.2. It was successful. There was no complication during the stay of the patient in the hospital. She was discharged on 5.3.2001. The patient had never turned up for post operative follow-up after 5.3.2001. If the patient had suffered any complication/problem on the 6th day it was not in the knowledge of the respondents.
9. It was also denied for want of knowledge as to what medical treatment was taken by the patient after she was discharged from the hospital respondent No.1. It was denied if any CBD injury had taken place when the patient was operated by respondent No.2 or if it was intentionally withheld from being mentioned in the discharge report. The entire story set up by the appellants was concocted. In fact there was no CBD injury when the patient was discharged from the hospital respondent No.1. It could have been caused when the appellant had taken the patient to other doctors after the discharge of the patient from the hospital respondent No.1. Therefore respondents No.1 and 2 cannot be held liable for any such injury.
10. It was denied if respondent No.2 had committed any medical negligence or if the patient had suffered financially because of respondents No.1 and 2. The patient was discharged from the hospital respondent No.1 in perfect condition. The appellants have failed to prove if any medical negligence was committed by respondents no.1 and 2. Rather the surgery was performed by respondent No.2 on the patient very carefully and stay of the patient in the hospital remained uneventful. The patient was discharged in perfect condition. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
First Appeal No.241 of 2006. 5Version of respondent No.3:
11. Respondent No.3 also filed written reply. It was admitted that the patient was brought by the appellants to the Saini Hospital respondent No.3 on 29.3.2001 at 4.10 P.M. The patient was having abnormal pain and she was vomiting. The patient was subjected to various medical tests. The urgent medication was given to the patient. Dr. Parveen Devgan Surgeon in the hospital respondent No.3 examined the patient and advised the appellants to get conducted the test of E.R.C.P. which was essential to diagnose the disease of the patient. The patient was taken by appellant No.1 on 30.3.2001 at 8.00 A.M. for the said test. Appellant No.1 had also given in writing that he was taking the patient for E.R.C.P. test at his own risk to Jalandhar. The hospital respondent No.3 had done its duty by giving proper medical advice to the appellants. It was denied if they had committed any deficiency in service or medical negligence. The appellants had made the payment of Rs.3800/- only to the hospital respondent No.3 which included stay of the patient, medical tests, miscellaneous charges, nursing charges and the doctor's fee. These were duly verified in the bill dated 30.3.2011 but the payment was made to the hospital respondent No.3 on 15.7.2001. It was denied if the hospital respondent No.3 had received Rs.5,000/- from the appellants. It was denied if the hospital respondent No.3 had committed any medical negligence or deficiency in service. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
Version of respondent No.4:
12. Respondent No.4 also filed written statement. It was denied if the hospital respondent No.3 had taken any professional indemnity insurance policy for the period under report. The cover note was supplied to the hospital respondent No.3 for the period from 27.8.2001 onwards for a year whereas the patient had already taken medical treatment from the hospital respondent No.3 on 29.3.2001. It was, therefore, denied if respondent No.4 was liable to pay any First Appeal No.241 of 2006. 6 compensation to the appellants on behalf of respondent No.3. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
Proceeding before the District Forum:
13. The appellants filed the record of the PGI, Chandigarh as Ex.A-1.
Ravinder Singh appellant filed his affidavit as Ex.C-3 while Surinder Kaur appellant filed her affidavit as Ex.CW3/1. The patient also filed her supplementary affidavit Ex.CW2/1. The follow-up card issued by the hospital respondent No.1 was proved as Ex.CW3/2A. The appellants also proved documents Ex.CW3/2B to Ex.CW3/2I, CW3/2J(1) to CW3/2J(58). Numerous other record relating to the treatment of the patient is also placed on the file although not exhibited. The appellants also examined Dr. Shibumon, MBBS, M.S. Senior Resident, General Surgery, PGI, Chandigarh as Ex.CW-1. Ravinder Singh appellant had appeared as CW-2.
14. On the other hand, Dr. D.P. Sanan respondent No.2 filed his affidavit Ex.R1. Respondent No.1 also proved the admission and discharge record of the patient as Ex.R-2 and Ex.R-3. Dr. D.P. Sanan respondent No.2 was also examined. Satnam Singh, Partner, Saini Hospital filed his affidavit as Ex.R-3 (doubly marked). He also tendered himself for cross-examination as RW-1. Hardial Mehta, Manager of respondent No.1 was also examined as RW-1 (doubly marked). The parties and the witnesses were cross-examined at length.
15. Respondent No.3 also filed written arguments.
16. Learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned judgment dated 22.12.2005.
17. Hence the appeal.
Discussion:
18. The submission of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 (Dr. D.P. Sanan) was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
First Appeal No.241 of 2006. 7
19. Similarly the submission of the learned counsel for respondent No.4 (The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
20. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
21. The admitted facts are that the patient was admitted in the hospital respondent No.1 on 2.3.2001 and the appellants had deposited a sum of Rs.3,000/- as medical fee against receipt No.768 dated 2.3.2001 in the hospital respondent No.1. The patient was suffering from the medical problem of gallbladder stone. The patient was operated by Dr. D.P. Sanan respondent No.2 in Kakkar Hospital. Therefore the appellants are the consumers qua respondents No.1 and 2.
22. It is also admitted between the parties that the patient (Surinder Kaur appellant No.2) was operated by respondent No.2 on 3.3.2001 and she was discharged on 5.3.2001. These facts are admitted by respondent No.1 and 2 in the written statement filed by them.
23. The appellants allege that respondent No.2 had committed medical negligence. As a result there was injury to the CBD for which the patient not only had acute pain in her abdomen but even vomiting continued. It was denied by respondents No.1 and 2 if respondent No.2 had committed any medical negligence while operating the patient on 3.3.2001 or if CBD was injured due to any medical negligence by respondent No.2.
24. The appellants did not plead specifically if the patient was discharged from the hospital respondent No.1 on 5.3.2001 or if she was re-admitted in the hospital respondent No.1 on 10.3.2001. Respondents No.1 and 2, however, pleaded that the patient was discharged on 5.3.2001 in satisfactory condition but curiously enough respondents No.1 and 2 did not plead if the patient was re- admitted in the hospital respondent No.1 on 10.3.2001 or if she remained admitted in the hospital respondent No.1 upto 28.3.2001 and she was treated during this period by respondent No.2.
First Appeal No.241 of 2006. 8
25. In any case it was pleaded by the appellants in para 3 of the complaint that the patient was explored on 13.3.2001 on laprotomy. The drain was placed- billious fluid drained. The patient continued having pain in abdomen and vomiting continued and she was passing clay coloured stools. She was also having jaundice and the drain removed by respondent No. 2 on 27.3.2001 and in spite of that when the patient was still suffering she was discharged from the hospital respondent No.1. In response to this paragraph respondents No.1 and 2 in the written reply totally remained silent regarding the re-admission of the patient in the hospital respondent No.1 on 10.3.2001 or if she remained admitted upto 28.3.2001 or if she was treated by respondent No.2 during this period.
26. The appellants being lay persons in the medical field could forget to plead specifically about the re-admission of the patient in the hospital respondent No.1 on 10.3.2001 and her subsequent discharge on 28.3.2001 although they have referred to two dates i.e. 13.3.2001 and 27.3.2001 and thereafter discharge by the hospital respondent No.1. But the cunningness of respondents No.1 and 2 of remaining silent throughout in the written statement regarding the re-admission of the patient in the hospital respondent No.1 on 10.3.2001, her treatment by respondent No.2 from 10.3.2001 to 28.3.2001 and her subsequent discharge on 28.3.2001 clearly points out that respondents No.1 & 2 have guilty conscious. Not only respondents No.1 & 2 remained silent about the re-admission but they also specifically pleaded in preliminary objection No.6 and in para 3 on merits that the patient had never come to them after 5.3.2001. If respondents No.1 and 2 had come with clean hands, they would have pleaded in the written statement that the patient was re-admitted on 10.3.2001, medically treated and discharged on 28.3.2001.
27. The appellants have proved the follow-up card issued by hospital respondent No.1 as Ex.CW3/2A from which it is clearly proved that the patient remained admitted in the hospital respondent No.1 from 10.3.2001 to 28.3.2001 which fact was kept concealed by respondents No.1 and 2 in their written First Appeal No.241 of 2006. 9 statement. The better sense prevailed on respondent No.2 because in his affidavit Ex.R-1 he admitted that the patient had again come to the hospital respondent No.1 on 10.3.2001 as OPD patient and remained upto 28.3.2001 during which period the diagnosis was that she was admitted with abdominal pain, discretion and jaundice. The best treatment was given to the patient and on 16.3.2001 exploratory laprotomy was performed. The entire procedure was mentioned in the subsequent admission file at page no.7. Thereafter regular treatment was given and the patient was discharged on 28.3.2001 with clear-cut instructions that the patient would consult the deponent after one week.
28. Even in his affidavit Ex.R-1 respondent No.2 has tried to twist the facts when he pleaded that she had come as OPD patient but the admission and discharge record Ex.R-3 reveals that the patient was admitted in the hospital respondent No.1 and was getting medical treatment from respondent No.2. Hardial Mehta, Manager of hospital respondent No.1 admitted in the cross- examination that he was producing the record pertaining to the first admission of the patient in the hospital respondent No.1 on 2.3.2001 when she was discharged on 5.3.2001. It was also admitted by him that the follow-up card Ex.RX (a part of Ex.CW3/2A) was also issued by hospital respondent No.1 relating to the admission of the patient in the hospital respondent No.1 from 10.3.2001 to 28.3.2001. It was further admitted by respondent No.1 that there was no entry in the register brought by him if any follow-up card Ex.RX was issued by their hospital or not. This also shows that respondents No.1 and 2 had tried to conceal the re-admission of the patient in the hospital respondent No.1 for the period from 10.3.2001 to 28.3.2001.
29. Hardial Mehta, Manager (RW1) had denied if it was pleaded in the written reply filed by respondents No.1 and 2 that the patient had not come to their hospital after 5.3.2001 and had not taken any medical treatment after 5.3.2001. The written statement filed by respondents No.1 and 2 is before us. It was specifically pleaded in para 3 of the written statement filed by respondents No.1 First Appeal No.241 of 2006. 10 and 2 that the patient had never turned up for post operative follow-up after 5.3.2001. It is also pleaded that if any complication/problem was faced by the patient on the 6th day the same was not within the knowledge of the replying respondents. It was also denied by respondents No.1 and 2 in the written statement in para 3 that they had no knowledge as to what treatment was carried on by the patient after her discharge from the hospital respondent No.1. Such false lies are spoken by respondents No.1 and 2. Therefore they are not only committing unfair trade practice in not pleading the factual position but they were also trying to conceal the factual position. Respondents No.1 and 2 did feel shy in telling the lies regarding re-admission of the patient for the period from 10.3.2001 to 28.3.2001. Hardial Mehta, Manager of the hospital respondent No.1 also admitted after looking at the follow-up card that the patient had remained under medical treatment in the hospital respondent No.1 from 10.3.2001 to 28.3.2001 but he could not say the kind of medical treatment taken by her during this period.
30. Not only this, even Dr. D.P. Sanan respondent No.2 tendered himself for his cross-examination. He told in the cross-examination that he was 74 years old and he had 50 years of experience in medical profession. Although he has denied if he had shivering hands or if he was suffering from parkinson disease but the fact remains that respondent No.2 being an old person of 74 years should not have handled the patients needing removal of gallbladder when he had grown so old. It just amounts to playing with the life of a patient.
31. So far as the re-admission of the patient for the period from 10.3.2001 to 28.3.2001 is concerned respondent No.2 admitted in the cross-examination that the patient was admitted on 10.3.2001 with some complications and was discharged on 28.3.2001. He also admitted that these complications related to the operation which he (Dr. D.P. Sanan) had conducted on 3.3.2001. It was also admitted by him that he had conducted another operation on the patient on 13.3.2001. It is also admitted by him that the CBD injury could have been First Appeal No.241 of 2006. 11 detected in an ultrasound test. He also admitted that he had not conducted any ultrasound test on the patient when she remained under his medical treatment. When all these admissions made by respondent No.2 are read in the context of the written statement filed by him, it totally comes out that respondent No.2 was guilty of having committed medical negligence and even respondent No.1 was party to this medical negligence when respondent No.1 concealed in the written statement if the patient was re-admitted in the hospital respondent No.1 for the period from 10.3.2001 to 28.3.2001. The bed-head ticket of the patient for the period from 10.3.2001 to 28.3.2001 has been placed on record as Ex.R-3.
32. In the written statement respondents No.1 and 2 have totally denied if the patient had come to respondents No.1 and 2 or if she had taken medical treatment from respondent No.2 in the hospital respondent No.1 after 5.3.2001 but in the affidavit filed by Dr. D.P. Sanan respondent No.2 (Ex.R1) he has deposed that exploratory laprotomy was performed by him on 16.3.2001. In the cross- examination, he has admitted the date to be 13.3.2001 when he had performed another operation on the patient but in the affidavit Ex.R-1 he has given the date as 16.3.2001. Therefore respondent No.2 was unworthy of belief. Moreover respondent No.2 has himself admitted that the patient had sought re-admission in the hospital respondent No.1 on 10.3.2001 due to some complications and these complications were related to the operation conducted by him on 3.3.2001. Therefore the denial of respondents No.1 and 2 if any medical negligence was committed by respondent No.2 while operating the patient is totally false when he has specifically admitted that the complications with which the patient was re- admitted in the hospital respondent No.1 on 10.3.2001 related to the operation conducted on the patient on 3.3.2001.
33. After the patient was discharged from the hospital respondent No.1 on 28.3.2001 by Dr. D.P. Sanan respondent No.2, the patient was taken by the appellants to the Saini Hospital respondent No.3. They got conducted ultrasound First Appeal No.241 of 2006. 12 test from Randhawa Utrasound Centre, Amritsar and ultrasound test report dated 29.3.2001 has been placed on the file. It reads as under:-
"-Liver is normal in size, outline & echotexture. No focal lesion seen.
-Biliary radicals are not dilated.
-CBD is 3-5 mm in diameter. No calculus stone seen.
-Gall bladder is not seen. (Cholecystectomy done).
-Pancreas & spleen are normal.
-Both kidneys are normal in size, shape, outline & echotexture. No calculus, mass or hydronephrosis seen.
-Ureters are not dilated.
-Bladder is normal in capacity, wall thickness & outline. Cavity does not contains any calculi or mass.
-Uterus & ovaries are normal sonographically.
-A large collection of fluid is seen in the subphrenic spaces. It measures 8-12 cms in height & fluid contains debris. It extends across the midline & is a single loculus. IMPRESSION:- MASSIVE SUBPHRENIC COLLECTION."
34. Endoscopy was also got done from Lifeline Hospitals. It's report dated 30.3.2001 reads as under:-
"Refd. By Dr. J.S. Saini, M.S., Saini Hospital, Amritsar ERCP ENDOSCOPY REPORT Too much pressure on anterior wall of stomach which is bulging inside. Gastritis seen. Major Papilla seen. CBD filled. It is of normal calibre till its upper end where a CLIP is blocking it completely. No dye goes inside into IHBRs due to complete block of CBD at its upper end. There is leak of contrast from upper end of CBD from near the clip side.First Appeal No.241 of 2006. 13
^ Complete blockage of upper end of CBD with clip & Leak of bile from the same site.
Pt. needs hepaticojejunostomy and drainage of Bilioma.
Sd/-
Refd. Back to Saini Hospital."
35. The doctor of hospital respondent No.3 well advised the appellants to get conducted E.R.C.P. test. The patient had come to the hospital respondent No.3 on 29.3.2001 at 4.00 P.M. and she was taken by the appellants at 8.00 A.M. on 30.3.2001 from the hospital respondent No.3 to Jalandhar for E.R.C.P. test. Therefore there was no medical negligence on the part of respondent No.3.
36. From there the patient was taken to PGI, Chandigarh. The PGI record has also been placed on the file. Dr. Shibumon, MBBS, M.S. Senior Resident, General Surgery, PGI, Chandigarh had appeared as Ex.CW-1. He brought the record and proved that the patient was admitted in the PGI, Chandigarh on 31.3.2001. She was discharged on 18.5.2001. She had post cholecystectomy bileduct injury. She was managed conservatively with antibiotics. Ultrasound guided drainage of bile collection and other supportive treatment was given. The injury was repaired in the second operation conducted in the PGI, Chandigarh on 1.8.2001 during her second admission in the PGI, Chandigarh.
37. In the cross-examination this doctor has deposed as under:-
"XXXXn by counsel for OPs No.1 & 2:
I participated in the surgery. According to the history the patient had undergone surgery at Amritsar in Kakkar Hospital. There was second surgery performed in the same hospital as per the record. The details of surgery was not available with us. It is correct that I cannot say in concrete manner as to what surgical intervention was done at Kakkar Hospital. The injury could be due to complication. From the record I can say that the injury was due to complication of previous surgery. It is correct that First Appeal No.241 of 2006. 14 complication can arise even in the best hands. The complication during the previous surgery was common bileduct injury. I arrived at that conclusion as it is documented supplied to the PGI by the attendants of the patient and it includes reference slip from Lifeline Hospital and photographs of ERCP pictures and report. Reference slip is dt. 30.3.2001. It is from a hospital different from Kakkar Hospital and relates to discharge card of Lifeline Hospital. It at the time of admission in PGI we had no other record except the discharge card of Lifeline Hospital and one ultrasound report from Randhawa Ultrasound Centre dt. 29.3.2001. It is wrong to suggest that I have deposed falsely.
XXXXn on behalf of OP 3 & 4:
There is no independent record of Saini Hospital with the PGI record.
RO & AC Sd/-
Sd/- Dr. Shibumon President
20.2.2002 Sd/-
Member"
38. It has, therefore, clearly come out in the statement of Dr. Sibhumon CW-1 that the complication during the previous injury was common bile duct injury.
Although this doctor has deposed that the CBD injury could take place even at the best hands but the fact remains that the CBD injury in this case had taken place when she was operated by respondent No.2 in the hospital respondent No.1.
39. The very fact that both the respondents had concealed the re-admission of the patient in the hospital respondent No.1 from 10.3.2001 to 28.3.2001 and medical treatment given by respondent No.2 during this period and second operation performed by him on 13.3.2001 clearly leads to the conclusion that respondents No.1 and 2 were responsible for CBD injury which took place at the First Appeal No.241 of 2006. 15 time operation conducted by respondent No.2 on 3.3.2001. Respondents No.1 and 2 most cleverly tried to conceal it.
39. In view of the discussion held, therefore, it is clearly proved that respondent No. 2 had committed medical negligence while treating the patient. Because of this medical negligence, the patient had not only remained admitted in the PGI, Chandigarh from 31.3.2001 to 18.5.2001, she had to be re-admitted in the PGI, Chandigarh when second operation was performed on her on 1.8.2001. The patient had not only undergone severe pain but the appellants were also subjected to huge expenditure on the medical treatment of the patient. Even after getting medical treatment from the PGI, Chandigarh the patient has become a permanent patient and the only treatment left for the patient was fitting of an artificial food pipe which she has to bear for entire life.
40. No amount of compensation awarded against the respondents can bring the patient to the same condition in which she was when she had no gallbladder stone or at least when she was operated on 3.3.2001. Respondent No.1 and 2 deserve to be burdened with heavy amount of compensation not only for the medical negligence committed by respondent No.2 but also for the very fact that the respondents No.1 and 2 had tried to conceal re-admission of the patient and telling of lies by them. These facts makes the guilt of respondents No.1 and 2 to be very severe.
41. This appeal is accordingly accepted and the impugned judgment dated 22.12.2005 passed by the District Forum is set aside. In the circumstances of the case, the appellants are awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the medical expenditure and Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for the mental tension, physical harassment, pain and suffering and disability suffered by appellant No.2. Since the patient was admitted in the hospital no.1 and respondent No.1 submitted the patient to respondent No.2 for medical treatment who committed medical negligence, therefore, respondent No.1 is also First Appeal No.241 of 2006. 16 vicariously liable for it. Therefore, respondent No.1 is also held liable jointly and severally with respondent No.2.
42. Compliance of the order shall be made by respondents No.1 and 2 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which respondents No.1 and 2 shall be liable to pay the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from today till the date of payment.
43. The arguments in this case were heard on 9.9.2011 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
44. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
(MRS. AMARPREET SHARMA)
MEMBER
September 20 , 2011 (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)
Bansal MEMBER