State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gupta Hospital vs Smt.Puna Bai Gaikwad & Anr. on 4 May, 2018
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G).
Appeal No.FA/2018/134
Instituted on : 20.03.2018
Gupta Hospital,
Through : Dr. Sumit Gupta,
Multispeciality Research and Maternity Centre,
Ratnabandha Road, Dhamtari City,
Tahsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.) ..... Appellant (O.P. No.1)
Vs.
1) Smt. Poonbai Gaikwad, Aged 54 years,
W/o Shri Nandlal Gaikwad,
R/o : Village - Dudhwara, Post Mudibhanwar,
Tahsil Magarload, District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent No.1 (Complainant)
2) Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Company Limited,
Sinha Complex, Bathena Chowk, Dhamtari,
Tahsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondent No.2 (O.P. No.2)
PRESENT :
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER
HON'BLE SMT RUCHI GOEL, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES :
Shri R.K. Bhawnani, Advocate for the appellant (O.P.No.1).
Miss Aarti Chandrakar, Advocate for the respondent No.1 (complainant).
Shri P.K. Paul, Advocate for the respondent No.2 (O.P. No.2).
ORDER
DATED : 4 /Mayl/2018 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.01.2018, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhamtari (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.03/2015. By the impugned order, learned District Forum, has partly allowed the complaint of the complainant and directed that :-
// 2 // (1) The O.P. No.1 will pay within a period of one month a sum of Rs.87,381/-
(Rupees Eighty Seven Thousand Three Hundred Eighty One) to the complainant.
(2) The O.P. No.1 will pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) to the complainant towards mental agony, food and transportation expenses within a period of one month.
(3) The O.P. No.1 will pay interest@ 9% p.a. on the above amount from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 13.01.2015 till date of realization. (4) The O.P. No.1 will pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred) to the complainant towards cost of litigation.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the complaint of the complainant are that the complainant was taking treatment in respect of Thyroid from Dr. Umesh Lohana and Dr. Lohana instructed the complainant for Sonography, as per requirement. The complainant shown Sonography Report to the O.P. No.1 and informed regarding her physical problem, then the O.P. No.1 advised for removing the uterus through operation, then the family members of the complainant got admitted the complainant in the Hospital of O.P. No.1. The O.P. No.1 informed that for removing the uterus, there is expenses of Rs.20,000/-, which has been deposited by the complainant. The O.P. No.1 informed that a sum of Rs.4,000/- is required for blood, then the complainant deposited the above amount, but the blood was given to the complainant after three days i.e. on 27.06.2014.. On 28.06.2014, the O.P. No.1 conducted operation of the complainant. After operation, the complainant could not get any relief and on the contrary the complainant suffered pain in the abdomen.
// 3 // The pain in the abdomen of the complainant was continuously increased, then on 30.06.2014, she was shifted by the O.P. No.1 in I.C.U., but the complainant could not get any relief. There was swelling in abdomen, and no relief from pain and she could not sleep. There was swelling in the entire body of the complainant and there was difficulty in breathing. When the complainant could not get relief, then the O.P. referred the complainant to Ramkrishna Hospital, Raipur at 11 AM on 02.07.2014. The O.P. No.1 took a sum of Rs1,800/- towards ambulance charges. On 02.07.2014 the complainant was got admitted in Ramkrishna Care Hospital by her family members, where they were informed that due to negligence done during operation procedure, the artery of the complainant was cut due to which flatus was filled in the abdomen due to which toxicating substance was making in the body for which operation is required to be conducted. The family members of the complainant were informed by the Doctors of the Ramkrishna Care Hospital that if the treatment is not started immediately, then there is danger to the life of the complainant. In Ramkrishna Care Hospital, the operation of the complainant was conducted on 04.07.2014 and she was discharged on 14.07.2014. In the left part of the abdomen of the complainant a sack was affixed from where there was defecation. in Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur, in the month of October 2014 (08.10.2014 to 21.10.2014) operation was done and defecation sack was removed. Due to negligence committed by the O.P. No.1 during the operation of uterus of the complainant, the complainant suffered rectal perforation peritonitis and septicemia which was repaired through repair of rectal perforation, diversion of collace. In Ramkrishna Care Hospital, medical expenses of Rs.1,53,354/- was incurred and other expenses of Rs.50,000/- was incurred. In the month of October, 2014 in the // 4 // operation conducted for removing defecation sack in which Rs.60,000/- was incurred. The complainant suffered a lot of problem due to negligence done by the O.P. No.1 while conducting her operation of uterus. Before operation and after operation, opinion has not been obtained by the O.P. No.1 from the expert and he also did not prepare C.D. of the operation, which shows deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No.1 Therefore, the complainant has filed instant complaint and prayed for granting reliefs as mentioned in relief clause of the complaint.
3. The O.P. No.1 has filed his written statement and denied the allegations made by the complainant against him. The O.P. No.1 has averred that when the complainant came to O.P. No.1, then she informed that she is patient of Thyroid and earlier she had taken treatment from Dr. Umesh Lohana. The O.P. No.1 has given proper treatment to the complainant looking to the body of the complainant and the complainant was got admitted in the hospital of O.P. No.1. The complainant has deposited the requisite fees. The blood was given to the complainant after three days because there is no blood bank in the hospital of O.P. No.1 and the Blood Bank is at Raipur. The sample of blood is required to be sent to Raipur and on matching of the blood, the blood of that group is received and then the blood is given. From the operation conducted by the O.P. No.1, the complainant get relief. On 30.06.2014, the complainant was shifted in I.C.U. and when the condition of the complainant deteriorated then the complainant was referred to Dr. Tamaskar of Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur (C.G.). No extra amount was taken from the complainant and the genuine amount was taken from her. During the operation procedure, the artery of the complainant was not cut and no flatus was filled in her abdomen. No toxicating substance came in her body. If due to negligence of the O.P. No.1, the // 5 // condition of the complainant deteriorated, then in the medical report, the itozonic loss was found but no itozonic loss was found in the body of the complainant. The complainant did not suffer any loss due to negligence of the complainant. In the medical documents filed by the complainant it is not shown that due to negligence committed by the O.P. No.1 the complainant suffered any disease. Expenditure of Rs.1,53,354/- and Rs.50,000/- was not incurred in Ramkrishna Care Hospital. The complainant has exaggeratedly mentioned the amount. Expenditure of Rs.60-,000/- would not be incurred in the operation for removing the fecal sack. The C.D. of Laparoscope is prepared and the C.D. of other surgery is not prepared. In the instant case not preparing the C.D. of operation, does not show deficiency in service on the part of O.P. No.1. It is not necessary for the O.P. No.1 to prepare C.D. of all operations. Before Operation, the O.P. No.1 has conducted required test and conducted operation properly. The O.P. No.1 did not commit any negligence. The complainant did not suffer physical and mental agony due to negligence committed by .P. No.1. The complainant sent the baseless notice and it is not necessary for the O.P. No.1 to send reply of such baseless notice. The O.P. no.1 is not liable for the health of the complainant. The O.P. No.1 has properly treated the complainant. The physical problem faced by the complainant is due to her earlier diseases. The complainant is not entitled for getting compensation as mentioned in the complaint. Since earlier, in the body of the complainant there is tendency of bursting of blister and earlier the blister of the complainant was burst and she was consuming very much medicines, and due to this the blister is bursting. The sonography of the complainant was got done and report is normal. If the artery is cut, then immediately fecal material would come out. According to the complaint filed by // 6 // the complainant, the fecal material come out after lapse of a long period (day) from which it appears that it was not occurred due to negligence of the O.P. No.1 because if the artery is cut due to operation conducted by the O.P. No.1, then the fecal material would come out immediately. Since last one year, there was acute bleeding in the menstruation of the complainant, and treatment could not be done with the medicine, therefore, sonography was done in which know was found in uterus and thereafter Dr. Umesh Lohana send the complainant to Dr. Aradhna Gupta, who is Gynaecologist for treatment. Dr. Aradhna Gupta examined the complainant and suggested for Hysterectomy. With the written consent of the complainant, the complainant was admitted on 24.06.2014. In the blood test report her H.B. was found 6.8 gm. Due to bleeding in menstruation since lat one year, the blood was decreased. On 28.06.2014, the operation of the complainant was conducted and after operation, the condition of the patient was stable. In the evening of 28.06.2014 she was given water and on 29.06.2014 liquid diet and soft diet was started. On 30.06.2014 the complainant informed that she is having problem in taking breath and there is problem in other parts of her abdomen, then immediately medicines were given and she was got examined by Surgical Expert Dr. Sumit Gupta. After conducting full check up of the complainant, the O.P. No.1 got shifted the complainant in I.C.U. for special treatment and care, where X-ray and sonography of the complainant was done. When the problem in breathing was increased and pain was not decreased in upper part of the abdomen, then on 02.07.2014, the O.P. took advice of Dr. Tamaskar of Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur and in time, referred the complainant by writing a letter, through ambulance to Dr. Tamaskar. In Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur initially on two days 02.07.2014 and 03.07.2014 // 7 // the complainant was given conservative treatment and the sonography and blood report were also found normal and the vital meters of the complainant was also found normal. On 04.07.2014, the operation of the complainant was done in Ramkrishna Care Hospital, but it is not in knowledge of the O.P. No.1 that in in what circumstances the operation of the complainant was done. In the discharge summary of Ramkrishna Care Hospital, nowhere there is no mentioned regarding the negligence committed in the operation of uterus of the complainant. In these circumstances it is necessary to determine that what is the reason for rectal perforation to the patient. In the Gupta Hospital, the experts examined the complainant and thereafter conducted surgery and no negligence was committed in conducting surgery. Post operative monitoring was well organized and when the complainant felt problem, then immediately she was shifted in I.C.U. and in time, in the advice of Dr. Tamaskar of Ramkrishna Care Hospital, she was shifted. Thus it is clear that Gupta Hospital discharged its duty according to its capacity and qualification and gave the complainant all information in details and discharge the profession of doctor honestly. In the documents of Ramkrishna Care Hospital, which were filed, there is mention regarding constipation and due to above reason there is much pressure on abdomen, due to which the complainant suffered problem. The O.P. No.1 did not commit any negligence. The O.P. No.1 obtained Insurance Policy from United India Insurance Company Limited which was effective for the period from 27.12.2013 to 26.12.2014. In the above case, the Insurance Company is a necessary party, but the complainant did not make it a party. The O.P. No.1 did not commit any deficiency in service. The necessary treatment which was required to be given, was given to the complainant. The // 8 // complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the O.P. No.1.
4. The O.P. No.2 filed its written statement and denied the allegations made by the complainant against it. The complainant did not file the entire documents regarding her treatment before District Forum and also did not file Certificate of the Doctors in respect of expenses to be incurred in treatment for future. From the documents of Gupta Hospital, it is not clear that that physical problem suffered by the complainant is related to the wrong treatment. From the perusal of the documents filed, it is clear that the physical problem suffered by the complainant is result of operation conducted in Ramkrishna Care Hospital. Ramkrishna Care Hospital is also necessary party, because the entire treatment was done in Ramkrishna Care Hospital and the complainant was not fully cured by the treatment given by Ramkrishna Care Hospital, therefore, all responsibility is of Ramkrishna Care Hospital. After receiving the advocate, the O.P. No.1 has not legally intimated the O.P. No.2 according to the terms and conditions of the policy, which is violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy, therefore, the O.P. No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. The Medical Certificate which was filed by the complainant has been issued by the District Medical Board, Dhamtari on 06.04.2017. From the perusal of this Certificate, it is not clear that who put their signature in the certificate. From perusal of this Certificate, it appears that there is signature of President and three members and signature is illegible and the seal is affixed. It is not clear that who are President and Three Members and they are expert of which filed of medical science. In the Certificate in the handwriting there is mention regarding treatment of Poonbai and regarding // 9 // operation, in brief. In the certificate it is not mentioned anywhere that the doctors of Gupta Hospital has wrongly treated the complainant, which was later on cured by another hospital. From the above certificate, it is not clear that when the test of Poonbai was done by the Medical Board and by which procedure test was done. It is also not mentioned in the Certificate that prior to issue Certificate, which test was conducted by the Medical Board and what conclusion was arrived is not mentioned Prior to giving Certificate, the Medical Board has not examined Smt. Poonbai and only looking to the old treatment papers issued the certificate. The insurance policy is a contract and both the parties i.e. insured and insured have to comply their parts. In the instant case, the complainant has unnecessarily made party the Insurance Company and did not mention in detail regarding the Insurance Company from which it is clear that it is necessary party. As the O.P. No.2 is not a necessary party, therefore, O.P. No.2 is not liable to pay compensation to the complainant. The complaint is liable to be dismissed against it.
5. The complainant has filed documents. Document No.1 is Discharge Ticket of Gupta Hospital dated 02.07.2014, document No.2 is Test Report dated 22.06.2014 of Dr. Aradhna Gupta, document No.3 is Sonography Report dated 30.06.2014 issued by Gupta Hospital, document No.4 is Biochemistry report dated 30.06.2014 issued by Gupta Hospital, document No.5 is referral letter dated 02.07.2014 of Gupta Hospital to Ramkrishna Care Hospital for referring the complainant, document No.6 is Discharge Summary dated 14.07.2014 of Ramkrishna Care Hospital, document No.7 is measurement report dated 02.07.2014, document No.8 is measurement report dated 03.07.2014, document No.9 is Haematology Test Report dated 02.07.2014, document No.10 is Biochemistry report dated 02.07.2014, document No.11 is ECG // 10 // report, document No.12 is Biochemistry test report dated 03.07.2014, document no.13 is Microbiology/Serology report dated 03.07.2014, document No.14 is Microbiology / Serology report dated 03.07.2014, document no.15 is Clinical Pathology Report dated 03.07.2014, document No.16 is Sonography report dated 03.07.2014, document No.17 is Echo Cardiography report dated 04.07.2014, document No.18 is Biochemistry Report dated 04.07.2014, document No.19 is Microbiology / Serology report dated 04.07.2014, document No.20 is Microbiology / Serology report dated 04.07.2014, document No.21 is Microbiology / Serology report dated 04.07.2014, document No.22 is Microbiology / Serology report dated 04.07.2014, document No.23 is Haematology Test Report dated 05.07.2014, document No.24 is Biochemistry Test Report dated 06.07.2014, document No.25 is Biochemistry Test Report dated 07.07.2014, document No.26 is Biochemistry Test Report dated 08.07.2014, document No.27 is Biochemistry Test Report dated 09.07.2014, document no.28 is Sonography report + conclusions dated 11.07.2014, document No.29 is Final Discharge Summary dated 14.07.2014 of Ramkrihna Care Hospital , document No.30 is Inpatient - Final Bill Summary dated 21.10.2014 of Ramkrishna Care Hospital, document No.31 is Final Bill Details dated 21.10.2014, document No.32 is Haematology Test Report dated 08.10.2014, document No.33 is Biochemistry Test Report dated 08.10.2014, document No.34 is Clinical Pathology Report dated 09.10.2014, document No.35 is Colonoscopy Report dated 09.10.2014, document No.36 is CT - Abdomen (P + C) report dated 09.10.2014, document No.37 is Microbiology / Serology report dated 09.10.2014, document No.38 is ECG report, document No.39 is Blood Bank Report dated 14.10.2014, document No.40 is Haematology test report dated 18.10.2014, document No.41 is bill cum receipt dated // 11 // 29.09.2014, document No.42 to document No.55 are receipts issued by Ramkrishna Care Hospital on various dates, document No.56 is legal notice dated 19.09.2014 sent by Shri Horilal Chandrakar, Advocate on behalf of the complainant to O.P. No.1, document No.57 is postal receipt. The complainant has also filed Medical Certificate issued by District Medical Board, Dhamtari (C.G.).
6. The O.P. No.1 has filed Prof. Indemnity (Medical Establishments) Policy for the period from 27.12.2014 to 26.12.2015, Prof. Indemnity (Medical Establishments) Policy for the period from 27.12.2013 to 26.12.2014, Literature on Spontaneous Perforation of the Rectum with Possible Stereoral Etiology Report of a Case and Review of the Literature and treatment papers of Dr. Lohana.
7. Learned District Forum, after having considered the material placed before it by the parties, has allowed the complaint and directed the O.P. No.1 to pay the amount to the complainant, as mentioned in para 1 of this order.
8. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (O.P. No.1) has argued that when the complainant came to O.P. No.1, then she informed to the O.P. No.1 that she is suffering from Thyroid and earlier she had taken treatment form Dr. Umesh Lohana. The blood was given to the complainant after three days i.e. on 27.06.2014, because there is no blood bank in the hospital of O.P. No.1 and the blood was brought from Raipur (C.G.). On 30.06.2014, the complainant was shifted in I.C.U. and when the condition of the complainant was deteriorated, then the complainant was referred to Dr. Tamaskar of Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur, where looking to the condition of the complainant, she was properly referred in time. No extra amount was taken by the O.P. No.1 from the complainant. No // 12 // toxicating substance came in the body of the complainant.. The proper treatment was given by the O.P. No.1 to the complainant. The O.P. No.1 conducted required tests and conducted operation properly. The O.P. No.1 did not commit any medical negligence. The operation of the complainant was conducted by the O.P. No.1 on 28.06.2014 and after operation, the condition of the complainant was stable. In the evening of 28.06.2014, the complainant was given water and on 29.06.2014 liquid diet and soft diet was started to be given. On 30.06.2014, the complainant informed the O.P. No.1 that she is having problem in breathing and there is problem in other parts of her body, then immediately medicines were given. The complainant was got examined by Surgical Expert Dr. Sumit Gupta. After conducting full check up of the complainant , the O.P. No.1 shifted the complainant in I.C.U. for special treatment and care. Thereafter the complainant was referred to Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur. The complainant has not filed any expert report. Even treatment papers and record, does not show that the O.P. No.1 had committed any medical negligence. The complainant has not been able to establish that any medical negligence was committed by the O.P. No.1. The initial burden lies on the complainant to prove that any medical negligence was committed by the treating doctor, but in the instant case, the complainant has utterly failed to prove any medical negligence on the part of the O.P. No.1. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Forum, is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. The appeal filed by the appellant (O.P. No.1) be allowed.
9. Miss Aarti Chandrakar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 (complainant) has argued that the complainant was taking treatment in respect of Thyroid from Dr. Umesh Lohana . Dr. Umesh Lohana instructed the complainant // 13 // for Sonography as per requirement. The complainant shown Sonogrpahy Report to the O.P. No.1 and informed him regarding her physical problem. The O.P. No.1 advised the complainant for removing the Uterus. The complainant was got admitted in the O.P. No.1 Hospital. The O.P. No.1 informed to the complainant that for the operation a sum Rs.20,000/- is required, which has been deposited by the complainant and Rs.4,000/- is required for the blood. The same was also deposited by the complainant. On 28.06.2014, the O.P. No.1 conducted operation of the complainant. After operation, the complainant could not get any relief and on the contrary the complainant suffered pain in her abdomen. The pain in the abdomen of the complainant was continuously increased, then on 30.06.2014, the complainant was shifted to I.C.U. but the complainant could not get any relief. The complainant was sent to Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur on 02.07.2014 and the O.P. No.1 took a sum of Rs.1,800/- towards ambulance charges. On 02.07.2014, the complainant was got admitted in Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur and the operation f the complainant was done and it was found that there is Rectal Perforation Peritonitis & Septicaemia which was occurred due to the negligent act of the O.P. No.1. Due to negligence of the O.P. No.1, the complainant suffered pain in her abdomen and also suffered financial loss, therefore, the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the O.P. No.1, as prayed by her in the complainant. The impugned order passed by the District Forum, is just and proper and does not suffer from any infirmity, irregularity or illegality. The appeal filed by the appellant (O.P. No.1) is liable to be dismissed.
10. Shri P.K. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 (O.P. No.2) has argued that the complainant is not consumer of the O.P. No.2 as defined in // 14 // Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. No cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant against the O.P. No.2. As the complainant is not the consumer and the O.P. No.2 has not repudiated any claim of the complainant, therefore, the question of arising any cause of action does not arise. In the instant case, the complainant has unnecessarily made party the Insurance Company and did not mention in detail regarding the Insurance Company from which it is clear that it is necessary party. As the O.P. No.2 is not a necessary party, therefore, O.P. No.2 is not liable to pay compensation to the complainant.
11. We have heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and have also perused the record of the District Forum as well as the impugned order.
12. It is admitted fact that the complainant was initially got admitted in O.P. No.1 hospital. The complainant has specifically pleaded that she deposited Rs.20,000/- for operation and Rs.4,000/- for blood with the O.P. No.1. On 28.06.2014, the operation of the complainant was conducted by the O.P. No.1, but after operation, the complainant could not get relief, on the contrary the pain was increased in her abdomen.. The complainant was shifted in I.C.U. On 02.07.2014, the complainant was got admitted in Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur where it was informed that due to negligence done during the operation procedure, due to which the artery of the complainant was cut, resulting which the flatus was filled in the abdomen of the complainant. Due to which toxicating substance is making in the body for which the operation is required to be conducted.
13. The complainant has filed Discharge Summary issued by the O.P. No.1. No details were given by the O.P. No.1 in the Discharge Summary. It is necessary for // 15 // the O.P. No.1 to mention all details regarding treatment given to the patient. In the Discharge Summary in the column of Diagnosis it is mentioned "Cervical Thyroid and Severe Menernhgia". In the column of Treatment Advised it is mentioned "Pt. referred to Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur for further evaluation." The Discharge Summary is a material document and it is prepared by the Doctor when the patient is discharge from the Hospital. It should ideally include the explanation for the patient's admission : a record of complaints, physical findings laboratory results and radiographic studies which hospitalized, a list of changes in medications at discharge and recommendations for follow up care. For optimal care it should be transmitted to or reviewed with outpatient primary care provider.
14. In the instant case, in the discharge summary, no details were given by the O.P. No.1, whereas it is essential for the O.P. No.1 that after listening the patient, to clinically examine the patient and the O.P. No.1 is duty bound to record full medical history of the patient. It is the professional duty of the medical practitioner to examine a patient thoroughly to find out the cause for which complications arose. To prescribe medicines mechanically without application of mind is certainly a deficiency in service. In the instant case, in the Discharge Summary, no details have been given by the O.P. No.1.
15. The complainant has filed Discharge Summary of Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur. In the Discharge Summary, under the head Final Diagnosis, it is mentioned "RECTAL PERFORATION PERITONITIS + SEPTICAEMIA" Under the Head History, it is mentioned : C/o Pain Abdomen, Swelling All over body, Breathing difficulty last 3 days. NOT PASSING FLATUS AND MOTION SINCE 3 DAYS."
// 16 //
16. In the Discharge Summary of Ramkrishna Care Hospital, it is mentioned that "Mrs. Poon Bai Aged 54 yrs. / Female Admitted with above written History on 07.07.2014. Examined and Investigated Thoroughly & Advised Surgery after-medical & Anaesthetic, Cardiac Clearance. Patient was kept at critical care area for stabilization and management relatives explained about the nature of illness and course of management in detail on 04.07.2014 Surgery for Lap Adheriolysis + Repair of rectal Perforation + diversion colostomy + peritoneal lavage / drainage done under GA., relatives explained about the nature of illness and shifted to wards after stabilization. Patient was Stable Haemodynamicaly after the Procedure. Post op inj novapine, inj amikacin, inj ocid, iv fluids Inj MVI, Calcium Guconate, Reptilase & Other Supportive Management Given. Patient is Stable Presently & being discharge with following Treatment & Advise to continue regular follow up....."
17. In the Discharge Summary of Ramkrishna Care Hospital, under the head "Operative Findings" it is mentioned thus :-
"Scar (+) upper abdomen (vertical midline) abdomen distended. About 1 litter of pus and fecal contamination in peritoneal cavity, stomach adherent to anterior abdominal wall (old scar) pus taken for culture sensitivity. Dense interloop adhesions and abscess scattered throughout abdomen. Bilateral subdiaphragamatic abscess seen. Uterus absent (H/0 vaginal hysterectomy) perforation 1 x 1 cn over anterior wall rectum repaired with PDS 2.10 sutures. Adhesiolysis and peritoneal lavage done. Left Transverse loop Colostomy done (Diversion Colostomy) because Right Transverse colon was badly adherent 3 ADK drain kept (Right and left subdiaphragmatic and pelvic)."
// 17 //
18. The complainant was got admitted in the O.P. No.1 hospital , where blood was given to her on 27.06.2014 and her operation was conducted on 28.06.2014. According to the Discharge Summary issued by Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur Final Diagnosis is Rectal Perforation Peritonitis + Septicaemia. Looking to the above findings of Ramkrishna Care Hospital, it appears that the same was cause to the complainant due to operation done by the O.P. No.1. It appears that due to operation of the complainant conducted by the O.P. No.1, Rectal Perforation Peritonitis + Septicaemia was occurred to her, which comes in category of negligence on the part of O.P. No.1.
19. Therefore, the impugned order dated 10.01.2018 passed by learned District Forum, is just and proper and does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality, hence does not call for any interference.
20. Hence, the appeal filed by the appellant (O.P. No.1) being devoid of any merits, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost of this appeal.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (D.K. Poddar) (Narendra Gupta) (Smt. Ruchi Goel)
President Member Member Member
04/05/2018 04 /05/2018 04 /05/2018 04/05/2018