State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jyoti vs Dr.Aruna Jyanti on 31 May, 2017
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA Complaint No : 98 of 2015 Date of Institution: 05.06.2015 Date of Decision : 31.05.2017 Jyoti wife of Sh. Ashish Rai Chhabra, resident of C/o Shop No.53, Bishnoi Market, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa. Complainant Versus 1. Dr. Aruna Jyani, Jyani Maternity Hospital, Near SBI Main Branch, Surkhab Chowk, Sirsa. 2. The New India Insurance Company Limited through its Branch Manager, Near General Bus Stand, Hisar Road, Hisar. Opposite Parties CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President. Mr. Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.
Argued by: Shri U.K. Kanwar, Advocate for Complainant. None for the opposite party No.1. None for the opposite party No.2. O R D E R NAWAB SINGH J. (ORAL)
This complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by Jyoti-complainant averring that in the month of November, 2011 she became pregnant. She visited Jyani Maternity Hospital, Sirsa (for short, 'hospital') for check up. In the month of April, 2012 the complainant visited the hospital with the complaint of fever and swelling in her leg. The hospital did not attend the complainant properly. On July 09th, 2012 the complainant was admitted in the hospital. Dr. Aruna Jyani-opposite party No.1 gave treatment of jaundice to the complainant. The complainant was discharged on July 10th, 2012. On July 11th, 2012 Dr. Aruna Jyani advised the complainant for C Section (Caesarean Section) because there was a danger to her life and the baby due to jaundice. On July 12th, 2012, the complainant gave birth to a female baby. During the period of admission and discharge, that is, from July 12th to 16th, 2012, the health of the complainant was deteriorated. On July 20th, 2012 the complainant visited the hospital and complained of bleeding in the stitches. The hospital gave first aid to the complainant but she did not get any relief. Thereafter, the complainant got admitted in the hospital of Dr. B.R. Bishnoi, who treated her. The complainant alleged that Dr. Aruna Jyani of the hospital was negligent in performing the surgical operation.
2. Dr. Aruna Jyani-opposite party No.1, in her, written version pleaded that she performed the surgical operation on the complainant to the best of her ability. There is no medical negligence on her part. The complainant has filed the complaint just to defame and extract money from opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 is insured under Professional Indemnity Insurance with The New India Assurance Company Limited-opposite party No.2. The complainant did not produce any document in support of her claim. The complainant is suffering from various limb pains and mild joint swellings since her childhood. Denying the remaining contents of the complaint, it has been prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The New India Assurance Company Limited-opposite party No.2, in its, written version pleaded that where the allegations of professional negligence are made against the doctors, the complainant is strictly required to prove as to what the doctor has not done or should have done. The matter is required to be referred to the experts for seeking their opinion. The Insurance Company denied the remaining the contents of the complaint and prayed for its dismissal.
4. Vide order dated December 21st, 2015 on the request of counsel for the parties, this Commission referred the matter to Pandit Bhagwat Dayal Sharma, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (PGIMS), Rohtak. The Director, PGIMS, Rohtak was asked to constitute a Board of Specialist Doctors in the concerned fields to give opinion whether there was any kind of medical negligence on the part of doctor, who treated Jyoti-complainant.
5. The Medical Board constituted at PGIMS, Rohtak consisted of Dr. Shaveta, Associate Professor, Department of Obst. & Gynae-Chairman, Dr. Susheela Chaudhary, Associate Professor, Department of Obst. & Gynae-Member, Dr. Sarika Gautam, Associate Professor, Department of Obst. & Gynae-Member, Dr. Anjali Gupta, Professor, Department of Obst. & Gynae-Member and Dr. Jitender Kumar Jakhar, Associate Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine. The opinion (Annexure C-4) of the Medical Board is reproduced in extenso as under:-
"With reference to subject cited above and your office order No.PGIMS/MB/n/78 dated 03.01.2017 a Board was constituted consisting of 1 Dr. Shaveta, Associate Professor, Deptt. of Obst. & Gynae Chairman 2 Dr. Susheela Chaudhary, Associate Professor, Deptt. of Obst. & Gynae Member 3 Dr. Sarika Gautam, Assistant Professor, Deptt.
of Obst. & Gynae Member Later on one member Dr. Anjali Gupta, Professor, Deptt. of Obst. & Gynae was added by Head of Department, Gynaecology and Dr. Jitender Kumar Jakhar, Associate Professor, Deptt. of Forensci Medicine was added vide your office order No.PGIMS/MB/17/127-28 dated 04.01.2017. The Board perused the documents supplied by uour office and observed as under:
As per letter No.PGIMS/MB/17/2536-37 complainant was asked to report on 17.04.2017 at 11:00 AM with records of treatment given by Dr. Bishnoi. She did not report on 17.04.2017. As per available records the following observations were made.
Jyoti (complainant) had regular antenatal check up by Dr. Aruna Jyani on 03.12.2011, 30.12.2011, 15.01.2012, 16.02.2012, 24.03.2012, 01.04.2012. She had her USG for pregnancy done advised by same doctor on 17.12.2011, 18.02.2012 & 01.04.2012. She visited on 28.04.2012 to same doctor with complaint of nausea & loose motion, pain abdomen for which treatment was given by her. She visited again on 16.06.2012, 22.06.2012, 23.06.2012, 30.06.2012. On 30.06.2012, she complained of vomiting, headache, body swelling, feet swelling for which symptomatic treatment was given. She again visited the same hospital on 03.07.2012, 05.07.2012 and 09.07.2012 with complaint of fever and vomiting for which she was advised admission and investigations. She again visited on 11.07.2012. She had delivery of Cesarean Section on 12.07.2012 at 08.18 PM. She was discharged from same hospital on 16.07.2012.
She was admitted again in Bishnoi nursing home on 20.07.2012 and discharged on 24.07.2012. She had wound dehiscence at that time as per Dr. Bishnoi records. She visited Dr. Bishnoi on 26.07.2012, 28.07.2012, 30.07.2012, 31.07.2012, 03.08.2012, 10.08.2012, 21.10.2012 for treatment of dehiscence of wound. The treatment record of above said dates of Bishnoi Nursing Home does not show any other diagnosis than the dehiscence of wound.
The photocopy of card of Bansal Nursing Home dated 02.09.2012 is attached where only blood pressure is written without any signature. Another paper is available in the record with no signature of the doctor. She visited Medicity Hospital, Sirsa on 23.02.2013. The diagnosis mentioned on the record is ? MCTD ?? SLE. As per available record Color Doppler was done on 18.05.2013 which was advised by Dr. R.K. Mehta shows multiple varicosities below knee bilaterally and in thigh left side. Mild incompetency of bilateral SFJ and SPJ seen, perforator incompetency seen both side below knee, few enlarged inguinal lymph nodes seen.
She visited various hospitals-Karan Nursing Home, Sirsa, Sangwan Hospital, Sirsa, Saravodaya Hospital, Hisar, Bishnoi Nursing Home, Sirsa, Khurana's Neuro Clinic and Lab, Hisar, Mittal Hospital Ludhiana, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi, AIIMS Delhi from 26.05.2013 to 05.05.2014 with diagnosis of bilateral Varicose Veins lower limbs.
She did not produce any record of treatment from 21.10.2012 to 23.02.2013. After cesarean section, she had wound dehiscence as per Dr. Bishnoi's records. Wound dehiscence is a known complication of cesarean section.
After perusal of the available record, the board is of opinion that the wound dehiscence was not due to the negligence of treating doctor but it is a known complication of Cesarean Section. The diagnosis of varicose veins was made 10 months after Cesarean Section. No treatment record for those 10 months regarding varicose veins is provided by the complainant to the Board. The bilateral Varicosity of veins is not a direct complication of Cesarean Section."
6. Learned counsel for the complainant vide his statement (Annexure C-5) has stated that he does not want to lead any evidence and the case be decided on the basis of the report/opinion (Annexure C-5) submitted by PGIMS, Rohtak.
7. In a case of medical negligence, what is expected of a doctor is ordinary skill, care and expertise and not an extraordinary or super human skill, judgment or expertise. Simply, because a mishap had occurred, neither the hospital nor the doctors can be made liable. A doctor is not guilty of negligence if he has acted in accordance with the practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art. A doctor or a hospital is expected to take reasonable care in administration of the treatment. They cannot be condemned in case of misadventure. What is the duty of a doctor is to take care and caution while giving the treatment as per the established medical practice. If he has acted in the said manner, no question of deficiency would arise.
8. In Naraingiben Subodhchandra Shah & Ors. Vs. Gujarat Research and Medical Institute & Ors III(2012) CPJ 509 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has held as under:-
"Besides, the complainants themselves having requested this Commission to obtain an expert opinion which goes in favour of the opposite parties, the only inference that can be drawn from this case is that the opposite parties have followed the most desirable and expected course of treatment/operation and if in the process the patient has died, they cannot be held liable merely on the allegation of the complainants. After all doctors can only treat but cannot guarantee the success of a surgical operation which inevitably is fraught with risks."
9. In Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab And Anr., III (2005) CPJ 9 (SC), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no sensible professional would intentionally commit an act or omission which would result in loss or injury to the patient as the professional reputation of the person is at stake. A single failure may cost him dear in his career. Simply because a patient has not favourably responded to a treatment given by a physician or a surgery has failed, the doctor cannot be held liable.
10. The best piece of evidence in this case is the opinion of the Medical Board (Annexure C-4) of PGIMS, Rohtak. The opinion of PGIMS, Rohtak consists of Board of five Medical Officers and they have stated unequivocally that the wound dehiscence was not due to the negligence of treating doctor but it is a known complication of Cesarean Section. Except complainant's version, there is no other evidence contrary to the aforesaid report. In view of this, it is unhesitatingly held that there was no medical negligence on the part of Dr. Aruna Jyani.
11. As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, the complainant has miserably failed to prove her case against the opposite parties. Hence, the complaint is dismissed being devoid of merits.
Announced:
31.05.2017 (Balbir Singh) Judicial Member (Nawab Singh) President UK