National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Sultana Ram vs B.K. Chawla (Dr.) And Anr. on 30 August, 2005
Equivalent citations: 3(2006)CPJ199(NC)
ORDER
P.D. Shenoy, Member
1. Aggrieved and dissatisfied by the Order dated 15.1.2001 passed in F.A. No. 887/1997, by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Mr. Sultana Ram, petitioner-complainant has come up in revision before this Commission.
Submissions:
2. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the complainant had undergone five operations on 2.3.1996, 15.3.1996 and 1.4.1996 in the nursing home run by respondent No. 1, Dr. B.K. Chawla, and subsequently at Panipat on 16.4.1996, and, thereafter at Government Hospital, Jaipur in May 1996. This is all due to sheer negligence of respondent No. 1, Dr. B.K. Chawla, and respondent No. 2, Dr. Vijay Kalra. It is submitted that the complainant suffered from acute pain in the abdomen due to stone in his kidney. Through X-ray and sonography, it was detected as a staghorn calculus. He submitted that this can be cured by three methods including traditional surgery for removing the stone.
3. Though the second and third methods are more spohisticated and less painful, Dr. Chawla opted the first method, i.e., traditional surgery. The operation was performed in Dr. Chawla's nursing home at Hanumangarh, by Dr. Kalra, in the presence of Dr. Chawla. Due to the negligence of the doctor, there was a long incision and puss was oozing out, which created a lot of pain and complications; as a result of which the patient had suffered a lot and had taken three months' leave. He further submitted that Dr. Chawla did not want the patient to go to any other doctor, as the operation was performed in his nursing home.
4. The photographs of the patient after operation show a foot long stitch mark due to repeated operations. Dr. Chawla himself has admitted this mistake which can be seen from the certificate issued by him on 6.4.1996, which reads as under:
Certificate It is certified that Mr. Sultana Ram was operated for renal stone. There is stitch abseis and discharge from the wound. He is advised bed rest for 10 days.
5. He has also further submitted that such a surgery results in complete removal of the stone, whereas, in this case, a part of the stone remained in the kidney. This proves sheer negligence on the part of the doctor.
6. Learned Counsel for the respondent denied that five operations were performed. The first operation was performed on 2nd March, 1996, and, the one performed on 15th March, 1996 was not the second operation but it was the removal of urine cathetra for which no charges were taken from the complainant and the complainant was very happy with the care taken by the hospital and had voluntarily donated Rs. 500 to the Lions Club. Then on 1st April, 1996, again, it was not the third operation, but actually, urine retract was examined by Dr. Kalra through magnified lens for which no fee was charged. Subsequently, on 16.4.1996 ESWL was performed at Panipat and in the first week of May and thereafter PCNL was performed in the Government Hospital, Jaipur.
Findings:
7. The complainant knew Dr. Chawla very well and hence he charged only Rs. 6,000 for the surgery and stay in his clinic, out of which Rs. 5,000 was given to Dr. Kalra and for 10 days stay in the hospital, he was charged only Rs. 100 per day. The doctor at Jaipur has ruled out that previous surgery performed by Dr. Kalra in Dr. Chawla's clinic was wrongly done. In fact, the complainant had misled the District Forum by stating that the certificate issued by the Jaipur Hospital pertains to another Sultana Ram and not to the complainant (Sultana Ram). This has been clarified on 27.9.1997 by the SMS Hospital, Jaipur that no other patient with the name of Sultana Ram was admitted in the month of March, 1996 in Dr. Sadha Sukhi's Unit. Dr. Chawla has taken full personal care of the patient in whom the patient had full faith. In fact, doctor at Panipat had charged Rs. 15,550 for the operation performed on 16.4.1996. However, this doctor has not been made a party.
8. It is clear from the records of the case and the evidence produced before us that there was no negligence on the part of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in view of the reasons given below:
(a) that five operations were not performed. The alleged second and third operations were relating to the post operative care/treatment.
(b) Dr. Chawla has not charged any exorbitant fees. Out of the fees of Rs. 6,000 charged for this operation, Rs. 5,000 was given to Dr. Kalra and he retained Rs. 1,000 as he was required to remain present all throughout. This has not been contradicted.
(c) Removal of kidney stone can be treated through three procedures. All the three are considered as correct procedures and traditional surgery is one of them. Dr. Chawla opted for this and hence that he was not negligent on this count.
(d) In the paper written by Alexander D. Vargan, Stephen D. Bragin and Robert Mendez on 'Staghorn Calculus' its Clinical Presentation Complications and Management published in the Journal of Urology (1982), the various procedures for tackling staghorn calculus and the possibility of residual stones have been narrated in the following words:
Complete surgical removal is the initial step in the treatment of Staghorn Calculus and should be done as soon as the diagnosis is made if clinical conditions allow. Various procedures have been described but extended pyelolithotomy and the anstruphic nephrolithotomy are used the most.
The recurrence rate after removal of a staghorn calculus is reported to vary from 5 to as high as 9 per cent and the residual stone rate varies from 5 to 40 per cent. (Emphasis added)
(f) The certificate given by the Government Hospital where the final operation was performed, is the most relevant document in this case. Dr. T.C. Sadasukhi, M.S. Mech, (Urology), Prof. and Head of the Department of Urology, S.M.S. Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur has given a certificate on 12.12.1996, as follows:
This is to certify that Mr. Sultan was seen by me in April, 1996. He had Urinary Fistula, following Renal Culculus Surgery. Kidney stone are common in this part of country. At present open surgery is indicated for large stone (Staghorn). It can also be done by ESWL and PCNL. Every procedure has its merit and demerits 100% stone clearance is not possible by any one of the method. Plain X ray kvb gives only one view of stone other tiny stones are shadowed by large stone. Small left over stones some time block urinary passage results in urinary fistula. Which is one cured by removing blocking stone. Above statement, indicated sequels of stone surgery. It is difficult to say that previous surgery was done wrong and we have not comment on previous operation to this patient.
9. In view of the above, we have no hesitation holding that the judgment of the State Commission, Rajasthan is based on appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case properly. It does not suffer from any factual or legal infirmity. Hence, Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.