State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Surjit Kumar vs Dr. Vikramjeet on 11 April, 2017
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 709 of 2016
Date of institution : 16.09.2016
Date of decision : 11.04.2017
Surjit Kumar son of Mohan Lal r/o Village Bazidpur, Tehsil and
District Ferozepur.
....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Dr. Vikramjeet, Ashirwad Hospital, Near Gurudwara Taran
Tarn Sahib, Bathinda Road, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.
2. Dr. Ranju Singla w/o Dr. Vikramjeet, Ashirwad Hospital,
Near Gurudwara Taran Tarn Sahib, Bathinda Road, District Sri
Muktsar Sahib.
....Respondents/OPs
First Appeal against the order dated
28.07.2016 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Sri Muktsar
Sahib.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mr. Gurcharan Singh Saran, Judicial Member.
First Appeal No. 709 of 2016 2
Present:-
For the appellant : Shri P.K. Bansal, Advocate
For the respondents : Shri Munish Goel, Advocate
GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ORDER
The appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as complainant) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 28.07.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sri Muktsar Sahib (hereinafter referred as the District Forum) in consumer complaint No. 99 dated 11.8.2015 vide which the complaint filed by complainant was dismissed.
2. Complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') against the respondents/opposite parties (hereinafter referred as Ops) on the averments that the complainant was patient of Hernia. He alongwith his brother Harjinder Sharma approached Op No. 1 on 17.11.2013 and was checked by Op No. 1 and suggested operation of the same and further assured that he will not have any major problem and will be all right within 1-2 days. On 18.11.2013, Op No. 1 with the assistance of Op No. 2 operated the complainant for Hernia, however, due to the negligence of Ops an other operation, which was not required, was also done and was discharged on 21.11.2013. Ops in order to cover their negligence told the complainant that they have done one more First Appeal No. 709 of 2016 3 operation. Since he is a poor person, therefore, they gave medicines for 5 days and told to come again on 25.11.2013 for check-up. On 24.11.2013, complainant suffered from severe pain in the abdomen with vomiting and complainant was immediately brought to Op No. 1. He was admitted there and was told that he was suffering from typhoid. On 27.11.2013, after getting a CT Scan report, it was found that the life of the complainant is in danger and asked the Doctor to discharge his brother and demanded the complete file of the treatment but Op No. 1 refused to give the file. Hospital had issued some receipts on which Ms. Priya, who was working as a Clerk mentioned his name as Surjit Singh instead of Surjit Kumar. On 27.11.2013, Doctor O.P. Bagri referred the complainant to DMC & H, Ludhiana. He was got admitted there in a serious condition on 28.11.2013 and after a long treatment of 15 days, he was got recovered after spending approximately Rs. 3 Lacs and is still getting the treatment. The brother of the complainant approached Op No. 1 several times to compensate the complainant as the complainant was unable to move but with no result. Alleging deficiency in service and medical negligence, the complaint was filed by the complainant against Ops in the District Forum, demanding Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of monetary loss of income, which he was earning from agriculture, Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of loss of future earning, Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of medical expenses, Rs. 25,000/- incurred by him on medical expenses at Ashirwad Hospital, Mukatsar, Rs. 1,00,000/- of damages for mental pain, suffering and harassment, Rs. First Appeal No. 709 of 2016 4 1,00,000/- on account of punitive/exemplary and special damages and the amount be paid alongwith the interest @ 18% p.a., Rs. 20,000/- was sought as litigation expenses.
3. On notice, Ops appeared and filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the complaint is bad due to mis-joinder of Op No. 2 as Op No. 2 is employed as a Doctor in Civil Hospital, Sri Muktsar Sahib and is not doing any private practice. On merit, admission of the complainant with Ops hospital is admitted. Op No. 1 is well qualified Doctor and is M.S. in surgery and performed thousands of operations on different patients. Before operation, the entire procedure was made to understand to the complainant. Complainant agreed to it and accordingly, Op No. 1 performed the operation on 18.11.2012 and patient was discharged on 20.11.2013 in a satisfactory condition. There was absolutely no negligence on the part of Op No. 1 in performing the operation. On the date of discharge, the complainant was asked to come again on 25.11.2013 for check up and on that day, the complainant alongwith his brother visited Op No. 1. It was denied that on that day, the complainant was suffering from any abdominal pain with vomiting. It was denied that the complainant visited Op No. 1 on 24.11.2013. On examination, it was found that he was suffering from jaundice and SAIO (Sub Acute Intestinal Obstruction) and he was apprised that he may need second surgery to release SAIO and till then requisite treatment was given to him. The complainant was showing progress but all of a sudden on 27.11.2013, complainant alongwith his brother left Op hospital of their own First Appeal No. 709 of 2016 5 against medical advice. No CT Scan report was ever shown to Op No. 1. It was denied that the complainant had demanded papers regarding treatment, which was denied by Op No. 1. The name of the complainant as Surjit Singh was mentioned, which is a clerical mistake. There was no danger to the life of the complainant. It was denied that there was any medical negligence on the part of Ops in giving treatment to the complainant. Complaint is without merit, it be dismissed.
4. Before the District Forum, the parties led their respective evidence.
5. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1 and documents Exs. C-2 to C-178. On the other hand, Ops had tendered into evidence affidavit of Dr. Vikramjeet as Ex. Op-1, affidavit of Dr. Ranju Singla Ex. Op-2 and documents Exs. Op-3 & Op-4.
6. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written version filed by the OPs, evidence and documents brought on the record, the complaint was dismissed.
7. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record of the District Forum.
9. It was argued by the counsel for the complainant that the order passed by the District Forum is wrong and illegal, therefore, liable to be set-aside on the grounds that the complainant was treated for Hernia from 18.11.2013 to 20.11.2013 First Appeal No. 709 of 2016 6 and it is also admitted by Ops that complainant was readmitted with Op No. 1 on 25.11.2013. Mere this fact that he had to be readmitted within a period of one week clearly shows that the operation performed by the Op was not successful. The complainant has examined the Doctor of DMC, Ludhiana Dr. Munish Trehan, Assistant Professor, Department of Surgery and he in his examination-in-chief has stated that as per the record, the patient was operated for Lt. inguinal hernia repair from outside prior to the admission in the DMC. As per the diagnosis, there was jejuna perforation and colonic perforation. As is clear from the discharge summary (Ex. C-6) where in the hospital course, it has been mentioned as under:-
"....Exploratory laparotomy done with primary closure of jejunal perforation with closure of sigmoid colonic perforation with ileostomy with PL with PD. Post op period was uneventful. ASD was done. At the time of discharge GC stable, vitals WN, Laccepting orally, passing urine normally and is ambulatory. The patient is now being discharged under satisfactory conditions with ileostomy bag in situ."
As per the observations of Dr. Munish Trehan, these two perforations could be prior to the admission in the DMC. Specific cross-examination was done of this Doctor by OP No. 1 Dr. Vikramjeet and this witness has stated that there is evidence of significant free air in the peritoneal cavity suggestive of pneumoperitoneum. In case of hernia sac, the air will enter into the peritoneal cavity but the amount of air is less. The ileal perforation First Appeal No. 709 of 2016 7 can occur in enteric fever but jejuna perforation is not seen, therefore, non-complication could be enteric fever but not jejunal perforation, therefore, appearance of jejunal perforation itself suggest that there was negligence on the part of Op in handling the patient that is why he had approached DMC and he had to go for an other surgery i.e. exploratory laparotomy with primary jejunal perforation. Against this evidence, no specific evidence to rebut this evidence has been brought on the record by Ops. Even in the cross-examination of this witness, Op could not extract anything to say that the observations made by the Doctor in his statement before the District Forum are incorrect. No medical literature has been referred that in a case of hernia repair from outside jejunal perforation is a known-complication.
10. The District Forum after referring the evidence of the Doctor has just cited some citations, how the medical negligence can be proved but the District Forum failed to appreciate the facts on the record how and in what circumstances, jejunal perforation and coloric perforation had occurred and how it is a known- complication. In these circumstances, the order passed by the District Forum holding that the Doctor is not negligent in conducting the operation are not correct findings and the findings so recorded by the District Forum are required to be set-aside.
11. So far as the role of Op No. 2, a specific stand has been taken by Op No. 1 in its written reply that Op No. 2 is a Government Doctor employed in Civil Hospital, Mukatsar and she did not have any role in the treatment given to the complainant by First Appeal No. 709 of 2016 8 Op No. 1. In case we go to the document Ex. C-4 of Aashirwad Hospital, it is in the name of Vikram Jeet. There is another document Ex. C-8 of Sanjivani Hospital, Ferozepur. No other document has been placed on the record. The Ops have placed on the record operation file (Ex. Op-3) and during the course of arguments, counsel for the complainant could not refer any document, which may prove that the complainant was ever attended by Op No. 2. Therefore, in the absence of any document on the record, we do not see any case against Op No. 2.
12. No other point with regard to medical negligence was agitated.
13. With regard to the quantum of compensation, which can be awarded to the complainant in the case of negligence, the counsel for the complainant has placed on the record the bills Exs. C-9 to C-176 and the total of all these bills comes to Rs. 4,77,217/-. Apart from spending various amounts on his treatment, he has to go in a trauma of another surgery, therefore, adequate amount is required to be paid to the complainant on account of mental and physical harassment and further he has to go for litigation with Ops. Although Ops were negligent but did not compensate its patient in any manner. Keeping in view, the facts of the case, considering the amount spent by the complainant on his treatment and trauma suffered by patient due to negligence of Op No. 1, we allow Rs. 8 Lacs as lumpsum compensation for treatment and negligence on the part of Op No. 1. The order be First Appeal No. 709 of 2016 9 complied within 45 days from the receipt of certified copy of the order.
14. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
15. Order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER April 11, 2017.
as