State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr. Dinesh Chandra Nayak vs Jaslok Hospital And Research Centre And ... on 27 April, 2017
1
[CC/03/146]
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. CC/03/146
Dr.Dinesh Chandra Nayak
R/at-A/12, Rapti Nagar,
Phase II, Gorakhpur,
Uttar Pradesh. Complainant
versus
1. Jaslok Hospital & Research Centre
Through Managing Director
Having its registered office at-
15, G.Deshmukh Marg,
Mumbai 400026.
2. Dr.N.H.Wadia
Director Department of Neurology
Jaslok Hospital & Research Centre
15, G.Deshmukh Marg,
Mumbai 400026.
3. Dr.S.K.Pandya
Neuro Surgon,
Jaslok Hospital & Research Centre
15, G.Deshmukh Marg,
Mumbai 400026. Opponent(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.P.Bhangale, President
Hon'ble Mr. D.R.Shirasao, Judicial Member
PRESENT:
For the Smt.A.G.Sabnis,A/R
Complainant(s):
2
[CC/03/146]
For the
Opponent (s): Advocate Smt.Geeta Handa Khanuja along with
Advocate Ms.Monica Maherchandani for
Opponent Nos.1 and 2.
Dr.M.S.Kamat, A/R for Opponent No.3
JUDGMENT
Per: - Hon'ble Mr.D.R.Shirasao, Judicial Member-
[1] Complainant has filed this complaint against Opponents for getting damages of Rs.80,00,000/- and for getting expenditure made by him for taking medical treatment of Rs.3,00,000/- and costs of litigation Rs.1,00,000/- from Opponents. Complainant submitted that he is doctor and M.D. in Radiology and practicing at Gorakhpur, State of Uttar Pradesh. He submitted that in the month of January 2001 he developed some numbness in the sole and slight loss of sensation in last two fingers of the feet. Hence he had taken treatment from Neurologist whose provisional diagnosis revealed B-12 deficiency. He submitted that subsequently he had undergone MRI examination which doubted Dorsal Cord Arterio Venous Malformation at D-8 level. He submitted that realizing the seriousness of the situation he came to Mumbai to the Hospital of Opponent No.1 for taking medical treatment. He submitted that he met Opponent No.2 in the hospital of Opponent No.1. Opponent No.2 after going through his medical reports advised him Spinal Angiography. It confirmed that there is AV fistula at D-8 level. He submitted that Opponent No.2 told him that the only treatment for that purpose is the embolisation of spinal dural AV Fistula at D-8 level. He submitted that accordingly embiolisation of spinal dural AV Fistual was 3 [CC/03/146] performed by Dr.Srinivas Desai and Dr.Raju Godhke on 25/3/2001. He submitted that he was discharged from that hospital on 12/4/2001 and thereafter he had gone to his home at Gorakhpur. He submitted that however problem did not subside and hence he had again come to the hospital of Opponent No.1 for taking medical treatment. At that time also Opponent No.2 had advised him for MRI Dorsal Spine. Accordingly the same was taken which confirmed that there is AV Fistula at D-8 to D-12 level. He submitted that thereafter Opponent No.2 had advised him to undergo spinal angiography and same was performed on 30/5/2001 which confirmed that there is recurrent right D-8 dural AV fistula fed by rediculo- medullary collaterals from right D-9 and left D-9 intercostal arteries. He submitted that Opponent No.2 realized that the earlier operation was ineffective and advised him to undergo another operation of spinal surgery. He submitted that the same was conducted on him on 4/6/2001 in that hospital under the directions of Opponent No.3.
[2] Complainant submitted that although there was defect at D-8 level his initial operation was performed at D-6 level. Hence, it is the contention of complainant that the same was performed in negligent manner. It is the contention of complainant that at the time of first operation conducted by the Opponent No.3 the D-8 level was not counted with the help of x-ray and without making any marking about the same on the body of complainant and the same was done in negligent manner at D-6 level. It is the contention of complainant that as operation was conducted in negligent manner it had not benefitted him and caused permanent disability to him. It is the contention of complainant that because of the 4 [CC/03/146] same now he is not in position to do his work and confined to wheel chair. Hence he has filed this complaint against the Opponents for getting expenditure made by him along with compensation and costs of litigation.
[3] Opponent No.1 contested the complaint by filing written version on record which is at page 275 of compilation. They submitted that complainant has not shown any dissatisfaction in getting services from the Hospital of Opponent No.1. They submitted that complainant had taken advice from the Opponent No.2 and Opponent No.2 had advised spinal cord operation to complainant. Same was conducted by the Opponent No.3 on complainant. They specifically denied that any negligence was caused while giving treatment to complainant. They submitted that after giving medical treatment to the complainant, health of complainant was improved and he was in a position to walk with minimum support. Hence, they submitted that there was no negligence on the part of Opponent No.1 when he was admitted in their hospital for taking medical treatment from Opponent Nos. 2 and
3. [4] Opponent No.2 had also filed their written version on record which is at page 307 of compilation. He submitted that complainant was having this ailment since before Jan. 2000. He had come to the hospital of Opponent No.1 for taking medical treatment in the month of March 2001. He submitted that complainant had Dorsal Arteriovenous malformation at D8 level. Embolisation was the only treatment for the same. Accordingly the same was done in the case of complainant and because of which the health of complainant had recovered. He submitted that the ailment of complainant was correctly diagnosed and he had given proper 5 [CC/03/146] medical treatment in the hospital of Opponent No.1. He submitted that in such disease no guarantee can be given that patient will cure 100%. He submitted that the treatment advised by him to the complainant was correct. Operation was conducted on him by the Opponent No.3. He submitted that as the line of treatment given to the complainant was correct he cannot be held responsible for causing negligence to him while giving medical treatment. Hence, he submitted that he is not liable for giving any amount of compensation to the complainant. [5] Opponent No.3 also contested the complaint by filing written version on record. The same is at page 317 of the compilation. He admitted that he is a Neurosurgeon attached to the Hospital of Opponent No.1. However, he submitted that complainant was admitted in the hospital of Opponent No.1 on 23/3/2001 by the Opponent No.2 and complainant was not admitted in that hospital as per his advice. He submitted that at the time of admission complainant was complaining of paresthesia in both of his feet. Opponent No.2 had made clinical diagnosis of spinal arteriovenous malformation and advised spinal angiogram to complainant. The same was conducted on complainant on 23/3/2001 which confirmed that there was a dural arteriovenous fistula at D8 level. He submitted that hence the complainant was admitted in the hospital. He submitted that on 27/3/2001 the right intercostals artery at D-8 was occluded with 1ml of histoacry glue by Drs.S.B.Desai, Raju Godke by endovascular process. Post-embolisation (occlusion) angiogram showed complete occlusion of the dural fistula. On 28/3/2001 complainant felt better as power in the lower limbs, both lower limbs were spastic. However, on 1/4/2001 complainant was again making complaint of 6 [CC/03/146] numbness in the left leg, flexor spasms in the lower limbs which persisted upto 3 April. He submitted that Opponent No.2 had readmitted complainant on 29/5/2001. On 30/5/2001 he had examined complainant. At that time he had seen right dural spinal arteriovenous fistula opacified through the right D9 radiculo- medullary collaterals and left D-9 intercostal artery. He had advised complainant to take X-ray and MRI scan. On going through the same he confirmed that there is malfunction of his spinal cord at D-8 level. On 5/6/2001 he had conducted operation on complainant. He submitted that after conducting operation health of complainant was improved. He submitted that no negligence was caused while conducting operation on complainant. Because of the operation health of complainant was benefitted and he was in a position to walk with minimum support. He submitted that after conducting operation there was no neurosurgical problem to the complainant and hence he was discharged from the hospital. He submitted that subsequently complainant was admitted in the hospital on 8/10/2002. At that time he had given medical treatment by other doctor of the hospital and subsequently he was discharged from the hospital. Hence, he submitted that the operation conducted on complainant was proper and no negligence was shown while conducting operation on him. He submitted that because of the operation complainant was benefitted in health and was in a position to walk with minimum support. Hence, he submitted that as Opponent No.3 has not caused any negligence to the complainant while giving treatment to him complainant is not entitled to claim compensation from Opponent No.3. Hence, he submitted that complaint filed by complainant against him be dismissed. 7
[CC/03/146] From the aforesaid facts following points arise for our determination and we answer the same for the reasons given below:-
Sr.No. Points Findings
(i) Whether complainant : In the affirmative
proves that he is a
'consumer' of Opponent
Nos.1 to 3?
(ii) Whether the complainant : In the negative
proves that Opponent
Nos.1 to 3 had given
deficiency in service while
giving medical treatment
to him?
(iii) Whether complainant is : In the negative
entitled to get
compensation from the
opponents?
(iv) What order? : As per final order below.
REASONS
As to the Point No.1-
[6] Complainant has filed affidavit of evidence on record. It is at page
349 of complaint compilation. He has mainly relied on his medical reports of spinal angiography and report of embolisation. The Ld.Advocate appearing for complainant submitted that complainant had developed numbness in his sole and loss of sensation in the fingers of his feet. Initially he had taken medical treatment 8 [CC/03/146] at his native place at Gorakhpur from a Neurologist and submitted that as per his opinion, there was deficiency of vitamin B-12 in complainant. She submitted that when MRI of complainant was taken, at that time it was found that there was Arteriovenous Malformation at D8 level. She submitted that looking to the seriousness of the problem Complainant had come to the hospital of opponent no.1. He had taken advice from opponent no.2 and opponent no.2 had asked the complainant to undergo some tests. She submitted that as per report of spinal angiography complainant had developed AV fistula at D-8 level. She submitted that hence opponent no.2 had directed complainant to get admitted in the hospital for conducting operation on his spinal cord. She submitted that the embolisation of spinal cord was the only medical treatment available for that purpose. She submitted that, however, at the time of operation which was conducted on 25/03/2001 on complainant, the embolisation was done at the D-6 level. She submitted that it is evident from the medical reports of opponent no.1. She submitted that after operation although complainant was discharged from hospital there was no improvement in his health and he was again admitted in the hospital of opponent no.1 as per advice of opponent no.2. She submitted that at this time also spinal angiogram of the complainant was taken and as per that report there was malformation of vessel at the D-9 level. She submitted that for second time embolisation was done at D-8 and D-9 level. She submitted that although the problem was at D-8 level, initially the operation was conducted at the D-6 level, which itself shows the negligence of opponents who had conducted surgery of complainant. She submitted that because of the same the health of the 9 [CC/03/146] complainant was deteriorated and now he is confined to wheel chair as he is unable to move on his legs. Hence, she submitted that all the opponents are jointly and severally caused negligence while giving medical treatment to the complainant and hence, they are liable to give compensation for the same to the complainant.
[7] The Ld.Advocate appearing for the complainant for that purpose relied on following rulings:
[i] AIR (SC) 2004 - 5088, Savita Garg V/s. Director National Heart Institute. In this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that in cases of medical negligence the complaint cannot be rejected on the ground of non impleading of treating surgeon and nursing staff to the complainant and attending staff.
[ii] LAWS(NCD)-2015-7-192, Dr.Anil Kumar Mittal V/s Smt.Neelam Gupta and Ors. In this case the blood of wrong group was given to the patient. The Hon'ble National Commission considered that the principle of 'Res Ipso Loquitur' will be applicable in the instant case. [iii] LAWS(NCD)-2016-5-9, Anil Dutt and Anr. V/s. Vishesh Hospital and Ors. In this case the Hon'ble National Commission has considered that while giving medical treatment bonafide mistake can be considered only if it is excusable, but the mistake which would tantamount to negligence cannot be pardoned.10
[CC/03/146] [iv] LAWS(NCD)-2015-1-197, Krishna Mohan Bhattacharjee V/s.
Bombay Hospital Medical Research Centre and Ors. In this case the Hon'ble National Commission considered that the terms under which the hospital employees the Doctors and Surgeons it cannot be stated that the hospital cannot be held liable on account of negligence of the Doctors and Surgeons employed by them.
[v] Order passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in Complaint No.68 of 1996 in the matter of Sobhana Natarajan V/s.
Cosmopolitan Hospitals P. Ltd. In this case the surgery was performed on wrong level, the Hon'ble National Commission considered it as negligence on the part of the opponents. [vi] 1986-2002 Consumer 5535 (NS), Manish Sood V/s. Dr.J.S. Arora and Others. In this case the complainant was operated for laminectomy of L4-L5 region. However, the laminectomy was at L3- L4 region. The Hon'ble National Commission considered that it is due to the negligence of opponents.
[vii] She also relied on order passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.696-698 of 2014 in the matter of Kukyjohney @ Kucky Merin Punnoose V/s. Administrator, St.Thomas Hospital and Anr. In this case complications had arisen as there was no proper dressing of the wound and because of which there was no healing of the surgical injury. The Hon'ble National 11 [CC/03/146] Commission considered that it is due to negligence while giving medical treatment to the complainant.
[viii] She relied on the Order passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in Consumer Case No.119 of 2007 in the matter of Master Rishabh Sharma V/s. Dr.Rama Sharma and Ors. In this case there was premature delivery of child by a lady and as no proper medical treatment was given to the newly born baby it had rendered blind for the life. The Hon'ble National Commission has considered the medical negligence given to the complainant.
[ix] She relied on the Order passed by the Hon'ble National Commission in First Appeal No.218 of 2011 in the matter of Lt.Col.Atma (Retd.) V/s. Managing Director, Fortis Healthcare Ltd. and Ors. In this case there was negligence on the part of the opponents who could not diagnose and made surgical intervention at proper time. [x] She relied on the Order passed by this Commission in Consumer Complaint No.CC/00/423 in the matter of Mrs.Nilima P. Shirude V/s. Dr.Pradip Pawar & Ors. In this case this Commission has observed that the case of the complainant cannot be thrown out only because the complainant has not filed any expert opinion. The Court has to derive its own conclusion in respect of medical negligence given by the opponents to complainant.12
[CC/03/146] [8] Opponent No.1 has filed affidavit of evidence on record. They have also filed affidavit of Dr.Bhim Sen Singhal, Neurologist attached to Bombay Hospital, Mumbai and affidavit of Dr.Chandra Shekhar Deopujari, who is also Neurosurgeon at Bombay Hospital, Mumbai. They have also filed documents of Hospital on record which are at page-607 of complaint compilation. They have also filed their written notes of arguments at page-964 of complaint compilation. Opponent No.3 has also filed his affidavit of evidence on record at page-920. [9] It is the contention of opponent No.1 that complainant was admitted in their hospital as he was having numbness and burning in the left foot and toes. He was suffering from this problem since June 2000 and initially he had taken medical treatment in All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi where it was diagnosed that it is due to deficiency of Vitamin B-12 in the complainant. They submitted that however for taking medical treatment, complainant had come to Mumbai and contacted opponent No.2 in the hospital of opponent No.1. Opponent No.2 had suspected disease of spinal cord of complainant and advised to take MRI scan for the same. They submitted that on verification of MRI scan, they found that there was arterivenous malformation in the complainant at D8 level. They have further taken angiography of complainant and confirmed the diagnosis. They submitted that the only option was to get malformation embolized. They submitted that opponent No.2 had made consultation about the same with the complainant and finally decided to carry out the same. They submitted that for that purpose, complainant was admitted in their hospital and 13 [CC/03/146] embolization at D6 level was performed on complainant on 26/03/2001. They submitted that there after health of complainant improved and he was in a position to move in the corridor of the hospital by taking minimal support. They submitted that as there was no neurological problem to the complainant he was discharged from the hospital on 12/04/2001. They submitted that in follow-up procedure further MRI scan of complainant was taken and at that time it was revealed that still there is arterivenous malformation at D-8 level. They submitted that for that purpose he was again admitted in the hospital on 29/05/2001 and second operation was conducted on him and clipping of vein was done at D8 level. They submitted that the operation was conducted under the guidance of Neurosurgeon Dr.Raju Godke. They submitted that thereafter complainant was discharged from the hospital. They submitted that there was no irregularity caused while conducting operation on the complainant. For that purpose they mainly relied on the affidavits of Dr.Singhal and Dr.Deopujari attached to Bombay Hospital, Mumbai. They submitted that there was no deficiency in service given by the opponents while giving medical treatment to the complainant when the complainant was hospitalised in the hospital of opponent No.1. Hence, they submitted that opponent Nos.1 to 3 are not responsible for giving medical negligence to complainant and not required to give compensation to him. They submitted that when complainant was discharged from the hospital at that time there was improvement in his health. However, disease of complainant is of such a nature which cannot be cured 100% and hence, subsequently, his health is deteriorated. 14
[CC/03/146] They submitted that for that purpose opponents are not responsible. Hence, they submitted that complaint filed by the complainant be dismissed.
For that purpose opponent Nos.1 to 3 relied on following rulings :-
(i) Judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in First Appeal No.184/2015 decided on 12/01/2017 in the case of Herat Parmar V/s.
Venilal G. Panchal & Ors. In this case, Hon'ble National Commission had come to conclusion that father of complainant was under the care of Neurologist, Cardiologist and Physician. Hon'ble National Commission had not found anything as an act of omission or commission which caused harm to the patient. Hence, Hon'ble National Commission had come to conclusion that there was no medical negligence caused to the father of the complainant.
(ii) Judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in Consumer Case No.109/2011 decided on 15/02/2017 in the case of Mandar Jadhav V/s. Riya & Ors. In this case, the complainant had not filed expert opinion about negligence caused in giving medical treatment to his wife. Hence, Hon'ble National Commission considered that to prove medical negligence, onus is on the complainant.
(iii) Judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in First Appeal No.380/2011 decided on 23/09/2016 in the case of Pally Srikanth & Ors. V/s. Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences Ltd. & Ors. In this case also 15 [CC/03/146] Hon'ble National Commission considered that onus of proving alleged negligence while giving treatment to the patient is on the patient.
(iv) Judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.2831/2012 decided on 15/12/2016 in the case of Garlapati Kameshwar4a Rao & Ors. V/s. Kinnera Super Specialty Hospital. In this case, Hon'ble National Commission considered that the District Forum and the Commission are not experts in medical science to substitute their own views over that of specialists. Hon'ble National Commission also observed that sometimes despite their best efforts and treatment given to the patient, doctor fails. However, unless there is some strong evidence it cannot be suggested that same is due to medical negligence.
(v) Judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.2116/2015 decided on 04/07/2016 in the case of Suresh Chandra Mytle and Ors. V/s. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. In this case also Hon'ble National Commission considered that onus is on the complainant to prove the negligence caused while giving treatment to the patient.
(vi) Judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.1332/2016 decided on 18/05/2016 in the case of Pankaj Singh Chouhan V/s. Dr.Sushila Tiwari Memorial Forest Hospital & Ors. In this case also complainant failed to produce evidence of expert in respect of negligence caused to the patient. Hon'ble National Commission considered that it is for the complainant to prove the same by producing evidence of expert witness.
16
[CC/03/146]
(vii) Judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in First Appeal No.115/2009 decided on 13/02/2016 in the case of S. Lakshman Swamy V/s. N. Chandrashekar & Ors. In this case also Hon'ble National Commission considered that when there is no expert opinion about deficiency of service, allegation about the same cannot be accepted.
(viii) Judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.3084/2015 decided on 04/01/2016 in the case of Sunder Lal & Ors. V/s. Sanjeev Arora & Ors. In this case also there was no expert opinion about negligence. Hon'ble National Commission considered that under such circumstances allegation about negligence made cannot be considered.
(ix) Judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in Consumer Complaint No.157/2003 decided on 15/12/2015 in the case of Sardar Kuldeep Singh V/s. Escorts Heart Institute & Research Centre. In this case also Hon'ble National Commission considered that private complaint may not be entertained against doctor unless there is prima-facie evidence about rash or negligent act or omission on the part of doctor.
(x) Judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in First Appeal No.349/2005 decided on 05/05/2011 in the case of Shri Virendra Singh s/o. Late Shri Balbir Singh V/s. National Institute of Medical Sciences & Ors. In this case Hon'ble National Commission considered that opinion of independent expert can be taken into consideration while considering the fact of medical negligence.
17
[CC/03/146] [10] From facts and circumstances of the case it has become clear that the complainant had come to opponent No.2 for his ailment and as per advice of opponent No.2 he was admitted in the hospital of opponent No.1. When complainant was admitted in the hospital of opponent No.1 he had undergone neurosurgical operation for two times and after taking medical treatment from that hospital he was discharged from that hospital. It is the contention of complainant that while giving medical treatment to him irregularities were caused and because of which his health has been deteriorated. As complainant had taken medical treatment in the hospital of opponent No.1 as per advice of opponent No.2 and in that hospital he had undergone neurosurgical operations for two times which was conducted by opponent No.3, we are of the opinion that complainant had taken services of opponent Nos.1to3 and hence, he was consumer of opponent Nos.1to3. Hence, we answer Point No.1 in affirmative.
As to the Point Nos.2 and 3- [11] In this case it is admitted fact that Arterio Venous malformation was detected in complainant. It was at D-8 level. For that purpose complainant had come from his native place to Mumbai for taking medical treatment. He had taken advice of Opponent No.2 in that respect and as per his advice got himself admitted in the hospital of Opponent No.1. In this case it is admitted fact that the ambulization of AV Fistula was the only treatment on the disease of complainant. Accordingly the Opponent No.2 had given advice to the complainant and complainant had accepted the same. He got himself admitted for that purpose in 18 [CC/03/146] the hospital of Opponent No.1. In this case it is admitted fact that in that respect two operations were conducted on complainant by Opponent No.3 in the hospital of Opponent No.1 as per the advice of Opponent No.2. Admittedly first operation was conducted at D-6 level and the second operation was conducted at D-8 level. After both the operations there was no neurological problem to the complainant and he was in a position to walk with minimum support and hence he had given valid discharge from the hospital of opponent No.1.
[12] It is the contention of Ld. Advocate appearing for the complainant that AV Fistula was at D-8 level. However, before conduction of first operation the level of D-8 was not marked on the back of the complainant and hence Opponent No.3 had wrongly conducted operation at D-6 level. It is also the contention of the Ld. Advocate appearing for the complainant that at that time clipping of normal vein was done by the Opponent No.3. It is also her contention that hence complainant was again required to be operated at D-8 level. It is her contention that although AV Fistula was at D-8 level the conduction of operation by the Opponent No.3 at D-6 level itself amounts to negligence and he had done the same as marking of D-6 level was not made on the back of complainant before operation. Hence, it is her contention that because of the negligence of the Opponent No.3 the operations were conducted at wrong position and because of which the health of complainant was deteriorated.
19
[CC/03/146] [13] Opponent No.3 has admitted that the first operation was conducted at D-6 level and the second operation was conducted at D-8 level. However, he has specifically denied that it was by mistake. On the contrary he has given explanation about the same. He specifically denied that as D-6 level was not marked on the back of the complainant before operation he wrongly conducted the operation at D-6 level. The explanation given by the Opponent No.3 for conducting first operation at D-6 level and second at D-8 level will have to be considered and verified whether the same is plausible and it can be taken into consideration.
[14] It is the contention of the Opponent No.3 that before conducting first operation D-6 level was not marked on the back of the complainant. However, it is his submission that he had verified D-6 level with the help of x-ray plate and image magnifier. We are of the opinion that the contention of the Ld. Advocate appearing for the complainant cannot be accepted that the Opponent No.3 had physically counted D-6 level from Thoracic region and thereafter performed operation at D-6 level. As per evidence adduced on record the finding of D-6 level with the help of X-ray plate and image magnifier is recognized method for ascertaining level of vertebra. It the contention of Opponent No.3 that when he opened the spinal cord at that time it was revealed that although AV Fistula is at D-8 level the supply of blood to it is from the vein at D-6 level. It is his contention that he had seen this fact only when he opened spinal cord at the time of operation. He admitted that this fact was not revealed from angiogram. It is his contention that the supply of blood to AV Fistula was to be obstructed by clipping 20 [CC/03/146] vein at D-6 level. However, for that purpose he had taken opinion of Neurologist Dr.Raju Godke by calling him in the Operation Theatre. As per Dr.Raju Godke also clipping of vein at D-6 level was necessary and hence he had clipped that vein at D-6 level. Hence, it is the contention of the Opponent No.3 that he had not wrongly performed operation at D-6 level but as the supply of blood to AV Fistula was from D-6 level he was required to clip the vein D-6 level and he had done the same. It is his contention that it helped the complainant and the health of complainant was improved. After that operation he was in a position to walk with minimum support and hence ultimately he was discharged from hospital. However, it appears that problem again developed in complainant and again as per the advice of Opponent No.2 he got himself admitted in the hospital of Opponent No.1. At that time again angiogram of spinal cord was taken and it was revealed that the problem is still subsisting at D-8 level. Hence, Opponent No.3 had conducted another operation on complainant at D-8 level and had made embolization of AV Fistula at D-8 level. That also helped the complainant in improving his condition and again he was in a position to move with minimum support. Hence, again he was discharged from the hospital of Opponent No.1. In this case it is admitted fact that the disease of complainant was of recurring nature. The possibility cannot be ruled out that the health of complainant was deteriorated due to the further development of the disease in the body of the complainant. However, it can be considered that after both the operations the health of complainant was improved and had given valid discharge from the hospital. Complainant had also not taken any objection at that time. The explanation given 21 [CC/03/146] by the Opponent No.3 in respect of conducting operation at D-6 level and subsequently at D-8 level is also approved by Dr.Chandrashekhar Deopujari and Dr.Bhimsen Singhal who are well known Neurologists attached to the Bombay Hospital. Both of them have given their opinion on affidavit in support of the contention of Opponent No.3. As against this the complainant has not filed affidavit of any other expert doctor to show that the operation conducted by the Opponent No.3 was not proper and conducted negligently. Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the explanation given by the Opponent No.3 for conducting operation firstly at D-6 level and secondly at D-8 level appears probable and can be accepted and hence it cannot be considered that the Opponent No.3 had conducted the operation at D-6 level wrongly and in negligent manner. The contention of complainant also cannot be accepted that as the operations were not conducted properly health of complainant was deteriorated. Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion that no negligence can be attributed against the opponents in respect of giving medical treatment to the complainant. Complainant has not alleged any specific allegation against the Opponent Nos.1 and 2 in respect of causing negligence to him in giving medical treatment. Hence, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove that the Opponents have caused negligence while giving medical treatment to him. Hence, we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled to get compensation in that respect from the Opponents. Under such circumstances, the claim of complainant will have to be rejected. Hence, we answer points Nos.2 and 3 in the negative and proceed to pass the following order- 22
[CC/03/146] ORDER 1] Complaint is hereby dismissed.
2] Parties to bear their own costs.
One set of complaint compilation be retained and rest be returned to the complainant.
Certified copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.
Pronounced on 27th April, 2017.
[JUSTICE A.P.BHANGALE] PRESIDENT [D.R.SHIRASAO] JUDICIAL MEMBER rsc