State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sunil Kumar S/O Radhakishan vs Mathur!S C.T.Scan &Imaging; Center on 25 January, 2016
1
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAJASTHAN,
BENCH NO.3 JAIPUR
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT CASE NO: 80/2011
Mr.Sunil Kumar S/o Mr.Radhakishan, R/o Hanumangarh,
Presentaly residing at 106, P-Block, Sri
Ganganagar.
..........Complainant
Vs.
1. Mathur's C.T.Scan & Imaging Center, Jaipur
through Owner/Managing Director.
2. Dr.Vinita Sharma, Radiologist, Mathur's
C.T.Scan & Imaging Center, Jaipur.
..........Opposite Parties
Date of Order - 25.01.2016
Before:
Hon'ble Mr.Anil Kumar Mishra - Presiding Member
Hon'ble Mrs.Sunita Ranka - Member
Mr.Jitendra Mitruka . . . . . Counsel for the
complainant.
Mr.Dhirendra Mohan Mathur . . . . . Counsel for the
Opposite Parties.
JUDGMENT
PER MR.ANIL KUMAR MISHRA (PRESIDING MEMBER)
1. The present complaint has been filed by Sunil Kumar, the complainant (hereinafter referred to as "the complainant") with an 2 averment that he consulted Dr.Dinesh Mathur at his clinic on 14.10.2011 for some skin problem. The doctor suggested him for Colour Penile Doppler test at Mathur's CT Scan, Opposite Party (OP) No.1. The complainant approached the OP No.1 on 20.10.2011 and the OPs, after receiving Rs.1500/- towards the charges for the test, injected 30 mg. dose of Papaverine in the corpora cavernosa region of the complainant. The test was conducted under the supervision of Dr.Vinita Sharma (OP No.2). After injection of papaverine in the corpora cavernosa region, the complainant not only felt acute pain, but also his muscles of the region became relaxed (Annex.2). The complainant again consulted Dr.Dinesh Mathur, who prescribed some medicines (Annex.3). As the complainant was having acute pain, he consulted Doctors on 21.10.2011 at Bansal Nursing Home at Sriganganagar. The doctors admitted the complainant forthwith and discharged him on 23.10.2011 (Annex.4). The complainant incurred an expense of 3 Rs.10,000/- at Bansal Nursing Home. The doctors of the OPs did not take reasonable precaution and did not wash the injected drug from the cavernosa region and due to this negligence, the complainant developed priapism (impotency). For the aforesaid alleged negligent act of the OPs, the complainant has claimed Rs.35,32,500/- against compensation, medical treatment and cost of proceedings.
2. Both the OPs in a joint reply to the complaint have admitted that the complainant was subjected to Color Penile Doppler test on 20.10.2011, but submitted that the report of the Penile Doppler was normal (Annex.2). The complainant did not make any complaint about any pain during the test or thereafter. The record submitted by the complainant about Bansal Nursing Home does not disclose the history of the patient. The priapism was not caused due to the Penile Doppler test and the Annex.4 itself does not show that there had been any recurrence of priapism. The complaint has been filed on false and 4 baseless allegations and hence the same be dismissed.
3. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and the Opposite Parties and carefully perused the record and documentary evidence.
4. It is an admitted fact that the complainant consulted Dr.Dinesh Mathur (Annex.1) for some skin problem, but there is no mention on it that he was advised by the doctor to undergo Penile Doppler at the OP's CT Scan & Imaging Center. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant underwent a Penile Doppler Test on 20.10.2011 at the OP's Center and he was injected with 30 mg. Papaverine in the Corpora Cavernosa region. The scan was performed at 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 minutes interval and it showed good systolic velocities in bilateral corpora cavernosal arteries with RI of more than 0.90 & S/D ratio of more than 10.2. The findings of this investigation also suggested of Normal Penile Blood Flow Study. Thus, it is evident that the Penile Doppler Test 5 did not suggest any abnormality and the report (Annex.2) was absolutely normal. The Annex.2 report also does not reflect that the complainant reported any pain during the test.
5. The complainant submitted admission and discharge ticket (Annex.4) of Bansal Nursing Home, Sriganganagar. This document shows that the complainant was admitted in the Nursing Home on 21.10.2011 and was discharged on 23.10.2011. The discharge ticket (Annex.4) reflects that after Penial Doppler on 20.10.2011 at Jaipur, the complainant "developed low flow Priapism of 25 hours duration with severe pain. Patient was managed semi conservatively with intra-cavernosal injection of the Phenylephrine and wash of the both cavernosa. Patient was kept under observation for 48 hours post wash and did not have the recurrence of the priapism." There is no expert evidence to show that the complainant developed priapism on 21.10.2011 as a result of Penile Doppler Test on 20.10.2011 at the OP's Center and 6 there is nothing on record to suggest that the OP's were negligent or careless in conducting Penile Doppler. The complainant also remained hospitalized from 21.10.2011 to 23.10.2011 i.e. 48 hours (Annex.4) at Bansal Nursing Home and this report also does not suggest that the alleged Priapism was a result of Penile Doppler at the OP's Center.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2010 SC 1050 (Kusum Sharma Vs. Batra Hospital) and 2005 (6) SCC 01 (Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab) has laid down that as long as the doctors have performed their duties and exercise in ordinary degree of professional skill and competence, they cannot be held guilty of medical negligence. The standard to be applied for judging whether the person charged has been negligent or not, would be that of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession and it is not necessary for every professional to possess the highest level of expertise in that Branch which he practices. As there 7 is no expert opinion in the present matter on behalf of the complainant to prove that the alleged Priapism during 21.10.2011 to 23.10.2011 and thereafter was a result of Penile Doppler Test conducted on him on 20.10.2011 by the OP's. The prescriptions dated 09.05.2011, 16.07.2012 & 21.01.2014 (Annex.A/1) are the prescriptions not of immediate dates after the Penile Doppler Test and are not co-related to the aforesaid test. Thus, there is no evidence on record to show that the OPs did not take reasonable care in conducting the test and they did not exercise ordinary degree of professional skill and competence and had been negligent in conducting Penile Doppler Test on the complainant. There is no evidence on record to suggest that priapism occurred due to non-washing of injected drug in the corpora cavernosa region.
7. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, we are of the firm view that the complainant has desperately failed to prove any negligence on part of the OP's, while conducting 8 Penile Doppler Test on the complainant on 20.10.2011 and therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
ORDER
8. The present complaint of Mr.Sunil Kumar, the complainant is dismissed. Both the parties shall bear their own cost for the proceeding.
(SUNITA RANKA) (ANIL KUMAR MISHRA) MEMBER PRESIDING MEMBER PINKKY JAIN, UDC