State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Manager, Fortis O.P. Jindal Hospital & ... vs Smt. Meena Tiwari on 28 February, 2023
Appeal No.: Manager, Fortis O.P. Jindal Hospital And Research Centre Date of Pronouncement:
FA/18/762 Vs. 28/02/2023
Smt. Meena Tiwari
AFR / NAFR
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR
Date of Institution: 08/08/2018
Date of Final Hearing: 23/02/2023
Date of Pronouncement: 28/02/2023
APPEAL No.- FA/18/762
IN THE MATTER OF :
Manager,
Fortis O.P. Jindal Hospital And Research Centre,
Kharsia Road, Raigarh,
TAH. & DIST. RAIGARH (C.G.)
Through: Shri Shashank Thakur, Advocate
... Appellants.
Vs.
Smt. Meena Tiwari,
W/o. Shri Ram Ujagar Tiwari,
R/o. Gaushala Para, Raigarh
TAH. & DIST. RAIGARH (C.G.)
Through: Shri Suryakant Sharma, Advocate
... Respondent
CORAM: -
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER
PRESENT: -
Shri Shashank Thakur, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Suryakant Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.
JUDGEMENT
PER: - JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT This appeal, filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter called "the Act" for short), is directed against order dated 06/07/2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigarh (hereinafter referred as "District Forum" for brevity) in Complaint Case No.37/2015 whereby the complaint filed by the respondent herein alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant / opposite party Hospital was allowed and the appellant / opposite party was directed to pay the complainant within one month the expenses incurred in her treatment as per the produced receipt DISMISSED Page 1 of 7 Appeal No.: Manager, Fortis O.P. Jindal Hospital And Research Centre Date of Pronouncement:
FA/18/762 Vs. 28/02/2023
Smt. Meena Tiwari
Rs.20,515/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Five Hundred and Fifteen) along with compensation for mental agony Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as cost of litigation. Feeling aggrieved the opposite party has preferred this appeal.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that the respondent / complainant was feeling pain in her lower abdomen. Her menses was irregular and was used to remain continue for 15 days in a month. On 11.07.2012 her husband brought her to the appellant / opposite party Hospital, where her sonography was done and after the report was shown to the appellant / opposite party Hospital general medicines were given. The medicine prescribed on 11.07.2012 was being regularly taken by the complainant but no relief was felt. Again on 23.07.2014 she visited the appellant / opposite party Hospital, another sonography was advised. On 24.07.2014 her pelvis sonogram was done and the medicines given on 11.07.2012 were again prescribed and it was assured that there is nothing to worry about and bulky uterus is normal in the age of the respondent / complainant. But when the problem of the respondent / complainant remained continued she was taken to Gynecologist Dr. Suchitra Tripathi on 25.10.2014. Medicines were prescribed and sonography was advised after taking said medicines for 30 days. Then after one month on 30.11.2014 she went for sonography to Gynecologist & Sonologist Dr. Madhumati Dubey, which was done and after the said sonography test the Doctor said that why negligence was committed by the appellant / opposite party on 23.07.2014 in sonography of the respondent / complainant because in the sonography report dated 30.11.2014 two fibroids in the uterus were diagnosed and hysterectomy operation was advised saying that it was too late and there was chances of cancer. It was DISMISSED Page 2 of 7 Appeal No.: Manager, Fortis O.P. Jindal Hospital And Research Centre Date of Pronouncement:
FA/18/762 Vs. 28/02/2023
Smt. Meena Tiwari
also said by the Doctor that fibroids were developed in the uterus two years back because of which she was suffering irregular bleeding and pain in lower abdomen. On 03.12.2014 she was admitted in Metro Care Hospital where hysterectomy operation was done and she was discharged on 08.12.2014. Alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/ opposite party complaint was filed seeking direction for payment of total Rs.3,00,000/- on different heads along with interest @ 15% p.a.
3. The appellant / opposite party in its written statement refuting the allegations made in the complaint has averred that when for the first time on 31.07.2012 the respondent / complainant came to their Hospital she only complained abdominal pain and to know the reason for such abdominal pain she was advised for sonography and medicines were given for abdominal pain. At that time bleeding was not complained by the respondent / complainant, which is also clear from the documents produced by her. This fact was specifically denied that any medicine for control of bleeding was given to the respondent/ complainant. From the document dated 01.07.2013 produced by the respondent / complainant herself it is clear that she never disclosed about any gynecological problem. In fact the respondent / complainant did not come to the appellant / opposite party Hospital, she actually came to the city center of the appellants / opposite party with the complaint of pain in stomach and vomiting for which medicines of only five days was given and after five days she did not come with any complaint like she did not get any relief from the medicines given by the appellant / opposite party. The appellant / opposite party further averred that it is clear from the documents produced by the respondent / complainant herself that after DISMISSED Page 3 of 7 Appeal No.: Manager, Fortis O.P. Jindal Hospital And Research Centre Date of Pronouncement:
FA/18/762 Vs. 28/02/2023
Smt. Meena Tiwari
sonography, on 24.07.2014 pelvis sonogram was done in which her uterus was seen a little bit enlarged and thereafter, as per the respondent / complainant herself her sonography was done after about four months on 30.11.2014, in that situation development of fibroids in four months is not impossible. On the above grounds allegation of medical negligence was denied by the appellant / opposite party and prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
4. Learned District Commission on the basis of sonography report dated 31.11.2014 found that the appellant / opposite party failed to properly care the case of the respondent/ complainant and held them negligent. Allowed the complaint and directed the appellant / opposite party to pay the complainant the amount as foresaid in paragraph No.1.
5. We have heard arguments of both parties and perused the record of the District Commission.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that learned District Forum has failed to appropriately appreciate the opinion of the Medical Board. The said Board has specifically opined that in treatment of the respondent / complainant the appellant / opposite party has not committed negligence and her treatment was done as per her medical condition and standard medical protocol. As per the record and the opinion of the Medical Board also the two fibroids in the uterus was developed within the period of 2-3 months during which the respondent /complainant was not treated by the appellant / opposite party. He prayed that the appeal be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. DISMISSED Page 4 of 7 Appeal No.: Manager, Fortis O.P. Jindal Hospital And Research Centre Date of Pronouncement:
FA/18/762 Vs. 28/02/2023
Smt. Meena Tiwari
Whereas learned counsel for the respondent / complainant has reiterated its arguments and supported the impugned order.
7. The respondent / complainant in support of her case has filed her affidavit, O.P.D. slips of the appellant / opposite party Hospital, sonography reports, treatment slip of Dr. Suchitra Tripathi and Dr. Madhumati Dubey, bills and discharge ticket of Metro Hospital. The appellant / opposite party has filed affidavit of Anand Mohan Shukla in support of their written statement and opinion of medical experts dated 06.04.2018.
8. In all these documents there is no evidence, opinion of experts or any medical literature filed by the respondent / complainant to substantiate allegation of medical negligence committed by the appellant / opposite party. Without any evidence, the respondent /complainant in her complaint has asserted that when she went to Dr. Madhumati Dubey for treatment of her ailment on 30.11.2014 sonography was done and after report of that sonography Dr. Madhumati Dubey said that the appellant / opposite party was negligent in treatment of the respondent / complainant. In this regard neither Dr. Madhumati Dubey was examined nor her any such written statement is placed on record that the appellant / opposite party Hospital committed any negligence in diagnosis and prescription of medicines to the respondent / complainant. Whereas the appellant / opposite party itself moved an application before the District Forum for calling opinion of medical experts, however that application was rejected by the District Forum but they were permitted to file opinion of medical experts and then the appellant / opposite party has filed such opinion of two members Committee of Medical Experts comprising Dr. DISMISSED Page 5 of 7 Appeal No.: Manager, Fortis O.P. Jindal Hospital And Research Centre Date of Pronouncement:
FA/18/762 Vs. 28/02/2023
Smt. Meena Tiwari
S.N. Keshri, MBBS, MD (Obs. & Gynec, Sonologist), Dr. S.K. Rathia, MBBS, MD (Pathology) and counter signed by Dr. H.S. Uraon, Chief Medial & Health Officer, District Raigarh (C.G.). The Committee of Medical experts discussing the entire treatment record of the respondent / complainant since 11.07.2012 by the appellant / opposite party have opined in their report as under (last three lines of the report is reproduced) : -
"----------. There was no negligence on the part of the Gynecologist / FOPJHRC, as she was adequately investigated & treated as per requirement of her medical condition & standard medical protocols were followed in the above case."
Regarding treatment paper and sonography report of Dr. Madhumati Dubey, document Anenxure-7 & Annexure-8 it was opined that "after this long period, she was examined by another Gynecologist and this time USG revealed 2 small fibroids, which may have appeared after the last USG report within a period of 2 or 3 months."
9. From bare reading of the above report of the Committee of Medical Experts, it is abundantly clear that nothing has been done by the appellant / opposite party which can be attributed as negligence on their part but the learned District Forum on erroneous comprehension of this report that document Anenxure 7 & Annesure 8, which are treatment paper and sonography report of of Dr. Madhumati Dubey have not been considered by the medical experts has disbelieved this report and only on the basis of mere submission of the respondent / complainant has came to the conclusion that the appellant / opposite party have committed medical negligence and allowed the complaint and passed the impugned order which is unjustified, baseless and unsustainable. There is no reason to DISMISSED Page 6 of 7 Appeal No.: Manager, Fortis O.P. Jindal Hospital And Research Centre Date of Pronouncement:
FA/18/762 Vs. 28/02/2023
Smt. Meena Tiwari
disbelieve the report of the Committee of Medical Experts, until any cogent evidence is adduced in contrary.
10. Accordingly, on the basis of foregoing discussion we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the complaint of the respondent / complainant. No order as to cost.
(Justice Gautam Chourdiya) (Pramod Kumar Varma)
President Member
/02/2023 /02/2023
Pronounced On: 28th February 2023
DISMISSED Page 7 of 7