National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Deepak Rajaramji Mourya vs Dr. Sanjeev Devidas Choudhari on 12 February, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2195 OF 2016 (Against the Order dated 12/02/2016 in Appeal No. 649/2010 of the State Commission Maharashtra) 1. DEEPAK RAJARAMJI MOURYA R/O. 33, BANSILLAL MOURYA LAY OUT, PAWANSUT NAGAR, NAGPUR - 9 MAHARASHTRA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. DR. SANJEEV DEVIDAS CHOUDHARI R/O. C/O. CHAUDARI HOSPITAL, SAKKARDARA SQUARE A-II, NIT COMPLEX INFORNT, NAGPUR-9 MAHARASHTRA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nicholas Choudhury, Advocate with
Mr. Deepak R. Mourya, (in person) For the Respondent : Mr. S. B. Solat, Advocate with
Dr. Sanjeev D.Chaudhary (In person)
Dated : 12 Feb 2018 ORDER
1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 12.2.2016 passed in First Appeal No. A/10/649 by Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Nagpur Circuit Bench, Nagpur (in short, 'the State Commission') whereby the appeal of the complainant was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 11.1.2004, the complainant, Deepak Rajaramji Mourya suffered injury to his left knee. He approached Dr. Sanjeev Devidas Choudhari on the same day, who gave initial treatment. The complainant visited again on 18.1.2004 and on 26.2.2004 for pain in left knee, therefore, OP advised MRI to rule out the cause of pain and internal injury, if any. The MRI was performed on 27.2.2004. The OP performed surgery on left knee on 3.3.2004 and removed middle meniscus from the knee. It was alleged that OP removed the meniscus by bare hands i.e. without any instrument. The OP did not give any local anaesthesia, performed the procedure negligently without any care and caution. The complainant was discharged on 15.3.2004 irrespective of persistent pain and locking of the knee. He approached OP again on 19.3.2004 but, OP abused the complainant and did not issue any discharge card, which was issued after six months i.e. on 17.9.2004 to escape from liability of negligence. Therefore, the complainant took the treatment from other doctors, also underwent series of MRI tests. On comparing the MRI reports, it was learnt that removal of meniscus by the OP was wrong and unjustifiable. Instead of putting the stitches with the help of Arthroscopy, he removed the meniscus, which was incomplete tear. Thus, alleging the negligence during the treatment, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur.
3. The OP resisted the complaint and submitted that the complaint was barred by limitation. The OP performed the operation with due care and caution. It was denied that the complainant suffered severe pain and locking of the knee. The complainant did not suffer permanent partial disability; but he did not follow the advice of OP, his condition got deteriorated therefore, due to his own negligence, he has to undergo second operation.
4. The District Forum referred the matter to the expert committee under the Chairmanship of Civil Surgeon, Nagpur along with subject experts. The committee had opined that, there was no negligence or fault during open surgery performed by the OP. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved, the complainant preferred first appeal before the State Commission, Maharashtra, which also dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Along with their counsel the petitioner/complainant present in person and the respondent/OP-Dr. Sanjeev Devidas Chaudhari were also present during the arguments.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the complainant suffered incomplete tear of left meniscus. The stitches could have been given to it without removing it. The OP did not refer the complainant to the surgeon having facility for Arthroscopy for removing the meniscus when the tear was incomplete. OP had removed the meniscus by his own hand. It further resulted in to fracture of the Tibal Platu. It was admitted by expert during cross examination that, the Tiba Pletue will get fractured when the medial meniscus is removed negligently. The MRI report dated 7.12.2004 reveals fracture of Tiba Pletue; due to negligence of OP, the complainant since 10 years became physically handicapped.
7. Learned counsel for respondent/OP submitted, that Dr. Sanjeev Chudhari is a reputed Orthopedician in Nagpur having performed thousands of Arthroscopy surgeries. He submitted that due to incomplete meniscus tear, it was necessary to be removed. Also, according to him, there were very minimal cracks in the left Tiba Pletue, which was not due to the meniscus surgery or any instrument; but it was due to the accident, which later on the complainant had suffered. The expert committee also did not find any negligence on the part of OP. According to the expert, Arthroscopy was not necessary and every hospital is not equipped with this instrumentation and technique. Therefore, whenever, the Arthroscopy facility is not available, surgery remains the standard technique. The counsel relied upon few decisions of this commission in the case of Tarun Garg V Dr. R. K. Gupta, 11(2014) CPJ 700(NC), A. Parameshwar V Asian Institute of Gastroenterology, I (2015) CPJ 113 (NC)
8. I have perused the medical record and relevant literature of meniscus tear from Campbell's Orthopaedics, also, perused the medical expert committee report. As per the expert, the Tibal Pletue gets fractured only when Medial Meniscus is negligently removed but in my view in the instant case, the fracture of Tibal Pletue was not due to any negligent surgery performed by OP on 3.3.2004. As per the MRI report dated 27.2.2004, it was incomplete tear of left medial meniscus. According to the expert, if the tear is complete, then only it should be taken out or the incomplete tear is very large. As per the MRI report dated 27.2.2004, it does not show large incomplete tear.
9. During the proceedings, vide order dated 6.10.2017, opinion from the head of department of Orthopaedics, Government Medical College, Nagpur was sought regarding the present status of the complainant for his disability. The report is also not convincing about the extent disability. It should be borne in mind that doctor can adopt any accepted method for the treatment with due care. The OP had adopted the same which is neither deviation from the standard of practice nor negligence in the treatment. This view dovetails from the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa and others versus State of Maharashtra and others (1996) 2 SCC 634 has made the following observations "The skill of medical practitioners differs from doctor to doctor. The very nature of the profession is such that there may be more than one course of treatment which may be advisable for treating a patient. Courts would indeed be slow in attributing negligence on the part of a doctor if he has performed his duties to the best of his ability and with due care and caution. Medical opinion may differ with regard to the course of action to be taken by a doctor treating a patient, but as long as a doctor acts in a manner which is acceptable to the medical profession, and the Court finds that he has attended on the patient with due care skill and diligence and if the patient still does not survive or suffers a permanent ailment, it would be difficult to hold the doctor to be guilty of negligence."
10. On the basis of forgoing discussion I do not find any error apparent in the order passed by both the fora below. There is no merit, the revision petition is dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to cost.
...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR PRESIDING MEMBER