State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Pradeep Jain vs Prabandhak City Hospital G.E.Road ... on 3 October, 2017
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
Complaint Case No.CC/2016/36
Instituted on : 02.08.2016
Pradeep Jain, S/o Late Ratan Lal Jain,
Aged about 60 years,
R/o : House No.141, Near Gayatri Mandir,
Ramnagar, Ward No.11, Supela,
Bhilai, Tehsil & District Durg (C.G.) ... Complainant
Vs.
1. Manager,
City Hospital, G.E. Road, Behind Police Station, Supela,
Bhilainagar, Tehsil & District Durg (C.G.)
2. Dr. Vinod Kumar Singh,
S.S. Civil Surgeon,
Urmila Memorial Hospital, Multi Specialist,
Behind C.C. Light Building, Arne Gali, Pandri,
Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur (C.G.)
3. Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
4412, Church Road, Bhogal,
New Delhi
4. Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
16, R.S. . Market, Power House, Supela,
Bhilai, Tehsil & District Durg (C.G.). ... Opposite Parties
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI D.K. PODDAR, MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI NARENDRA GUPTA, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
Shri Kuldeep Dubey, Advocate for the complainant.
Miss Praveen Arora, Advocate for O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.2.
Shri P.K. Paul, Advocate for O.P. No.3.
Miss B.S. Kanthi, Advocate for O.P. No.4.
ORDER
Dated : 03/October/2017 PER :- HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.S. SHARMA, PRESIDENT. The complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the OPs // 2 // seeking compensation of Rs.47,08,000/- along with interest and cost of litigation & advocate fees.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the complaint of the complainant are that the complainant was suffering from Hernia and Prostrate problem, therefore, he was got admitted in the O.P. No.1 hospital for his treatment by the O.P. No.2. The complainant was admitted in the O.P. No.1 Hospital from 16.10.2014 to 26.10.2014 where the O.P. No.2 treated the complainant and on 26.10.2015, the complainant was discharged from the O.P. No.1 hospital. Due to negligently conducting operation by the OPs, the complainant is facing many problem till date. After operation, dropping of urine in 24 hours started due to which the complainant, is facing problem in doing work and for curing the same, he went to Urmila Memorial Hospital, Raipur whee Dr.Vinod Kumar Singh, was working and the complainant had taken treatment, but even then he was not completely cured. Then the complainant had taken consultation from Lal Bahadur Government Hospital, Bhilai, King George Hospital, Lucknow, Dr. Anil Shrikhande of Nagpur, Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, P.G. Lucknow, Dr. Sanjiv Jain, Jeevan Hospital, Raipur and they have informed that the O.P. No.2 had negligently conducted operation of the complainant due to which dropping of urine in 24 hours started. Due to negligence committed by the O.P. No.2 the complainant has suffering mental agony. The complainant is a driver and the driving is only source of his income, but due to negligently conducting operation by the O.P. // 3 // No.2 he is facing problems and he is not able to go to his duty and he is suffering financial problem, physical and mental agony. The act of the OPs show s deficiency in service. Due to the operation conducted by the O.P. negligently, the life of the complainant became worst and due to dropping of urine 24 hours, he is not able to do any work normally, which shows the negligence and deficiency in service committed by the OPs. The complainant sent registered notice to the OPs which was reply through their advocates, but amount was not paid by them. Hence the complainant filed the instant complaint.
3. The O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.2 have filed their written statement averred that the OPs did not conduct operation of the complainant negligently. On 18.10.2014, operation of the complainant was conducted. Prior to conducting operation, the complainant gave his consent and prior to operation, the complainant was properly explained regarding the known complication which can be occurred to him after operation. The complainant was also informed that if complication occurred, then second operation would be required to be done and after understanding the above facts, the complainant and his family members gave consent. On 18.10.2014 the operation was conducted in no interruption came. The operation was conducted according to prescribed medical principle. Till 23.10.2014, no complication was occurred. On 23.10.2014, between 10 to 11 AM, the complainant without permission of the O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.2, went from the Hospital saying that he has an urgent work at that time // 4 // Catheter was inserted. The complainant and his relatives themselves gave in writing that they want to take the complainant out of hospital for 3-4 hours and during this period, if any complication, is occurred, then the complainant and his relatives will be responsible for such complication. In the evening the complainant came to the hospital, at that time, the catheter had removed and from the place of operation, blood was oozing out and at the place of Prostrate where operation was done, there was injury and also there was pain. The dressing was immediately done. Again catheter was inserted and treatment was started. If the complainant was having any problem, then he himself is responsible for the same because he did not follow the instructions given by the doctors. On 26.10.2014, the complainant was discharged from the hospital. When the complainant was discharged, at that time catheter was inserted. The complainant was properly explained that as to how care of catheter be taken and he was also directed to do exercise and again called him after three weeks for tests. Again the complainant did not follow the instructions given by the doctors and he did not come in the hospital after three weeks for tests and after three months, the complainant came to Raipur on 13.01.2015 and contacted to O.P. No.2. During examination, the O.P. No.2 found that the complainant himself removed catheter. The O.P. No.2 got Retrograte Urethrogram (R.G.U.) test of the complainant from Dr. Rahul Kapur. When the complainant informed regarding his poor financial condition, then the O.P. No.2 did not take any fees from the complainant and on 14.01.2015 he again inserted catheter and send him // 5 // and again called him after two weeks for examination. On 02.02.2015, again the complainant came to O.P. No.2, then on examining the complainant, the O.P. No.2 found that there was improvement in the condition of the complainant and the O.P. No.2 again got Cystoscopy test of the complainant from Dr. Rahul Kapur. The complainant was advised to do pelvic exercise and he was instructed to come after two weeks for test, but thereafter till date the complainant did not contact the OPs. The O.P. No.2 conducted operation of the complainant according to his experience, knowledge and as per principle of medical science. The OPs did not commit any negligence while conducting operation of the complainant. After conducting operation, the complainant is having Urine Leakage known complication but in the instant case the complainant himself committed negligence. The complainant suffered problems due to his own mistake, for which the doctor is not liable. The complainant suppressed this fact from this Commission that he deliberately removed the catheter twice. The complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from the OPs. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. The O.P. No.1 has taken Professional Indemnity Policy No.042382/46/14/35/0000598 which was effective for the period from 13.09.2014 to 12.09.2015 and during this period operation was conducted. In these circumstances United India Insurance Company Limited, 4412, Church Road, Bhogal, New Delhi is proper and necessary party and the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the doctor. The O.P. No.2 has taken Insurance Policy No.192101/48/2014/463 from The Oriental Insurance Company, // 6 // Supela, 16, R.S.S. Market, Power House, Supela, Bhilai, which was effective for the period from 11.07.2014 to 10.07.2015 and during this period operation was conducted. In these circumstances, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, is proper and necessary party and the above Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the doctor. The complainant has not come with clean hands before this Commission. On 23.10.2014, the complainant without obtaining permission of the OPs gone outside the hospital for 5-6 hours and he himself removed the catheter due to which injuries sustained at the place where operation was done. The complainant did not come to the OPs in prescribed time and the complainant was directed to come after three weeks but he did not follow the advice of the doctor and came after three months and in the meantime he removed the catheter and did not give any information to the OPs. The complainant did not follow the advice of the doctors, he did not come in time for examination and did not do exercise. The complainant himself was negligent and for his negligent, the doctor cannot be held liable. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
4. The O.P. No.3 filed its written statement and averred that the O.P. No.2 obtained Professional Indemnity Dr. (Other) Policy from the O.P. No.2 and if any medical negligence is committed by the O.P. No.2, then the O.P. No.3 is responsible for indemnifying the O.P. No.2 The O.P. No.2 did not commit any medical negligence, hence the complaint is pre-mature against the O.P. No.3 and is liable to be dismissed. The // 7 // complainant has not obtained insurance cover by making payment of premium to the O.P. No.3, therefore, there was no privity of contract between them. Therefore, the complainant is not consumer of the O.P. No.3 as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hence, the complaint filed by the complainant against the O.P. No.3, is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. As per special and statutory provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. is required to be proved, but in the instant case , in the complaint the complainant has not mentioned and proved that any deficiency in service was committed by the O.P. No.3, therefore, on this count the complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. The complainant has not submitted any claim before the O.P. No.3 and no dispute has arisen between the complainant and O.P. No.3 from which complaint receives base. The O.P. No.3 did not accept or repudiate the claim of the complainant, therefore, there was no fault of the O.P. No.3, hence no complaint can be instituted against it, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed against it. In the complaint, the complainant mentioned that City Hospital is at fault, whereas the above party is not covered the insurance policy, therefore, it is proved that deficiency in service is committed by the above hospital or doctors of the above hospital, then the O.P. No.3 is not liable to indemnity the same. The complaint is liable to be dismissed against it.
// 8 //
5. The O.P. No.4 has filed its written statement and averred that the subject matter is relating to O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2, who had treated complainant. The O.P. No.2 is not conversant about undergoing treatment in the hospital of O.P. No.1 and it is also not in the knowledge that O.P. No.2 had treated complainant for Hernia and Postrate. The complainant had not filed any document supporting his pleading that the O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 had negligently conducted operation. The complainant had not filed any expert opinion to prove that complaint of continuous dropping of urine started after the operation conducted by O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2. It is also utterly false and fabricated allegations made by the complainant that the complainant had to undergo operation in the hospital of O.P. No.2 for rectification of operation conducted by O.P. No.1 It is further submitted that basing on the pleadings of the complainant and the documents produced by the complainant, it is not evident that complainant had undergone treatment in Lalbahadur Shastri Hospital, Bhilai, Kind George Hospital, Lucknow, Dr. Anil Shrikhande, Nagpur, Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, P.G. Lucknow and Dr. Sanjeev Jain, Jeeven Hospital, Raipur. The complainant is put to strict proof regarding the allegations that the treating doctors of various hospital stated that O.P. No.2 had negligently operated. Allegations made by the complainant against the treating doctors without any documentary evidence will not entitle the complainant to claim compensation, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that without producing any documentary evidence regarding negligence of // 9 // O.P. No.2 in conducting operation, complaint is not tenable. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to claim any relief under the head financial loss and mental agony. The allegations of deficiency in service without filing any opinion of expert, conclusion cannot be drawn that O.P. No.2 was negligent in conducting operation. The complainant has not filed any document in support of his pleading to prove that the treating doctor had given wrong treatment, or operation was wrong. The doctor is not guilty of negligence if he has acted in accordance with skill. There is ample scope for genuine difference of opinion and a doctor cannot be stated to be negligent merely because his conclusion differs from the opinion of other doctor. The true test for establishing negligence in diagnosis or treatment on the part of a doctor is whether he has been proved guilty of, if acting with ordinary care. The O.P. No.2 was a qualified and experienced surgeon which is evident from the Discharge Card of City Hospital with Patient's Name Pradeep Jain and consulting Surgeon Dr. Vinod Kumar Singh is an M.S. (Master of Surgery). In case of medical negligence, it is to be seen that the concerned doctor was competent and was having professional qualification and had taken due care and caution at the time of performing his duty. The test in fixing negligence is the standard of ordinary skilled doctor exercising and professing to have that special skill. The O.P. No.2 Dr. Vinod Kumar Singh had advised the complainant on 03.02.2015 for Uroflowmetry to test the amount of urine and the speed of urination to identify the cause for urination. Therefore, the O.P. No.2 had never given any wrong treatment or // 10 // wrong advise to the complainant. Moreover the complainant had never complained that the treating doctors had left the complainant untreated or unattended. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed against the O.P. No.4, as there is no cause of action against the O.P. No.1. The O.P. No.4 had not received any legal notice dated 18.02.2016. The complainant is entitled under the head medical expenses, loss of income, medical expenses incurred at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital and for physical and mental agony under the complaint filed for claiming compensation for medical negligence unless proved with cogent evidence. Therefore, the amount of Rs.47,08,000/- claimed by the complainant is just to bring the complaint within the jurisdiction of this Commission. The complaint filed by the complainant is barred by Limitation. Basing on the documents filed by the complainant it appears that O.P. No.2 had treated the complainant in hospital of O.P. No.1 from 17.10.2014 to 26.10.2014, but the complainant impleaded the O.P. No.4 in the year 2017. The O.P. No.4 never had never received any intimation either from O.P. No.1 or O.P. No.2 after the complainant had filed complaint before this Commission. On 20.02.2017, the O.P. No.4 had received notice along with Petition filed under Section12 of the Consumer Protection Act. After receiving notice, the O.P. No.4 came to know about the allegations made by the complainant against the O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.2. As the complaint is filed after lapse of more than 2 years of treatment, the complaint is liable to be dismissed basing on barred by limitation ground. The policy Number 192101/48/2014/463 is valid // 11 // from 08.07.2013 to 07.07.2014 under Error and Omission Medical Establishment Policy issued in the name of City Hospital, 4/1, Priyadarshini Parishar, Durg. As the policy was not valid as on the date of treatment i.e. from 17.10.2014 to 26.10.2014, the O.P. No.4 shall not be liable to pay compensation to the complainant. The O.P. No.4 has not received any registered notice from the complainant till date. The O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 had admitted in their written statement in para No.8 regarding giving reply to the notice. But the O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 had never considered it necessary to give written intimation to the Insurance Company after receiving notice dated 18.02.2016. Therefore, the O.P. No.4 is no way a necessary party to the complaint. The complaint is liable to be dismissed against the O.P. No.4. In case complainant succeeds to prove negligence of O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.2, liability to pay compensation would be firstly on O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.2. The total liability of the O.P.No.4 to indemnify is Rs.20,00,000/- and liability of the O.P. No.4 to indemnify in any one accident is Rs.5,00,000/-. The liability to indemnify under any policy issued by the O.P. No.4 is subject to conditions, clauses, warranties and endorsements. The complainant has not come before this Commission with clean hands. The complaint has been filed by suppressing many material facts basing on which the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complaint is liable to be dismissed as it is time barred. The O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.2 had never given any intimation about the complaint, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
// 12 //
6. The complainant has filed documents. Annexure 1 is Discharge Card of City Hospital, Annexure 2 is Prescription Slip dated 25.11.2014 issued by Dr. Vinod Kumar Singh, Annexure 3 is test report, Annexure 4 is Report on Urine Examination dated 26.11.2014 issued by Akhtar Pathology Laboratory, Annexure 5 is Report dated 29.11.2014 issued by Aarogyam, Annexure 6 is Prescription Slip dated 09.12.2014 of Dr. Vinod Kumar Singh, Annexure 7 are test report dated 13.01.2015 issued by Urmila Memorial Hospital and Diagnostic Center, Annexure 8 is Discharge Ticket of Urmila Memorial Multi Speciality & Diagnostic Centre, Annexure 9 is Credit Memo issued by Urmila Medical Stores, Annexure 10 is Requisition Slip of Sankara Diagnostics, Annexure 11 is Retrograde Urethrogram (RGU) Report dated 13.01.2015, Annexure 12 is medical bill, Annexure 13 is Prescription Slip dated 03.02.2015 of Dr. Vinod Kumar Singh, Annexure 14 is bill issued by Laxmi Medical Stores, Annexure 15 is Registration Card issued by C.M. Medical College and Hospital, Durg, Annexure 16 & 17 are cash memo dated 14.05.2015 and 24.05.2015, Annexure 18 is Report on Urine Examination dated 06.06.2015 issued by Shree Pathology Lab, Annexure 19 is Culture and Antibiotic Sensitivity Report dated 09.06.2015 issued by Shree Pathology Report, Annexure 21 is Report on Urine Analysis dated 09.07.2015, Annexure 22 is Medical Bill, Annexure 23 to 25 are Cash Memo issued by Pedia Health Pvt. Ltd. on different dates, Annexure 26 is bill issued by Kamla Medical Stores, Annexure 27 is prescription issued by Lal Bahadur Shastri Government Hospital, Bhilai, Annexure 28 & 29 are // 13 // bill issued by Kamla Medical Stores, Annexure 30 is Prescription Slip dated 04.12.2015 issued by Dr. Sanjeev Jain, Annexure 31 is prescription slip dated 07.01.2016 issued by King George's Medical University, U.P. Lucknow, Annexure 32 & 33 are bill dated 07.01.2016 issued by C.S.M.M.U. Welfare Society, Annexure 34 is Report issued by K.G. Medical University, Lucknow, Annexure 35 is test report, Annexure 36 is test report, Annexure 37 is bill issued by C.S.M.M.U. Welfare Society, Annexure 38 is medical bill issued by Gomti Medical Stores, Annexure 39 is Report dated 11.01.2014 issued by Department of Urology, Annexure 40 is report issued by Kng George's Medical University, U.P. Lucknow, Annexure 41 is Bill issued by King George's Medical University, U.P.Lucknow, Annexure 42 is bill issued by C.S.M.M.U. Welfare Society, Annexure 42 is estimate, Annexure 43 & 44 are bills issued by C.S.M.M.U. Welfare Society, Annexure 45 is medical bill issued by United Medical Stores, Annexure 46 is prescription slip issued by King George's Medical University, U.P. Lucknow, Annexure 47 is bill issued by Gomti Medicals, Annexure 48 is test report issued by Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Annexure 49 to 52 are medical bills, Annexure 53 is ticket issued by Lal Bahadur Shastri Government Hospital, Bhilai, Annexure 54 is postal receipts, Annexure 55 is registered notice dated 18.02.2016 sent by Shri Kuldeep Dubey, Advocate to the OPs, Annexure 56 is reply dated 14.03.2016 sent by Shri Bakshish Singh Khanuja, Advocate to Shri Kuldeep Dubey, // 14 // Annexure 57 is reply dated 14.03.2016 sent by Shri Anurag Thaker, Advocate to Shri Kuldeep Dubey.
7. The O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 have filed documents. The documents are Degree of Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery of Dr. Vinod Kumar Singh, Degree of Master of Surgery of Dr. Vinod Kumar Singh, Certificate of Registration of C.G. Medical Council, Experience Certificate of Dr. Vinod Kumar Singh, Insurance Policy issued by United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Insurance Policy issued by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Bed head Tickets.
8. The O.P. No.3 has filed Profession Indemnity Dr. (Other) Policy.
9. The O.P. No.4 has filed Error and Omission - Medical Establishment Policy.
10. Shri Kuldeep Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has argued that the complainant was suffering from Hernia and Prostrate problem and he was got admitted in the O.P. No.1 hospital for his treatment. The operation was conducted by the O.P. No.2 and the complainant was got discharged from the O.P.No.1 hospital on 26.10.2014. The operation was conducted negligently by the O.P. No.2, therefore, the complainant is facing many problem till date. The complainant had taken consultation from Lal Bahadur Government Hospital, Bhilai, King George Hospital, Lucknow, Dr. Anil Shrikhande of Nagpur, Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, P.G. Lucknow, Dr. Sanjiv Jain, Jeevan Hospital, Raipur and they have // 15 // informed the complainant that the O.P. No.2 had negligently conducted operation of the complainant due to which the urine is continuously dropping. The complainant suffering mental agony and physical harassment due to negligent acts of the OPs, therefore, the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the OPs, as prayed by the complainant in the complaint.
11. Miss Praveen Arora, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.2 has argued that on 18.10.2014, operation of the complainant was conducted. Prior to conducting operation, the consent was duly obtained from the complainant and the complainant was properly explained regarding the known complication which can be occurred after operation. It was also informed to the complainant that if any complication is occurred, then second operation would be required to be done and after understanding the above facts the complainant and his family members gave their consent. Till 23.10.2014, no complication was occurred. On 23.10;2014, between 10 to 11 AM, the complainant without permission of the O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 went from the Hospital saying that he has an urgent work at that time Catheter was inserted. The complainant and his relatives themselves gave in writing that they want to take the complainant out of hospital for 3-4 hours and during this period, if any complication is occurred, then the complainant and his relatives will be responsible for such complication. In the evening the complainant came to the hospital, at that time, the catheter had removed and from the place of // 16 // operation, blood was oozing out and at the place of Prostrate where operation was done, there was injury and also pain. The complainant did not follow the instructions of the doctors and he did not come in the hospital after three weeks for tests and after three months, the complainant come to Raipur on 13.01.2015 and contacted to O.P. No.2. During examination, the O.P. No.2 found that the complainant himself removed catheter. The O.P. No.2 got Retrograte Urethrogram (R.G.U.) test of the complainant from Dr. Rahul Kapur. When the complainant informed regarding his poor financial condition, then the O.P. No.2 did not take any fees from the complainant and on 14.01.2015 he again inserted catheter and send him and again called him after two weeks for examination. On 02.02.2015, again the complainant came to O.P. No.2, then on examining the complainant, the O.P. No.2 found that there was improvement in the condition of the complainant and the O.P. No.2 again got Cystoscopy test of the complainant from Dr. Rahul Kapur. The complainant was advised to do pelvic exercise and he was instructed to come after two weeks for test, but thereafter till date the complainant did not contact the O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.2. The O.P. No.2 conducted operation of the complainant according to his experience, knowledge and as per principle of medical science. The OPs did not commit any negligence while conducting operation of the complainant. After conducting operation, the complainant is having Urine Leakage known complication but in the instant case the complainant himself committed negligence. The complainant suffered problems due to his own mistake, for which the doctor is not liable.
// 17 // The complainant suppressed this fact from this Commission that he deliberately removed the catheter twice. The complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from the OPs. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has not come with clean hands before this Commission. On 23.10.2014, the complainant without obtaining permission of the OPs gone outside the hospital for 5-6 hours and he himself removed the catheter due to which injuries sustained at the place where operation was done. The complainant did not come to the OPs in prescribed time and the complainant was directed to come after three weeks but he did not follow the advice of the doctor and came after three months and in the meantime he removed the catheter and did not give any information to the O.P. No.1 & .P. No.2 The complainant did not follow the instructions given by the doctors, he did not come in time for examination and did not do exercise. The complainant himself was negligent and for his negligent, the doctor cannot be held liable. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
12. Shri P.K. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No.3 has supported the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2.
13. Miss B.S. Kanthi, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No.4 has supported the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.2.
14. We have heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties and have also perused the documents filed in the complaint case.
// 18 //
15. It is admitted fact that the complainant was got admitted in the O.P. No.1 Hospital from 16.10.2014 to 26.10.2014 and his operation was conducted by the O.P. No.2. Prior to conducting operation the O.P. No.2 obtained consent from the complainant and his family members and all complications were explained to the complainant.
16. The O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.2 have filed copy of "Suchit Sahmati Patra, in which it is mentioned thus :-
**lwfpr lgefr i= eSa@esjk ejht bykt ds fy, HkrhZ gqvk gWaw@gqvk gS@bykt ds igys@nkSjku p<+k, tkus okys [kwu] nzo rFkk nokb;ksa ds fy, viuh lgefr nsrk gWaWwA bykt@tkap ds nkSjku fdlh Hkh izdkj ds bUQsD'ku] fj,D'ku] csgks'kh] pDdj vk tkus ds [krjksa dh ftEesnkjh eSa vius Åij ysrs gq, bykt dh lgefr iznku djrk gWawA vU; fooj.k%&eq>s esjh Hkk"kk esa le>k fn;k x;k gS fd ,oa i<+ok fn;k x;k gS fd esjs ck;hsa rjQ gfuZ;k gS ,oa eq>s tks is'kkc dh rdyhQ gks jgh gS mlds fy, operation djuk iM+sxkA xokgksa ds gLrk{kj 1- --------------------------
uke&fiz;adk tSu ¼csVh½ --------------------------- irk& yksd Hkkjrh Ldwy ejht ;k mlds ckfyx laca/kh jkeuxj] lqisyk fHkykbZ gLrk{kj@vaxBs dk fu'kku uke& iznhi tSu // 19 // 2- --------------------------- fj'rk& Lo;a uke&------------------ fnukad&17-10-14le;&9%30 am irk--------------------- irk&jke uxj lqisyk ¼fHkykbZ½
----------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------** ** lwfpr lgefr i= ¼'kY; fdz;k ,oa csgks'kh gsrq½ ejht dk uke& Pradeep Jain mez&59 1@2 okMZ@ csM ua-& 13 foHkkx&Surgical ofj"B fpfdRld&Dr. Vinod Singh (MS) eq>s bykt dj jgs fpfdRld }kjk crk;k x;k gS fd eSa@esjk ejht Shri Pradeep Jain chekjh ls ihfM+r gS vkSj mlds bykt@tkap ds fy;s Her 'kY; fdz;k dh vko';drk gSA csgks'kh ,oa 'kY; fdz;k ds izdkj] t:jr vU; bykt o 'kjhj ij gksus okys izHkko ds ckjs esa eq>s le>k fn;k x;k gS 'kY; fdz;k ,oa csgks'kh ds nkSjku rFkk ckn esa vkus okys lHkh lEHkkfor [krjksa] ftlesa thou dk [krjk Hkh 'kkfey gS] ds ckjs esa eq>s foLrkj ls crk fn;k x;k gSA eq>s ;g Hkh crk;k x;k gS fd dHkh&dHkh dqN fo'ks"k ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa 'kY; fdz;k ds nkSjku fdUgh vU; 'kY;
fdz;k@fdz;kvksa dh vko';drk iM+ ldrh gS ftlds fy;s Hkh eSa lger gwaw rFkk bl ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mfpr 'kY; fdz;k ds izdkj dk fu.kZ; eSa fpfdRld rFkk mlds lg;ksfx;ksa ds foosd ij NksM+rk gWawA eSa iq=@iq=h mez o"kZ dk gwWa rFkk bl lgefr i= dks vPNh rjg ls viuh Hkk"kk esa le>k fn;k x;k gS rFkk eSa vius iw.kZ gks'k&gok'k esa fcuk fdlh ckgjh ncko ds Lo;a@esjs ejht ¼fj'rk½ ds 'kY; fdz;k ,oa // 20 // csgks'kh ds fy;s lgefr nsrk gWawA bl lHkh izfrdwy ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds fy;s fpfdRlky;] 'kY; fdz;k lEikfnr djus okys fpfdRld] fu'psruk fo'ks"krk rFkk muds vU; lg;ksxh dks esjs] lacaf/kr ;k vU; fdlh O;fDr }kjk mRrjnk;h ugha Bgjk;k tk;sxk ,oa lHkh [krjksa dh ftEesnkjh eSa vius Åij ysrs gq;s mijksDr 'kY; fdz;k ,oa csgks'kh ds fy;s lgefr iznku djrk gWawA vU; fooj.k&es>s esjh Hkk"kk esa le>k ,oa i<+ok fn;k x;k gS fd esjs ck;ha rjQ gfuZ;k gS ,oa eq>s tks is'kkc dh rdyhQ gks jgh gS ftlds fy, operation dh lykg nh x;h gSA eq>s ;g le>k fn;k x;k gS fd operation ds ckn dqN ejhtksa esa is'kkc dk Viduk (Incontinence) jg ldrk gSA ,oa gfuZ;k Hkh nksckjk gks ldrk gSA operation ds nkSjku ;k ckn esa [kwu dk óko Hkh gks ldrk gS ftlds fy, nksckjk operation dh t:jr iM+ ldrh gSA eSa vius gks'k&gok'k esa lHkh rF;ksa dks tkurs gq, vius ,d xokg ds le{k le>&cw> dj operation dh lgefr iznku djrk gWawA bl nkSjku ;k ckn esa gksus okyh fdlh vfiz; ?kVuk dh ftEesnkjh vLirky izca/ku] MkWDVj ;k gkWfLiVy dh ugha gksxh] gekjh gksxhA xokgksa ds gLrk{kj 1- ----------(Daughter) uke&fiz;adk tSu --------------------------- irk& jkeuxj] lqisyk fHkykbZ ejht ;k mlds ckfyx laca/kh gLrk{kj@vaxBs dk fu'kku uke& iznhi tSu 2- --------------------------- fj'rk& Selfa // 21 // uke&------------------ fnukad&17-10-14le;&9%30 am irk--------------------- irk&jke uxj lqisyk
----------------------------- (Bhilai)" -
17. The O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.2 have filed admission ticket of City Hospital, Bhilai, in which it is mentioned thus :-
"H/o Present Illness : Patient apparently all right 8 months back, then gradually develop difficulty in urination within thining of stream and raised frequency which gradually increases with time, after 5 months pt. develop left inguinal swelling which reduces on lying down and develops of straining for urine."
18. The O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.2 have filed a document titling "LAMA" in which it is mentioned :- "
"LAMA"
"ge vius ejht Jh iznhi tSu ¼Loa; dh lgefr½ ls 3&4 ?k.Vks ds fy, gkfLiVy ls ckgj ys tkuk pkgrs gS] bl nkSjku ;fn fdlh Hkh izdkj dh tksf[ke dh fLFkfr curh gS rks ;g gekjs Lo;a dh tokcnkjh gksxh uk fd ;gka ds MkDVjks dh uk gh LVkQ gkfLiVy dh dksbZ tokcnkjh gksxh A"
19. The O.P. No.1 & O.P. No2 have filed an application for obtaining Expert Opinion from Medical Board. This Commission sent letter No.781/Court/2017 dated 22.04.2017 to the Superintendent, Dr. // 22 // Bhimrao Ambedkar Memorial Medical College, Raipur (C.G.) and reminder was also sent on 22.06.2017. On the basis of above letters, report dated 01.06.2017 of experts consisting of Dr. Sandeep Chandrakar, Assistant Professor (M.S.), Surgery Department, Dr. Santosh Kumar Sonkar, Assistant Professor (M.S.), Surgery Department and Dr. Yogesh Barapatre, Assistant Professor (MCH), Urology Department, has been received vide letter No./Dr.B.R.A.H./2017/8436 dated 05.07.2017 in which it is mentioned thus :-
mijksDr lanfHkZr i= ds vuqlkj ys[k gS fd fn;s x;s nLrkostks dk xfBr lfefr }kjk voyksdu djus ls ds ckn ;g vfHker fn;k tkrk gS fd %& "1- Prostate ds vkijs'ku ds nkSjku Incontinence gksus dh laHkkouk jgrh gS] tks fd ejht dks vkijs'ku ls iwoZ lgefr ysrs le; foLrkj ls le>k;k x;k gSA 2- Urethral stricture tks dh vkijs'ku ds ckn fd;s x;s Cystoscopy tkap (KGMC, Lucknow ) esa feyk gS( ftlds ejht }kjk [kqn Catheter fudkyus ls yxh pksV ls gksus dh laHkkouk gksrh gS A 3- Urodynamic study tks fd vkijs'ku ds ckn KGMC, Lucknow es fd;k x;k gS] mles is'kkc dh FkSyh dks Hypocontractile ik;k x;k gS A ,oa iS'kkc dh FkSyh es is'kkc djus ds ckn Hkh 310 MLis'kkc :dk gqvk (PVRV ik;k x;k gsSA ) blds dkj.k Hkh Incontinence gksus dh laHkkouk jgrh gS A 4- orZeku es ejht dh ;Fkk fLFkfr ds ckjs es fn;s x;s nLrkostks es dgh Hkh tkudkjh ugh gS Continence gS ;k Incontinence gSA // 23 // MkW- lanhi pUnzkdj lg izk/;kid (M.S.) ltZjh foHkkx MkW- larks"k dqekj lksudj lg izk/;kid (M.S.) ltZjh foHkkx MkW- ;ksxs'k ckjkik=s lg izk/;kid (MCH) ;wjksykWth foHkkx**
20. The O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.2 have filed bed head ticket dated 23.10.2016 in which it is mentioned thus :-
"3 PM 23/10/16 At the time of arrival at 3 PM O/C Bleeding from urethra, catheter was not in Situ. Fresh per urethra bleeding present.
Swelling in Penis & Pain.
H/o : Self removal of Catheter ? Bladder neck injury explained to Pt's relatives.
In the bed head ticket dated 26.10.2014, it is mentioned thus :-
"26/10/14 11 AM Urine Clear Catheter in Situ.
Pt. responding to conservative treatment. Pt. discharged as advised by doctor on catheter and advised to come City Hospital for removal of Catheter and follow up after 21 days of operation. Catheter care explained to the patient and relatives."
21. In Sonography Report dated 07.10.2014 issued by B.S. Diagnostic Limited, it is mentioned thus :-
"PROSTATE : Prostrate Is Middly enlarged In Size & Volume.
Measures : 3.11 X 5.13 X 4.13 cm & Volume - 39.49 ml.
No median Lobe Bulge.Echotexture Normal. No Focal Lesion Seen. Capsule Is Intact."
// 24 //
22. The O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2 have filed literature on "Complications of Transurethral Resection of the Prostate (TURP) - Incidence, Management, and Prevention, in which it is mentioned thus :
"Abstract Objectives ......
Methods ......
Results : ..... Early urge incontinence occurs in upto 30-40% of patients; however, late iatrogenic stress incontinence is rate (<0.5%). Despite........................... urethral strictures (2.2-9.8%).
..........
Table 1 - Incidence and type of intra-and perioperative complications after TUR - detailed comparison of selected studies during three periods.
Type of complication Early Intermediate Recent
Mebust 1989 Doll 1992 Haupt 1997 Borboroglu 1999 Kuntz
Incontinence n.a. 38.0 0.3. n.a. 1.4.
3.15. Incontinence
Early incontinence may occur in up to 30-40% of patients; however, late iatrogenic stress incontinence occurs in fewer than 0.5% of patients.
3.16. Urethral stricture The rate of urethral stricture varies from 2.2% to 9.8% in the literature; there is no relationship to time periods...
4.3. Postoperative complications .........
Table 4 Main late complications after TUR-comparison of three periods.
Authors N Incontinence(%) Re-TUR (%) Impotence (%) Stricture (%) Recent Kuntz 100 5.0 3.0 10.5 22 Muzzonigro 2004 113 1.8 n.a. n.a. 36 // 25 //
23. According to the complainant he went to King George's Medical University, U.P. Lucknow and Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj Medical University, Lucknow for treatment, but both these hospitals did not give any opinion that the O.P. No.2 has wrongly done operation of the complainant and committed medical negligence, while conducting operation of the complainant.
24. Looking to the consent letter, it appears that before conducting operation, all complications were properly explained to the complainant. According to the Medical Literature, known complication is occurred in some cases and looking to LAMA Report, it appears that the complainant himself left the O.P. No.1 hospital for 3-4 days and the complainant himself gave letter regarding living O.P. No.1 hospital on his own risk.
25. Looking to expert opinion, it cannot be held that the O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.2 committed any medical negligence. The complainant has not been able to prove that the O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.2 have committed any medical negligence, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from the OPs.
26. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant against OPs, is liable to be dismissed, hence the same is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.
(Justice R.S. Sharma) (D.K. Poddar) (Narendra Gupta)
President Member Member
03 /10/2017 03 /10/2017 03 /10/2017