State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
R.S. Mishra vs Dr. Deepak Malhotra, on 23 September, 2008
IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section-9 Clause (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 23-09-2008 Complaint NO.C-321/2002 Shri R.S. Mishra, S/o. Late Shri B.P. Mishra, R/o. 607, Pocket-E, Mayur Vihar, Phase-II, Delhi 110091. . Complainant Versus Dr. Deepak Malhotra, Proprietor of Malhotra Nursing Home, A-209, Pocket-B, Mayur Vihar, Phase-II, Delhi 110091. Opposite Party Through Mr. Sandeep Kapoor, Advocate CORAM JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT MS. RUMNITA MITTAL, MEMBER
1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR (ORAL)
1. Brief facts of this complaint as alleged by the complainant are that he suffered from Hydrocil for about three years and he consulted Opposite Party (in short O.P) doctor who advised surgery. After blood sugar and other routine tests he was admitted to the nursing Home of the OP on 26-07-2002 and he was operated upon by the OP-doctor and he was discharged on the same day at 2.00 PM. On the next day the complainant felt pain in his testicles and also noticed that the swelling had not diminished. The OP-doctor opined that the swelling and pain would subside once the stitches were removed. However, even after removal of stitches on 1-8-2002 there was no improvement in pain and swelling. The OP doctor started squeezing out pus from the testicles as the infection had increased. After 6-8-2002 the condition of the complainant started deteriorating and he started vomiting and his body started giving out bad odour. There was alarming increase in blood sugar and blood urea count. On 14-08-2002 at about 11.30 PM the condition of the complainant became serious and he was referred to Shanti Mukund hospital for further management where he was operated upon four times during his treatment and was discharged on 6-9-2002 and in the process the complainant had to incur huge expenses towards hospitalization, medicines and conveyance etc. to the tune of Rs. 2,01,554/-. As per the complainant he was subjected to all these unwanted surgeries and removal of organs causing mental agony and harassment due to the negligence of the OP-doctor who did not summon any specialist despite his urea going upto 170 and blood sugar upto 700. It was further alleged by the complainant that the operated portion was so damaged that it had to be removed to save his life.
2. On the above allegations the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs. 2,01,554/- towards expenses incurred by him for the subsequent treatment at Shanti Mukund hospital and also Rs. 6.00 Lac as compensation for removal of body part which had become irreparable due to the negligence of OP-doctor in carrying out the first surgery.
3. In his defence, the OP-doctor while denying the allegations of incompetence, infected instruments and negligence came up with the version that at the time of surgery the blood sugar level of the complainant was under control and the operation was uneventful and the complainant was discharged on the same day. He was put on antibiotics and pain killers and asked to come for dressing after two days. Stitches were removed on 1-8-2002 and till then he had no problem. Thereafter antibiotics were discontinued and he was asked to follow the advice of his physician for sugar control and diet regimen. He again approached the OP on the 10th day with the fever and pain and after routine pathological examinations the complainant was again put on antibiotics and to prevent the spread of infection the stitch-line was opened and pus was drained out. Since the infection was not being controlled due to his diabetes he was advised admission on 12-8-2002 but he refused. On 14-08-2002 when he again visited the OP he was persuaded to get admitted and after examining the blood reports he was put on insulin and antibiotics but he did not respond to the treatment and was referred to Shanti Mukand Hospital for further management. As per the OP there was no negligence on his part in conducting the surgery and the complications, if any, arose due to the careless attitude of the complainant as he did not follow the advice of his physician and did not take care about his diet.
4. However, the complainant filed his rejoinder reiterating his averments in the complaint and denying the contentions of the OP in its written statement.
5. We have accorded our careful consideration to the material on record as well as the defence version of the OP. Though the complainant was suffering from Hydrocod and the surgery was a minor surgery for extracting fluid from the scrotal sac, however, the stitches were removed after 7 days i.e. on 1-8-2002. From the documents on record, we find that on that day the strip sugar test was positive.
But his condition was deteriorating on 6-8-2002 as the sugar report dated 12-08-2002 is as under:-
TLC 39,800 4000-11,000 Neutrophil 90 45-75 Blood Sugar 759 60-170
6. However, the version of the OP is that diabetes was being controlled by some other physician and not by him and it was only on 12-08-2002 he was referred to Shanti Mukund Hospital.
7. In our view the limited deficiency in service on the part of the O.P is that after he opened the stitches he either failed to notice and monitor the rising sugar level or could not control it and the condition started deteriorating. Since the patient was highly diabetic the vein could not recover in spite of having administered heavy dose of antibiotics. As per Annexure-35, which is the Histopath report, Orchitis with Necrosis and Fibrosis were found and therefore the testicle was completely removed on 16-08-2002 at Shanti Mukund Hospital.
8. For the aforesaid limited deficiency in service due to the aforesaid negligence of the OP in not properly opening the stitches that resulted in complications that he under went four more operations at Shanti Mukund Hospital where he incurred expenses of Rs. 1.00 Lac or so, we deem that a lump sum compensation of Rs.
25,000/- and Rs. 5000/- as cost of litigation shall meet the ends of justice.
9. Complaint is disposed of in aforesaid terms. Payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
10. Complaint stands disposed of in aforesaid terms. Payment shall be made within one month from the receipt of a copy of this Order.
11. Copy of Order as per statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties and thereafter the file be consigned to record.
(JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR) PRESIDENT (RUMNITA MITTAL) MEMBER HK