State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dineshbhai Karshanbhai Parmar vs Dr. Yogesh S Shah on 27 April, 2022
Details DD MM YY
Date of Judgment 27 04 2022
Date of filing 15 04 2014
Duration 12 00 08
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
GUJARAT STATE AT AHMEDABAD.
Consumer Complaint No. 35/2014
Court No.1
Dineshbhai Karshanbhai Parmar
Aged: 69 years, occupation: Retired
R/0 C-13, Rudradham society,
B/h C.K. Prajapati School,
Gorva, Vadodara-390016 ...Complainant
Vs.
1. Dr. Yogesh S. Shah
M.s, F.R.C.S. (Eng)
Vijay Hospital, Khadiya Pole-1
Opp. Khanderao Market,
Palace Road, Vadodara- 390001
2. PremdasJalaram Hospital
B/h RTO, Harni-warasia Ring Road,
Vadodara-390006
3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
2nd Floor, Anant apartment
Salatwade-stadium Road crossing,
Tilak Road,
Vadodara-390001 ...Opponents
Appearance -Learned Advocate Dr. R.G. Dwivedi for the complainant
Learned Advocate Mr. M. K. Joshi for the opponent no. 1
Learned Advocate Mr. Arjitsinh Solanki for the opponent no. 2
Learned Advocate Mr. A. G. Thakore for the opponent no. 3
Richa CC-14-35 Page 1 of 16
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. P. Patel, President
Mr. I.D. Patel, Judicial Member
Ms. A.C.Raval, Member Order by Ms. A.C. Raval, Member
1. The complainant has filed the consumer complaint u/s. 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (For short "The Act) against the opponents insurance company claiming main relief in terms of para 22 (A & B) which reads as under:
"(A) It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that, the Complainant should be Awarded Compensation to the full extent of Rs. 30, 00, 000/- (Rs. Thirty Lacs) as stated above on Para 20 of this complaint along with Int. @ 18 % per annum from the day of loss i.e. 09/04/2013 till the realization of payment.
(B) Pass such other order or orders as may be deem fit in the interest of justice and the under the circumstances of the case."
2. Heard ld. Advocates for both the side and perused the record.
Facts of the complaint:
3. Short facts giving rise to the present complaint are as under: it is case of complainant that in 2013 he was suffering from the abdominal pain. Hence, for the treatment of said alignment he consulted to opp. No. 1 on 9.04.2013, and after clinical and laboratory examination it was diagnosed by opp. No. 1 that urethra of complainant has been blocked, hence it requires surgery. And he was advised to be admitted in hospital of opponent no. 2 on 9.4.2013. During the hospitalization on 11.4.2013 the opponent No. 1 performed the surgery upon complainant in the hospital of opponent no. 2. That, after the surgery it was observed that the stool was passing through the urine, hence he complained about the same to opponent no.1. The opponent no.1 said that it is garbage of abdomen which is passing out and will stop after 2 days, and as per advice of the op no. 1 treatment of complainant was continued upto 13 hrs. on 17.4.2013. Instead of decrease in passing out of the stool from the urine, it increased gradually, hence complainant was discharged Richa CC-14-35 Page 2 of 16 from the hospital of op.no. 2 and advised to consult some other doctor, as the post operative problem developed to complainant was beyond the control, capacity and facilities available with the opponents. Therefore, complainant was forcefully discharged from the hospital at 13 hrs. on 17.04.2013 by the opponents.
On the same day, the complainant was admitted in Sannidhhi Super Specialty surgical hospital, Vadodara, by his son. It was diagnosed by Dr. Vijay Dabhiand that during the surgery opponent no.1 had cut the intestine of the complainant beneath the urinary bladder and because of that a Recto-Visceral Fistula was developed, hence stool was mixing up with urine and passing through kidneys, and as a result stool was passing through urine, and there is acute renal failure. Urgent surgery was advised, and during the hospitalization on 18.4.2013 another surgery was performed to the complainant by Dr. Vijay Dabhiand. That, during the surgery a foreign body (thick plastic thread) was found inside the bladder of the complainant which was left in his bladder by op. no.1 during the surgery dated 11.4.2013. The complainant was discharged from the Sannidhi Hospital on 27.04.201.
3.1 It is say to the complainant that because of negligence committed by the opponents, now he can not live normal life, and rather he has to live his rest of entire life with artificial passage of urine and stool and continuous pain and sufferings and he has to take medicines and treatment throughout his rest of the life. Earlier he was able to ride bicycle for about 20 to 25 km.s every day, and was used to go on visit to holy places like Ambaji, Pavagadh, Dakor by walking from Vadodara. Original case papers and documents were not supplied to him by the opponents, at the relevant point of time.
3.2 It is further stated in the complainant that the complaint has spend more than Rs. 3,50,000/- in his treatment and his treatment will be continued during his entire rest of the life. Further complainant has approach this commission by way of filing present complaint with the prayer:
(A) It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that, the Complainant should be Awarded Compensation to the full extent of Rs. 30,00, 000/- (Rs. Thirty Richa CC-14-35 Page 3 of 16 Lacs) as stated above on Para 20 of this complaint along with Int. @ 18 % per annum from the day of loss i.e. 09/04/2013 till the realization of payment.
(B) Pass such other order or orders as may be deem fit in the interest of justice and the under the circumstances of the case.
4. Documentary evidence:
Documents evidence produced by the complainant :
1. Copy of discharged card issued by op. no. 2
2. Copy of the hospital bills issued by the op. no. 2
3. Copy of the city scan report
4. Copy of the blood purchased bill
5. Copy of the medical certificate issued by Dr. Vijay Dabhi
6. Copy of the application submitted to P.I. City Police Station, Vadodara
7. Copy of the legal notice & AD cards
8. Copy of the reply of op. no. 1
9. Photograph of complainant
10. Photograph of complainant 4.1 Further some other documents submitted are as follows:
1. Copy of the Discharge card issued by Sanniddhi Hospital
2. Copy of the Hospital Bill/Receipt issued by Sannidhi Hospital
3. Copy of the Laboratory Investigation various Reports, prescriptions & chemist/ pharmacy bills
5. Notice was issued to the opponents appeared through their advocates and filed their reply to the complaint, written arguments, interrogatories and their written submission.
6. Arguments and reply of the opponent no. 1:
Op no. 1 has filed this reply and submitted that he is an urologist and having an experience of more than 35 years, and practicing at Vijay Hospital Vadodara and also giving service as visiting urologist at Jalaram hospital (op no. 2) , Sterling hospital and Adarsh hospital. It is submitted by op no. 1 that the complainant was first brought on 8.4.2013 with catheter in situ by his nephew Dahyabhai Mayavanshi, who is known to Richa CC-14-35 Page 4 of 16 him for many years. He had complaint of burning micturition, fever and dysuria for 1 month. The complainant had also past history of Stricture urethra with fistula for which he had taken treatment in 1982. He had also undergone angioplasty and had chest infection. The complainant produced investigation reports suggestive of severe infection and emphysema. His urethrogram dated 28.3.13 showed Stricture posterior urethra and Bulbo-membranous urethra and cystitis. After thorough clinical examination and considering reports he was advised cysto- urethro - scopy and optical urethrotomy first further treatment SOS and explained the pros and cones in detail. It is further explained that he was a very high risk patient and also need I.C.U. so he was advised to get admitted at Jalaram hospital and he agreed and accordingly was admitted on 9.4.2013. The patient was complaining of severe pain due to catheter, so it was removed, but he could not void urine so opponent no. 1 was called and reinserted the catheter at t-30 pm and 1200 cc urine was drained. Patient showed mild pleural effusion and enlarged prostate with pressing on urethra, bladder wall thickness was 2.5 mm. These all was explained and after taking informed consent he was taken for surgery on 11/4/2013 at about 9.30 am. The opponent performed surgery on 11.4.13. Otis urethrotomy was performed first, the TURP was carried out as per standard practice, hemostasis carried out and chips were sent for histopathology examination. Foley's suprapubic catheter was inserted as there was lot of inflammation in bladder and urethra.
Next day 12.4.2013 he was stable with good urine output, bladder was not palpable and had also passed flatus and therefore, after clamping of supra pubic catheter, patient was reviewed and found stable, urine was sent for culture and sensitivity. On 13/4/2013 there was some debris in urine and creatinine was 1.3 In urine culture report, no organisms seen and hence same medicines were continued. On 15.4.2013 he was stable but found urine turbid, so opponent called patient's son and told that General surgeon' s opinion has to be taken for turbidity of urine, but he refused. On 16.4.2013 there was suprapublic leakage and opponent again insisted for surgeon's opinion, which was very much available in the hospital to rule out the possibility of developing fistula, known complication, but he refused again. On 17th Richa CC-14-35 Page 5 of 16 refusing to follow opponents advised his son took discharged against medical advice. At the time of discharge complainant was stable.
It is further submitted by the opponent that the operation performed by the opponent was successful and opponent doctor had taken standard reasonable medical care while treating the patient as expected from skilled persons. The opponent is therefore not guilty for any negligence or deficiency in service as defined under Consumer Protection Act. The complaint therefore may be dismissed and limine. That the affidavit opp 1 is produced and medical record consisting pg no. 1 to 85 is also produced.
7. Arguments for the opponent no. 2:
It is submitted that there is no any negligence and deficiency of service on the part of op no. 2, there is no fault or shortcoming of quality, nature and manner of performance requires to be maintained by an undertaking for time being in force. The opp no. 2 has reiterated averments of the affidavit filed by the op no. 1 and further submitted that the operation performed by the op no. 1 was success and opponent doctors had taken standard reasonable medical care while treating the patient as expected from the skilled person.
8. Arguments and reply of the opponent no. 3:
Reply is filed at exh. 13 and it is submitted by the op no. 3 insurance company that the company had issued the professional indemnity insurance (Medical Established Insurance) policy bearing policy no. 220300/36/12/02/00000165 covering the risk period dated 25.03.2013 to 24.03.2014. The policy is issued in the name of Swami Premdas Jalaram Hospital. The opponent rely upon the terms and condition of the policy. Op no. 3 cannot be saddled with the liability beyond the limits as stated in the insurance policy. It is liable to indemnify op no. 2 hospital in case of any liability arise of insured hospital as per terms and condition of the policy. The opponent insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability of other opponents. There is no deficiency of service or any unfair trade practice by opponent no.1 and no.2. Averments made in complaint are not true and complaint should be put to the strict proof.Richa CC-14-35 Page 6 of 16
8.1 The op no.3 has produced documentary evidence, which is the certified copy of the insurance policy no. 220300/36/12/02/00000165.
9. Merits of the case Perused the copy of complaint reply filed by the opponents, rejoinders filed by the complainant, interrogatives and its reply filed by the parties to the proceedings, written submission filed by the complainant and the opponents, evidence produced on record and the citation cited by the parties of the proceedings.
10. Rajanikant Parmar, son of the complainant, has submitted affidavit and supported version of complainant. Then, Dr. Vijay Bharatkumar Dabhi, who is consultant Laparoscopic and General Surgeon, having hospital in name of "Tirth Hospital" at Vadodara, gave his affidavit on oath. He stated that complainant came to him on 17/4/2013 with complain of passing of stool in urine since four days and abdominal pain since two days and vomiting. He had history of surgical operation on 11/4/2013 by Dr. Yogesh. During the course of hospitalization of complainant, Dr. Dabhi found from investigating reports that it was case of "Rectovesical Fistula" due to TVRP complications with ARF due to Pyelonephritis with septicemia. Hence corrective repair surgery was carried out on 18/4/2013. At present complainant cannot pass the urine and stool naturally, hence his is still on urethral and rectal catheter , he has to undergo complicated and risky surgey which would cost more than Rs. 5,00,000. He has given medical certificate dated 27.4.2013.
Interrogatory questions were put before this witness and he replied to it, exh. 31. He did not agree that 'Recto-Vesicle Fistula' is known complication in such patient. In abdomen there was 'foreign body' found in CT scan report, which was found at site of Recto Vesicle Fistula. Foreign body was size of 16 centimeters, tubular shape and sky blue in colour. He has not use vague word like foreign body in from of plastic material. He has preserved the foreign body. He denied that in his certificate dated 27/4/2013, last page was added afterward as an afterthought.
Richa CC-14-35 Page 7 of 1611. Interrogatory was put to complainant, and he gave his reply on oath. He consulted opponent on 8/4/2013 for ailment of obstructive, painful and burning micturition. He went to the opponent with cathether in Situ. In the year 1982 he took treatment only for fistula. He was advised to get admitted in Jalarm Hospital, but it was because he could not bear expenses of private hospital. He was never told by opponent that surgeon's opinion has to be taken for turbidity of urine. He never took discharge against medical advice on 17/4/2013, on the contrary he was forcefully discharged.
12. The opponent has submitted that complainant had made complaint of burning micturition, fever and dysuria since 1 month. That is related to burning sensation during process of excreting urine from the urinary bladder. Complainant has also stated that he was suffering from pain in abdomen, which is also result of blocked ureter, and during initial examination also it was found that urethra of complainant was blocked. Accordingly, he was operated on 11/4/2013. After surgery it was observed by the complainant that stool was passing through the urine , he immediately informed the opponent no.1. And as per advice of opponent no.l treatment continued till 17.4.2013, but passing out of still from urine was increased. Medical papers, that contains history of medical treatment given to the complainant is produced by the opponent in this case. It is case of the complainant that earlier he was not furnished the copy of the same, and for the first time it is produced in this case. Now, looking the medical history papers submitted by opponent no.1, at last page it is mentioned on 17.4.2013, that to consider surgeon's opinion, and talked to patient's son, he decided to take him , some where else.
Thus, it has not come on record that complainant took discharge from hospital against medical advice given to him by the complainant.
13. Further, after inserting catheter, the documents with regards to date, time, catheter size, type, patient's response are required to be prepared, and record of amount, odor, color and consistency of urine and whether specimen is obtained or not is required to be prepared. On date 11/4/2013, the opponent no.1, according to his say, inserted Foley's Richa CC-14-35 Page 8 of 16 suprapubic catheter as there was lot of inflammation in bladder and urethra. Then as per the say opponent no.1, on 13/4/2013 noticed some debris in urine and creatinine was 1.3. But since no organisms seen same medicines were continued, and then on 15/4/2013 found urine turbid, hence opinion of General Surgeon was to be taken, but son of the complainant refused.
Complainant has produced copies of some medical literature along with list, so as to facilitate in understanding some medical terminology and medical procedures. TURP is the surgical removal of part of the prostate gland, which is one of the options, but exactly what kind of surgical procedure was performed is not brought on record. Opponent no. 1 is saying that he performed Otis urethrotomy ( inserted special tool into the urethra ) and then TURP on the complainant, on 11/4/2013, in medical history papers also there is mention of such operations made - TURP as per standard practice. It is always said in lighter way that Doctors' prescription only the person selling medicines can understand. We tried our best, but we could not find any iota of mention regarding debris or turbid urine in case history dated 13/4/2013, even opponent could not point out any mention thereof. It was only in report of case history dated 15/4/2013, we found some mention of debris in urine. Further it was also mentioned in report of 15/4/2013, that there is consistent and benign prostatic Hyperplasia . As per medical terminology , that is a condition in which there is overgrowth of prostate tissue which pushes against the urethra and the bladder, blocking the flow of urine, also called BPH (benign prostatic hypertrophy).
At website, Https://www.Cancer. Gov, dictionary provided by Government of India has been taken into consideration.
14. Dr. Dabhi, who has subsequently performed surgery on the complainant, has categorically stated that, during the earlier surgery, Dr. Yogesh had cut the intestine of the complainant beneath the urinary bladder and because of that a Recto-visceral Fistula has been developed, and hence stool is passing through urine and because of that, infection has been developed, which resulted in acute renal failure. Due to that reason Mr. Vijay Dabhi advised for emergency surgery for stopping the Richa CC-14-35 Page 9 of 16 passing out of the stool through urine, otherwise both the kidneys will be failed and life of complainant will be on danger. According to Dr. Dabhi, another surgery was required to make separate passage for passing out the stool and thereafter , after about 3 months it will again be required to do another surgery to reopen the natural passage of stool and it will cost about Rs. 1,00,000/-, but prognosis was very poor. Dr. Dabhi further stated that, during surgery of complainant on date 18/4/2013, he was surprised to found a foreign body ( thick plastic thread ) inside the bladder of the complainant which was left inside the urinary bladder of the complainant by the opponent no. 1 during the surgery dated 11/4/2013. Complainant will have to remain on urethral and intestinal catheter for rest of life, and his natural passage of passing out of the stool and urine is closed. Till now, complainant has spent more than Rs. 8,50,000 for treatment of traumatic injury on his intestine and urinary bladder, caused by the opponent no.1.
15. In our humble opinion, prima facie complaint was made out his case against the opponent of medical negligence and deficiency in services. The complainant pleaded the post surgical complications which were not specifically denied by the opponents. The complaint of the complainant about the passing the stool to the urine after operation performed by the op no. 1. The complainant condition was not stable at the time of discharged this contention is supported by the evidence that he was admitted in Sannithi Hospital on the same day and another surgery was performed by Dr. Vijay Dabhi on 18.4.2012. Dr. Vijay Dabhi has given his evidence by filing an affidavit and answering the interrogatories. It is the case of the complainant that foreign body (thick plastic thread)was found inside the bladder of the complainant. During the second surgery which was left by the opponent during the previous surgery on 11.3.2013 this can be considered as gross negligence on the part of the opponents. This version is supported by an affidavit of complainant witness , Dr. Vijay Dabhi.
16. Advocate of the opponent has argued that the complainant was has came to the hospital with past history of stricture urethra with fistula for which he has taken treatment in 1982 but the opponent has Richa CC-14-35 Page 10 of 16 fail to prove their version by pleading cogent evidence. Even otherwise, even for the sake of argument it is believed that earlier the complainant had taken treatment in the year 1982, that does not absolve him from this negligence in treating the complainant, as discussed above. Opponent has not proved that earlier treated has any direct relevance with current misfortune, which is suffered by the complainant. Further looking the literature produced on record, any alternative procedure to urethrotomy which are dilation and urethroplasty, the Doctor will generally recommend a patient to undergo will depend upon the severity of patient's urethral stricture as well as the success or otherwise of previous procedure he may have undergone to treat it in the past. Opponent has brought nothing on record to establish any adverse outcome of past surgery of the complainant. Further even men with prior history of fistula are also more likely to be successfully repaired using a two stage repair, as per submission of ld. Advocate for complainant.
17. Op no. 1 & 2 has relied upon the medical papers produced which were with an affidavit of op no. 1 to show that proper was treatment was given to the complainant. Because of some accidental event due to negligence of the complainant this post surgery complication have occurred and the complainant has taken discharge from the hospital against the medical advice. For proving brining their version the opponents have not examined any expert witness or provided any other cogent evidence. On the contrary, as discussed above case papers produced by opponent himself is not supporting his version, and that is already discussed in above forgoing paragraphs. The complainant was not even provided with case papers when he was discharged, it was only when an application was given to police, he could get the papers.
18. It may be pertinent to note that in case between Jacob Mathew V. State of Punjab and anr., reported in (2005) 6 scc 1 = III (2005) CPJ 9 (SC), it is observed in concluding para.s, the brief summary is that, "Negligence becomes actionable on account of injury resulting from the act or omission amounting to negligence attributable to the person sued. And that, a case of occupational negligence is difference from one of professional negligence. A simple lack of care, an error or judgment or an Richa CC-14-35 Page 11 of 16 accident, is no proof of negligence on the part of medical professional. So long as a doctor follows a practice acceptable to the medical profession of that day, he cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative course or method of treatment was also available or simply because a more skilled doctor would not have chosen to follow or resort t that practice or procedure which he followed. Further, it was also observed that, a professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings: either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed; or , he did not exercise , with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess, on the standard of an ordinary competent person exercising ordinary skill in that profession."
Here, in present case, it is not case of complainant that opponent no. 1 did not possess requisite skill, the only contention is that, he did not exercise his skills with reasonable competence which an ordinary competent person in that profession might have exercised. It has been categorically stated that stool was passing through urine, witness Dineshbhai has also confirmed it, even foreign substance was found inside bladder of complainant. Opponent no. 1 has also in his case paper observed that there was debris in urine. As discussed above, the complainant was with opponent no.1 and no. 2 from 9/4/2013 to 17/4/2013. It is stated that Recto-visceral Fistual was developed ( which is an abnormal connection between rectum and the bladder, which can cause urine and feces, that is stool, to mix and empty out of the urethra), and now complainant will not able to live his normal life, and will always have to carry urethral and rectal catheter, to empty the bladder and collect urine in a drainage bag. The opponent has clearly committed negligence in performing his ordinary medical duty, which he was supposed to have performed. From period 11/4/2013, that is from date of operation, till 17/4/2013, the complainant was under supervision of opponent no.1 and no.2, and they have noticed the debris in urine on 13/4/2013 and 15/4/2013, but failed to take and immediate action, and even failed to communicate the complainant the need of immediate action in that regards.
Richa CC-14-35 Page 12 of 1619. Computation of compensation:
The principle of computing compensation At this juncture, it would be appropriate to consider the ratio established by Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment reported in 2015 SC 2836 in case between V. Krishnakumar V. State of Tamil Nadu. In para no. 17 it has been held as under:
"17. The principle of awarding compensation that can be safely relied on is restitutio in integrum. This principle has been recognized and relied on in Malay Kumar Ganguly vs. Sukumar Mukherjee, (2009) 9 SCC 221 and in Balram Prasads case (supra), in the following passage from the latter: 170. Indisputably, grant of compensation involving an accident is within the realm of law of torts. It is based on the principle of restitutio in integrum. The said principle provides that a person entitled to damages should, as nearly as possible, get that sum of money which would put him in the same position as he would have been if he had not sustained the wrong. (See Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal Co.). An application of this principle is that the aggrieved person should get that sum of money, which would put him in the same position if he had not sustained the wrong. It must necessarily result in compensating the aggrieved person for the financial loss suffered due to the event, the pain and suffering undergone and the liability that he/she would have to incur due to the disability caused by the event."
(1) Age: The complainant has stated in the heading of the complaint that he is 69 years old. We have considered medical papers at pg no. 10, 44, 49 & 51, wherein the age is mentioned 68 years. Therefore, we have considered age of 68 years of the complainant.
(2) Multipliers: As per ratio laid down in case of Sarla Verma reported in 2010 (1) GLR 17 (S.C.) and ratio laid down in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s Pranay Sethi & Ors., and looking to the age of the complainant we have considered multiplier 5 in the case.
(3) Income: Complainant has stated that he was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month and he is having educational qualification of old metric pass. No proof of income is produced. The version in the compliant Richa CC-14-35 Page 13 of 16 regarding income is supported by the affidavit filed by the witness and the introductory filed by the opponent. The said income is not challenged by other side. Then we have considered Rs. 10,000/- per month as income of the complainant.
(4) Disability: The complainant has not produced any documentary evidence as regards to the disability. We have perused the medical papers produced by him and considered the complainant is suffering as partial permanent disability of his routine work. Hence, we have considered disability as 20% for calculation of compensation.
(5) Loss of future income: We have considered the ratio of Sarla Verma case reported in 2010 (1) GLR 17 (S.C.) and ratio of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s Pranay Sethi & Ors. Taking into consideration the age, income, disability and multiplier of the complainant, we are of the opinion that complainant is entitled for Rs. 1,20,000/- as a loss of future income. (10,000*12= 1,20,000 pa *20% ctrs = 24000 * 5 multiplier = 1,20,000/-).
(6) Actual loss of income: Considering actual loss of income which the complainant has to suffer for three months 10,000*3 = 30,000/-.
(7) Medical expenses: Looking to the circumstances, taking into consideration the facts, documents on record and evidence laid by both the parties, we are of the considered view that complainant is entitled to the compensation as discussed below for medical expenses.
i) Medical bill of Sannidhi Hospital dt. 27.4.2013 (pg no. 174) - 69,330
ii) Misc. medical bills provided along with other reports from pg no. 175 to 245 (Towards this lum-sum amount is considered adequate) - 30,000
iii) Medical bills attached at pg no. 10 read with pg no. 117 &14 - 28,538 Total in rupees 1,27,868 Richa CC-14-35 Page 14 of 16 The complainant has produced medical bills at pg no. 10 & 14 the bill produced along with the other reports from pg 17 to 245 for Rs. 1,27,868/-. There is no adverse evidences is produced by the opponent, as regards to the medical expenditure made by the complainant. So we believe that he has incurred expenses of Rs. 1,27,868/-.
(8) Future Medical expenses: In the present case, Dr. Dabhi who has subsequently treated the complainant has given his evidence. He has stated that on 27.4.2013 complainant was discharged from his hospital SPC, urethral catheter and colostomy in situ. He has further stated that the complainant can not pass urine and stool naturally and further due to post TVRP complications he has to undergo another repairing surgery which is very complicated and risky and would cost more than Rs. 5,00,000/-. He has also given medical certificate dated 27.4.2013. Thereafter on 5.7.2021, advocate for the complainant gave written submissions, but they have not produced any documents regarding any further surgery undergone by the complainant and also not given any facts regarding present condition of the complainant and no medical bills produced regarding any further surgery as suggested by Dr. Dabhi. No disability certificate is produced as well as the complainant has not produced calculation of actual expenditure on record. However it is also required to note that opponents have also not strived or made any efforts to direct the complainant to put the latest status on record.
8.1 In para 7 of the compliant, the complainant has mentioned that he is on urethral and intestinal catheter for life time, which will cost him at least Rs. 15000/- every month. But complainant has not lead any evidence or produced any bills to justify the amount. We think fit to grant Rs. 50,000/- as a future medical expenses.
(9) Mental agony and pain: Complainant has to suffer the mentally and physically for the life time due to negligence of the opponents. Complainants normal daily activities are restricted due to his physical condition. Hence we are of the opinion that he should be compensate with appropriate amount. Thus towards mental agony, pain and Richa CC-14-35 Page 15 of 16 suffering Rs. 1,00,000/- is considered as proper and adequate compensation.
(10) Total loss
i) Loss of future income - 1,20,000
ii) Actual loss of income - 30,000
iii) Medical expenses - 1,27,868
iv) Future medical exp.- 50,000
v) Mental agony and pain- 1,00,000
Total loss in rupees - 4,27,868
20. We have considered averments made in complaint, documentary evidence on record, objection raised in the written statements, arguments advanced by the ld. advocate for the parties, ratio laid down in the above referred judgments, facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, following order is passed.
ORDER A) The Complaint No. 35 of 2014 is partly allowed.
B) Opponents are ordered to pay Rs. 4,27,868/- (Four lakh twenty seven eight hundred sixty eight) with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the complainant till the date of realization.
C) Opponents are ordered to pay Rs. 15,000/- for the cost of litigation.
D) Registry is directed to send a certified copy this order to the parties.
Pronounced in the open court today on 27th April, 2022 [Ms. A.C Raval] [Mr. I.D.Patel] [Mr. Justice V. P. Patel] Member Judicial Member President Richa CC-14-35 Page 16 of 16