State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ramavtar Sharma vs The Director/ Autorized Officer, ... on 21 April, 2017
Daily Order BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1 COMPLAINT CASE NO: 27/2015 Ramavtar Sharma s/o Raghuveer Sharan Sharmar/o village and post Gadoli, Tehsil Nadbai Distt. Bharatpur Rajasthan Vs. Director/authorized officer Narayana Hrudayalaya Sector 28 Rana Sanga Marg, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer,Jaipur & ors. Date of presentation of complaint 27.2.2015 Date of Order 21.4.2017 Before: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President Hon'ble Mrs.Meena Mehta -Member
Mr. Jitendra Sharma counsel for the complainant Mr.Manoj Kumar for Mr.C.M.Mathur counsel for the non-applicant 2 BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):
This complaint has been filed with the contention that the complainant having chest pain brought to SMS Medical College where angiography was conducted. It reveals severe blockage and final diagnosis was CAD-TVD. Hence, he was advised to go for bye pass surgery. The complainant admitted with the non-applicant on 14.1.2012. Operation was conducted on 16.1.2012 and he was discharged on 21.1.2012. The discharge summary suggest that two grafts were inserted and surgery was conducted by non-applicant no.2. He was advised to the review after three days and he regularly visited the hospital for consultancy but thereafter over a period of one year his condition was get deteriorated. He was unable to stand, walk or hold any article in his hand. He again consulted in SMS Medical College,Jaipur. Angiography was conducted on 1.3.2013 which shows that there was a blockage in the previous arteries as well as in the new ones created by the bye pass operation. The complainant was shocked and surprised that the bye pass surgery undergone by the non-applicant hospital is failed. Ultimately he was admitted to Fortis Escort Hospital. Again stents were inserted on 7.3.2012 and he was discharged 3 on 9.3.2013 but due to negligence of the non-applicant he is not able to work or earn and he become dependent on others. It has further been pleaded that he was assured that three grafts to be installed whereas only two grafts were installed and non-applicants were negligent and compensation has been asked for.
In reply to the complaint the contention of the non-applicant was that they were not negligent in the surgery. The complainant was suffering from Severe Cardiac Diffuse disease in which the arteries of the individual can get blocked time and again. Operation was successful as the complainant was in good health at the time of discharge. In post operative visits the complainant never complained about any complication and further more he was never been said that three grafts will be installed as this fact could be ascertained only at the time of operation that how many grafts are to be needed to be installed. Proper and due care was conducted in the operation. Hence the claim should have been rejected.
Both the parties entered into evidence and relevant documents have also been submitted.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the 4 original record of the case. Both the parties have also submitted written submissions.
There is no dispute about the fact that bye pass surgery was conducted by the non-applicant on 16.1.2012 and complainant was discharged on 21.1.2012 which is evident from Anx. 2 discharge summary which also speaks that two grafts were installed. He was advised to review after three days and thereafter six weeks. No review sheet has been submitted by the complainant. Only the bill-cum-receipt of 24.1.2012, 10.2.2012 ,10.3.2012 , 2.4.2012, 2.7.2012 and 6.10.2012 were submitted. Prescription of Dr.Ashok Jain of February 2012 was submitted but nothing has been mentioned in it as regard to any complication. Hence, the contention of the complainant that his position was get worsen or he is unable to stand, walk or hold any article has not been supported by any documentary evidence.
Per contra the bill-cum-receipts reveals that he was visiting non-applicant till October 2012 meaning thereby he was satisfied with the surgery and post operative care and he has not raised any complaint to the non-applicant till 5 October2012 and even to Dr.Ashok Jain when he has visited him in February 2012.
It is true that angiography dated 1.3.2013 at SMS Hospital Jaipur reveals that he has again develop a blockage at the origin in his artery and for which he was operated in Fortis Escort Hospital,Jaipur and remain admitted from 6.3.2013 to 9.3.2013 and grafts were installed in the stent. But the only contention of the complainant which has been set up in the complaint is that his surgery was failed. Only failure of surgery could not be defined as medical negligence as held by the apex court in 1 Criminal Appeal No. 1460/2012 Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. K.Narayana Rao where the apex court has held as under:
"A lawyer does not tell his client that he shall win the case in all circumstances. Likewise a physician would not assure the patient of full recovery in every case. A surgeon cannot and does not guarantee that the result of surgery would invariably be beneficial,much less to the extent of 100% for the person operated on. The only assurance which such a professional can give or can be given by implication is that he is possessed of the requisite skill in that branch of profession which he is practising and while undertaking the performance of the task entrusted to him he would be exercising his skill 6 with reasonable competence. This is what the person approaching the professional can expect. Judged by this standard a professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings, viz 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."
In the present case nothing has been shown by the complainant that the treating doctor was not possessing the requisite skill or he has not conducted the surgery with reasonable competence. The failure of surgery by itself could not constitute the negligence on the part of the doctor. The doctor was qualified and it has not been proved that he has not conducted the surgery with normal standard of a surgeon. Further more it is admitted case of the complainant that he consulted in SMS Hospital and Fortis Escort Hospital Jaipur but nothing has been brought on record which could suggest that both hospitals and concerned doctors were of the opinion that stents were installed negligently or operation was not conducted by the non-applicants with due care and caution.
The contention of the complainant is that he was having chest pain, he was unable to stand, walk or hold any article but 7 the record of the Fortis Escort Hospital do not contain any of such complaints. Further more the discharge ticket Anx. 2 clearly reveals that the condition of the patient was stable at the time of discharge and a specific warning has been given to the patient that if any specific sign or symptoms occurred as mentioned in the discharge ticket, he should be consulted the doctor immediately and admittedly no such signs or symptoms were ever brought to the notice of the treating doctors. As considered earlier in prescription of Dr.Ashok Jain of February 2012 no complication of any nature are being said. Hence, it cannot be said to be negligence on the part of the non-applicant only due to the fact that the artery has blocked again as in Severe Cardiac Diffuse disease it is common to get blockage the arteries time and again.
The complainant has relied upon 2012 (44) RCR (civil ) 813 Care Hospital Vs. Surisetty Sunnibabu where the patient was in intensive care of the hospital and he developed malaria, sepsis and renal failure. Hence, it was held that it was negligence on the part of non-applicant as they have not took post operational care which is not the facts here. In the present case the complainant was discharged from the hospital back in 8 January 2012 and he has developed complaint after 13 months. Hence, negligence could not be attributed to the non-applicants.
Further reliance has been placed on 2011 (53) RCR (civil) 337 Sarla Arora & ors. Vs. Forts Health Care Ltd., and anr. where it has been held that it is the duty of the doctor to give full care and caution of all the three stages i.e. pre-operation, during operation and post operation . There is no dispute about this preposition but here in the present case the complainant could not prove any negligence on the part of the doctor at any stage of the operation whether it is pre, post or during operation. Rather he was satisfied with the treatment and procedure of the non-applicant as he has visited the non-applicant till October 2012 with no complaints.
The contention of the complainant is that he was told that three grafts will be installed but thereafter only two grafts were installed. How many grafts have to be installed is the vision of the treating doctor and if needed number of grafts are installed this cannot be said to be negligence on the part of the doctor and further more the complainant could not prove the fact that he was assured for installation of three grafts and it is not the contention of the complainant that three grafts were needed and 9 by only installing two grafts any deficiency/ negligence has been committed by the non-applicants. The non-applicants have rightly submitted that how many number of grafts are to be installed could be ascertained only at the time of operation. Hence, the complainant could not prove the deficiency on this count also.
Hence, in view of the above the complainant has remain utterly failed to prove the negligence on the part of the non-applicant and in view of the above the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence, dismissed.
(Meena Mehta ) (Nisha Gupta ) Member President nm