State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt Alka Sen vs Nawal Kishore on 22 February, 2022
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 First Appeal No. A/2003/787 ( Date of Filing : 27 Mar 2003 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District State Commission) 1. Smt Alka Sen a ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Nawal Kishore a ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Rajendra Singh PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. SUSHIL KUMAR JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 22 Feb 2022 Final Order / Judgement Reserved State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.P. Lucknow. Appeal No. 787 of 2003 Dr. Smt. Alka Sain through Sain Maternity and Eye Care Centre, 44-Gajanand Nagar, Kothi Meena Bazar, Shahganj, District, Agra. ...Appellant. 1- Nawal Kishore s/o Sri Bhagwan Das. 2- Smt. Maya Devi w/o Sri Nawal Kishore, R/o House No.276, Ward No.19, Sanjay Colony, Gangapur, City, District, Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan) .......Respondents. Present:- 1- Hon'ble Sri Rajendra Singh, Presiding Member. 2- Hon'ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Member. Sri Arun Tandan, Advocate for appellant. None for the respondents. Date : 05.04.2022 JUDGMENT
Per Mr. Rajendra Singh, Member: This appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 04.02.2003 passed by the District Consumer Forum/Commission, Agra-I in complaint case no.536 of 1997.
In brief the facts of the appeal are that, that the impugned judgment/order is against the facts and evidence of the case and is against section 14 of Consumer Protection Act. The learned Forum trusted on the oral evidence of the complainant that he gave fees for the treatment and medicines and no receipt has been given to him. Not a single cash memo has been filed by the complainant therefore the complainant is not the consumer of the appellant. The appellant has conducted the operation with full devotion and there was no (2) deficiency in service attended by him. He also referred the complainant to Dr. Shekhar, Urology expert for the treatment of urine related disease. The complainant himself left the hospital and then got treatment from outside for which the complainant is not liable. The learned consumer Forum did not pay attention towards the caselaw filed by the appellant. There was no expert evidence and in spite of it the learned Forum held appellant guilty for deficiency in service. No documents have been filed before the learned forum. After manipulating in the photostat copies of the documents, the first case has been filed before the learned Forum. Hence it is prayed that the impugned judgment and order be set aside and the appeal be allowed.
We have heard ld. Counsel for the appellant Sri Arun Tandan. None appeared for the respondents. We have perused all the pleadings, evidence and documents present on record.
First of all we perused the impugned judgment dated 04.02.2003. As per judgment, there is some problem in the private part of the wife of complainant no.1, the complainant no.2. He contacted opposite party's nursing home on 28.02.1997. After examining her, the opposite party assured the complainant that she will be perfectly all right after operation. The opposite party told the complainant that the total cost for the operation would be ₹10,000/-. The complainant agreed on it. The opposite party got her admitted in his nursing home and received ₹3000/- on the same day but did not give any receipt of the same. On 2 March 1997, the opposite party removed the uterus of complainant no.2. At the time of operation two bottles of blood were demanded for (3) which the complainant paid ₹600 and brought 2 bottles of blood. The opposite party told the complainant that the operation was successful and thereafter he took ₹7000 from the complainant without giving any receipt to him. During operation, after removing the uterus, biopsy was performed in the laboratory for which he paid ₹100/-. During operation catheter was inserted carelessly causing a cut in the urinary tract. It has been removed after 4-5 days but it resulted in total stoppage of urine causing extreme and unbearable pain to the complainant. Thereafter second catheter was inserted which also did not work properly. It caused fever to the complainant. Thereafter the urine has been taken out by the help of the syringe. When the complainant got fever and his condition was not recovered properly, the opposite party contacted and consulted Dr. Shekhar Bajpayee, Professor urology, S. N. Medical College, Agra. Dr. Shekhar Bajpayee told the treatment to the opposite party but did not come to the nursing home. The opposite party prescribed some medicines to the complainant no.2 on 12 March 1997 but she did not get any relief. Thereafter complainant himself contacted Dr. Shekhar Bajpayee and requested him to treat her wife.
Thereafter Dr. Shekhar Bajpayee came to the nursing home of the opposite party and examined complainant no.2 and reprimanded the opposite party for his carelessness regarding the treatment and operation of the opposite party no.2. He also told that due to careless working of the opposite party during the course of operation, the urinary tract was cut or after the operation proper stitching has not been done (4) therefore reoperation is necessary. The complainant, on the advice of Dr. Shekhar Bajpayee, got coloured x-ray on 14 March 1997 paying ₹ 800/, and also did ultrasound by paying ₹ 300/-. Upon examination of these pathological reports, Dr Shekhar Bajpayee came to conclusion that due to carelessness shown during the operation of opposite party, the urinary tract coming from the left liver to urinary bladder has been cut therefore the urine was spreading inside the body causing infection in the stomach.
Dr. Shekhar Bajpayee got complainant no.2 admitted in Ram Raghu Hospital and operated through laparoscopic method on 20 March 1997 but the condition did not come under control, then second open surgery was performed on 23/24.03.2022. Two bottles blood costing ₹600/- was arranged by complainant no.1. Dr. Shekhar Bajpayee charged ₹7800/- for both the operations and thereafter the condition of the complainant started to improve and ultimately she was discharged on 27 March 1997. The complainant no.1 purchased medicines of ₹15,000/-, paid ₹1050/- towards the charge of nursing home during the above-mentioned operations by Dr. Shekhar Bajpayee. The stitches were removed on 30 March to 1997. On 05.04.1997 one tube of urinary tract was removed while the second which was inserted for the liver, was removed on 20 April 1997 after operation.
The opposite party, in his written statement has stated that he is expert of women diseases. The opposite party no.2 contacted him regarding problem of the uterus and after examination found that she had uterus and bleeding problem (5) and she was advised for operation. The complainant was told about the risk of the operation and also told him his fees for operation and treatment was deposited before admitting the patient in the hospital. The receipt is issued to the patient after discharge from the hospital. The complainant no.2 was operated when she was admitted in the nursing home and her uterus was removed and sent for biopsy. After operation catheter was inserted for the discharge of urine and there was no post operation complications. The catheter worked for four days and after its removal, when the complainant no 2 told about the difficulty in discharge of urine, second catheter was inserted. The complainant got fever and after pathological examination she was given some medicines are. On the eighth day of operation, the urine started to discharge from the catheter and therefore the opposite party sought the advice of Dr. Shekhar Bajpayee and on the advice of him, medicines were given to the complainant. The opposite party provided the best possible treatment to the complainant and also necessary pathological examinations were done. The opposite party also referred the patient for the advice of Dr. Shekhar Bajpayee and did not show any carelessness. It is correct to say that Dr. Shekhar Bajpayee treated the complainant. The complainant was not discharged from the nursing home of opposite party. She left the nursing home without paying a penny and also stolen the records for the purpose of manipulations. The complainant did not deposit the cost of the medicines provided by the nursing home. The opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service.
From the admission of the opposite party it is clear that the complainant no.2 was admitted to the nursing home of (6) opposite party and after operation, her uterus has been removed. During this period, the complainant bore the cost of the pathological tests and arrangement of blood. It is also clear that after inserting first catheter problem arose and thereafter second catheter was inserted and when the problem did not solve, the party sought the advice of Dr. Shekhar Bajpayee. It is also clear from the evidence on record that opposite party could not manage the complainant properly in the nursing home and that's why she has been referred to Dr Shekhar Bajpayee, where she was treated and recovered.
Now the first and foremost question arises as to whether the complainant did not pay the charge of the nursing home and stolen the documents for the purpose of manipulation. Not a single nursing home even the SGPGI starts treatment without deposition of advance money for the treatment or for the admission in the nursing home. Further in this case she has been referred by the appellant/ opposite party to Dr. Shekhar Bajpayee. Is it possible to move without any ambulance or wheelchair to other nursing home? The appellant has made the reference letter for Dr. Shekhar Bajpayee, so it is unbelievable that the complainant herself left the nursing home without knowledge of the appellant. Why was uterus removed?
Now what is hysterectomy? A hysterectomy is an operation to remove the uterus. This surgery may be done for different reasons, including:
Uterine fibroids that cause pain, bleeding, or other problems (7) Uterine prolapse, which is a sliding of the uterus from its normal position into the vaginal canal Cancer of the uterus, cervix, or ovaries Endometriosis Abnormal vaginal bleeding Chronic pelvic pain Adenomyosis, or a thickening of the uterus Hysterectomy for noncancerous reasons is usually considered only after all other treatment approaches have been tried without success.
Depending on the reason for the hysterectomy, a surgeon may choose to remove all or only part of the uterus. Patients and health care providers sometimes use these terms inexactly, so it is important to clarify if the cervix and/or ovaries are removed:
A supracervical or subtotal hysterectomy removes only the upper part of the uterus, keeping the cervix in place.
A total hysterectomy removes the whole uterus and cervix.
A radical hysterectomy removes the whole uterus, tissue on the sides of the uterus, the cervix, and the top part of the vagina. Radical hysterectomy is generally only done when cancer is present.
The surgeon may remove the ovaries a procedure called oophorectomy or may leave them in place. When the tubes are removed that procedure is called salpingectomy.(8)
When the entire uterus, both tubes, and both ovaries are removed, the entire procedure is called a hysterectomy and bilateral salpingectomy-oophorectomy.
The healthcare provider will determine the type of hysterectomy you need and the best surgical method to perform that procedure. You will change into a hospital gown and get hooked up to monitors that track your heart rate. An intravenous (IV) line is placed in a vein in your arm to deliver medications and fluids.
An anesthesiologist will give you either:
General anesthesia in which you will not be awake during the procedure; or Regional anesthesia (also called epidural or spinal anesthesia) in which medications are placed near the nerves in your lower back to "block" pain while you stay awake.
Now it is not clear as to what happened in this case. Whether any fibroid has been found or not? Why did the uterus remove? It is the duty of the appellant/opposite party to place all the records before the court Which he did not put before the court though he was custodian of all the documents while the complainant was admitted in his nursing home. We have seen the judgment of the learned District Forum. It is also clear from the facts of the case that when the appellant/ opposite party could not handle the case, he referred the patient to another doctor.
Now the next question arises as to whether the nursing home of the appellant was fully equipped with post operation (9) equipments and facilities? In this case if nursing home would have been equipped with all the necessary postoperation facilities, there was no question to refer the patient to some other doctor. It clearly establishes the fact that the appellant could not manage the affairs of the complainant no.2 and when came to know that it will be better for the patient to refer her to some other doctor than to treat himself, he immediately referred the patient to other doctor. The appellant could neither manage the operation, nor the catheter, nor the post operation care. The learned Forum has held doctor liable which is according to facts and circumstances of the case and it needs no interference by this court. Therefore the present appeal is liable to be the cost.
ORDER The appeal is dismissed with costs. The judgment and order dated 04.02.2003 passed by the Learned District Consumer Forum/commission-I, Agra in complaint case no.536 of 1997 is upheld.
The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself.
Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.
(Sushil Kumar) (Rajendra Singh) Member Presiding Member Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court. Consign to record. (Sushil Kumar) (Rajendra Singh) Member Presiding Member Jafri, PA II Court 2 [HON'BLE MR. Rajendra Singh] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. SUSHIL KUMAR] JUDICIAL MEMBER