National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Vidya Devi vs Dr. (Mrs.) Satinder Chaddha & Anr. on 1 April, 2014
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 4757 OF 2013 (From the order dated 22.08.2013 in First Appeal No. 318/2013 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula) Smt. Vidya Devi R/o Village Lapra, Tehsil Jagadhri District Yamuna Nagar Petitioner Versus 1. Dr. (Mrs.) Jatinder Chaddha, M.B.B.S, MD (Gynae), Chaddha Hospital, Sarni Chowk, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar 2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Janpath, New Delhi- 110001 Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Kumar Mukesh, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON 1st APRIL, 2014 ORDER
PER DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER
1. The Petitioner/Complainant, Vidya Devi,(hereinafter referred to as patient) who was suffering from pain in abdomen approached Dr. (Mrs.) Jatinder Chaddha (OP-1), on 25.01.2008, who, advised some medicines, but the Complainant got no relief. Thereafter, on 26.01.2008, an operation was performed (Uterus) on Complainant and she was sent home, on 05.02.2008. Again, after one week i.e. on 12.02.2008, the Complainant started getting pain in abdomen and was taken to the hospital, in a serious condition. She was again operated and later discharged on 14.02.2008, with an advise to take medicines. But, again on 22.02.2008, she had pain for which she consulted OP-1, who, prescribed medicines and assured her of total relief but, there was no relief. Hence, OP-1 referred her to PGI, Chandigarh, without giving any previous records. The doctors at PGI Chandigarh, informed the patient that due to improper treatment, operation was performed by OP-1. Due to anticipated huge expenses at PGI, which, the Complainant couldnt afford it, got discharged from PGI, Chandigarh, and was shifted to MAMC, Ambala. The doctors there, informed her that the problem aggravated due to the negligence of OP-1. She was examined and thereafter sent to Dr. Chaturvedi at Cancer Hospital, Gorakhpur. Dr. Chaturvedi opined that due to wrong treatment by OP-1 there were chances of occurrence of Cancer. The husband of the Complainant incurred an expenditure of Rs.12,00,000/- on her treatment. Hence, alleging negligence and deficiency in service by OP-1, the Complainant filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short, District Forum).
2. The District Forum, relying upon the Principles of medical negligence laid down by Honble Supreme Court in case titled Kusum Sharma and Ors. Vs. Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre and Ors. , 2010 CTJ 241, dismissed the complaint.
3. First Appeal No.318/2013 was filed by Complainant before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, State Commission) which was also dismissed.
4. Aggrieved by the State Commissions impugned order, the Complainant filed this revision.
5. At the admission stage, we have heard the Counsel for the petitioner. Perused the medical records on file and the evidence adduced before the fora below. The OP-1, in her version, submitted :-
Pre-operative investigations and after a well discussed written consent was taken, emergency D & C (Dilation and Curettage) evacuation was performed. The evacuated materials (specimen) showed Hydatidiform mole or Vesicular mole with no evidence of choriocarcinoma in Lal Pathology Lab, which is a reputed Pathology Centre. The patient was asked to come for a follow-up on 19.02.2008. But the patient came on 18.02.2008. The patient was explained and advised that check D & C will be done after reviewing the Histopathological report and the patient was asked to come on 19.02.2008. The patient did not come on 19.02.2008 and again came to the Respondent on 23.02.2008. Check D & C was performed. As per the standard treatment, the risk scoring for cancer was done and the patient was given prophylactic anticancer treatment. Also, this disease is followed by regularly checking with a chemical called BetaHCG in blood and when the same was done on the patient on 23.02.2008, it was 32973 m/u/ml and when the BetaHCG was done on 10.03.2008, it was 1069 m/u/ml, which shows that the chemical BetaHCG reading decreased, meaning, the disease responded well to the treatment. The patient and the patients attendants were explained that since it is a dangerous disease, the patient should have continuous follow-ups. The patient was referred to PGI/AIIMS. During the patients discharge, the discharge ticket was given to the patient and the patients attendants, which shows the detailed investigation, diagnosis, treatment and blood transfusion given by the Respondent to the patient.
6. On perusal of medical records, it is clear that, Complainant has not produced any admission card and was examined by Dr. A. K. Chaturvedi , on OPD basis, his clinical findings are as ;
a) BetaHCG 1.6 m/u/ml- Normal
b) HPR- Endo-Normal
c) Diagnosis shows- Follow up C/O vesicular mole
d) Only treatment in PGI-
Government hospital In MAMC and at Dr. A. K. Chaturvedis Cancer Hospital, the patient never got admitted. Therefore, the statement of complainant that he had spent about Rs.10 Lakhs, as expenses is frivolous.
7. We have referred to the medical texts and Standard books in Practice of Obstetrics - Gynaecology, and Systemic Pathology. The Novaks Gynaecology (by Jonathan S. Berek) describes that Ultrasonography is a reliable and sensitive technique for diagnosis of complete molar pregnancy. After molar evacuation, patients should be monitored with weekly determinations of B-submit HCG levels, until these levels are normal, for 3 consecutive weeks, followed by monthly determinations, until the levels are normal, for 6 consecutive weeks.
8. Therefore, the patient was diagnosed by USG on 09.02.2008, as a case of Hydatidform. Patient was advised to take injections, from 04.07.2008 to 11.07.2008, namely, methotrexate and folinic acid and thereafter report back, on 12.07.2008 to PGI, after following the advise. This referral, made by OP-1, was well within time. The complainant has not produced any expert evidence to show that OP had given wrong treatment during the operation or at any time.
9. In Bolam test (Bolam Vs. Frien Hospital Management Committee (1957)1 WLR 582, it was held that, a doctor is not negligent if he is acting in accordance with standard practice merely because there is a body of opinion who would take a contrary view.
In Jacob Mathew V State of Punjab & Anr, (2005) 6 SSC 1,III (2005) CPJ 9 (SC), it was concluded that a professional may be held liable on one of two findings : either he was not possessed of requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, or, he did not exercise reasonable competence in given case, the skill which he did possess.
10. On applying the above principles to the instant case, we have arrived at the following conclusions. OP-1, Dr. Jatinder Chaddha, who is a qualified and experienced Gynecologist, used her best professional skill and knowledge, and took due care and caution to treat the complainant, who was suffering from Vesicular Mole (Hydatidifrom mole). There was also proper referral to other medical institutions. Hence, we do not find any negligence on the part of OP-1.
11. The complainant has not approached the fora with clean hands; it is a frivolous complaint which deserves penalty. But, considering the circumstances and the disease from which she is suffering, we take a lenient view by not imposing any penalty under section 26 of CP Act. Accordingly, we dismiss this revision. No order as to costs.
...
(J. M. MALIK, J.) PRESIDING MEMBER ...
(S. M. KANTIKAR) MEMBER Mss/5