State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri. Digambar S/O. Dayaram Patil vs 1. Dr. Y. D. Mahajan on 2 June, 2014
1 F.A. No. 1471-08
MAHARASTHRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH
AT AURANGABAD.
Date of filing: 15.07.2008
Date of Order: 02.06.2014
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1471 OF 2008
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. 436 OF 2007
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: AHMEDNAGAR.
Shri. Digambar s/o. Dayaram Patil
R/o. Sunasgaon, Tq. Bhusawal,
Dist. Jalgaon. ... Appellants
VERSUS
1. Dr. Y. D. Mahajan ... (dead)
R/o. Sunasgaon, Tq. Bhusawal,
Dist. Jalgaon.
2. Dr. Shashikant Gajre
R/o.Infront of Telephone Exchange,
Zilla Peth, Tq & Dist. Jalgaon.
3. Dr. Rajesh Jain
R/o. INfront of telephone Exchange,
Zilla peth, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon.
4. Jalgaon Trama Centre,
R/o. Infront of Telephone Exchange,
Zilla Peth, Tq & Dist. Jalgaon. ... Respondents
Coram : Shri. S.M. Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
Mrs. Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Present: Adv. S. N. Lavekar appeared for appellant.
Adv. Sandeep Patil for Respondent No. 2 to 4.
- :: ORAL JUDGMENT :: -
(Delivered on 2nd June, 2014) Per Mrs. Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member
1. Shri. Digambar Dayaram Patil, appellant herein/original complainant preferred this appeal against the order of District Forum, Jalgaon dismissing the consumer complaint No.436/2007 on 03.06.2008.2
2. Facts in nutshell are as under:
Complaint was filed against Respondent No.1 Dr. Y. D. Mahajan resident of Sunasgaon, Tq. Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon, Respondent No.2 Dr.Shashikant Gajre, Jalgaon & Respondent No.3 Dr. Rajesh Jain, Jalgaon. Complaint is in respect of medical negligence alleged to be caused by all the respondents. It is stated by the complainant that he took his mother Arunabai Patil on 20.01.2007 to Dr. Mahajan as there was high blood pressure of Arunabai. After treating Arunabai respondent No.1 advised complainant to admit Arunabai in hospital run by respondent No.2 at Jalgoan. Respondent No.1 accompanied the complainant to Jalgaon. At that time respondent No.2 was not present in the hospital. Thereafter respondent No.2 advised complainant to get done the C.T. Scan of Arunabai at respondent No.4. It is stated by the complainant that the respondent No.2 & 3 informed the complainant that there is a brain hammerage of Arunabai and therefore surgery of brain is required. Accordingly on 21.01.2007 brain surgery was conducted. Thereafter complainant was following the instructions given by doctors. On 31.07.2007 again second surgery was required to be done as there was pus in the brain. Even after the second surgery there was no improvement in the health of mother of complainant. Thereafter she died. It is therefore alleged by the complainant that as the medical treatment was not extended at the proper time by the respondent and there was negligence in the service given by the respondents, complainant lost his mother.
Therefore complainant approached to Forum by making grievance about the medical negligence on the part of respondent. Complainant prayed for compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- by all the respondents jointly and severally and Rs. 2,00,000/- for mental agony.
3. Opponents appeared before the Forum and resisted the complaint. Opponent No.1 submitted that on 20.01.2007 while he was proceeding to his house after the working hours of the hospital, elder brother of the 3 F.A. No. 1471-08 complainant Yogesh met him and asked the respondent No.1 that health of his mother is not well and requested to visit his house for treating her. Therefore respondent No.1 visited the house of complainant and after checking the Arunabai advised complainant to take her to Jalgaon. As complainant is belonging to same village with humanitarian view respondent No.1 accompanied complainant to Jalgaon to Dr.Gajre's hospital. Thereafter he left the hospital and not at all responsible for any treatment as well as medical negligence as alleged by the complainant.
3. Respondent No.2 to 4 submitted that immediately after the admission of Arunabai complainant was asked to go for C. T. Scan. After getting the report of C. T. Scan complainant and his relatives were made aware about the situation of Arunabai and gave intimation about the requirement of brain surgery. Even the option was given to the complainant to took his mother to Mumbai, Pune for further treatment. But complainant consented to the brain surgery of Arunabai at Jalgoan only. Accordingly the surgery was conducted on 21.04.2007. Thereafter she was feeling well. On 29.04.2007 it was found that there is requirement of another surgery. Therefore accordingly complainant was informed and also asked to shift Arunabai to any other hospital at Mumbai or Pune. But complainant refused to shift the patient and consented to another surgery. Thereafter complainant himself requested Dr. Gajre and Dr. Jain to give discharge to his mother and thereafter shifted her mother at Aurangabad at Vargantiwar Hospital. Mother of complainant admitted at CITI Care Hospital Aurangabad on 07.02.2007 upto 10.02.2007. It is therefore submitted by respondent that he performed the said surgery at proper time and perfectly. But complainant himself shifted his mother to Aurangabad. It is further submitted by respondent that there is no medical negligence committed by all the respondents as alleged by the appellant. No evidence in that respect is produced by the complainant. Therefore complaint be dismissed.
44. After hearing both the parties District Forum dismissed the complaint in absence of any expert evidence about the medical negligence on the part of the respondents.
5. Dissatisfied with the said judgment and order original complainant came in appeal. Adv. S. N. Lavekar appeared for the appellant. Respondent No.1 Dr. Y.B. Mahajan is reported to be dead. Respondent No. 2 to 4 appeared through Adv. Sandeep Patil. It is submitted by Adv. Lavekar that appellant took his mother Arunabai to the hospital of respondent No.2 & 3 with the history of high blood pressure. After doing the C. T. Scan it is found that there was blood clot in the brain and therefore respondent advised brain surgery. Therefore appellant consented to same, but though surgery was conducted there was no improvement in the health of the mother of appellant. Even then second surgery was advised and accordingly conducted. It is therefore submitted by Adv. Lavekar that when no improvement found after first surgery immediate second surgery was not required and said fact was not proved by the respondent that several efforts were made by respondent. It is further submitted by Adv. Lavekar that burden lies on hospital and doctor to prove the case history. Adv. Lavekar referred all letter issued by Dr. Yogesh at Citi Care Hospital at Aruangabad. This letter reads as under:
"This is to certify that Mrs. Arunabai Patil, was operated in Jalgaon. There was s/o infection and all possible treatment could not improve his health. She was discharged on request. She was admitted from 07.02.2007 to 10.02.2007."
It is therefore submitted by Adv. Lavekar that the fact itself is crystal clear that respondent have committed medical negligence as one after another surgery was conducted though it was not required and the condition of Arunabai was not such to go for another surgery and therefore all the 5 F.A. No. 1471-08 respondents are liable for deficiency. But District Forum ignored the said fact while dismissing complaint.
6. Adv. Sandesh Patil submitted that immediately after the admission of Arunabai in the hospital of respondent No.2 after thorough check up C.T.Scan was advised and after getting report of C. T. Scan it is found that there was blood clot in the brain of Arunabai. Therefore the complainant and his relative informed about health of Arunabai and after getting their consent brain surgery was conducted. She was under observation of the respondent doctors all the time. After some days of the surgery it was found that there was pus in the brain and therefore second surgery was advised and accordingly completed. Therefore there is no medical negligence as alleged by the complainant on the part of respondent. Even otherwise respondents also advised appellant to take his mother to big cities like Pune, Aurangabad for advanced treatment, but complainant refused to take his mother for treatment. All things like surgery treatment with reasonable care had offered to the mother of appellant. But thereafter without advise of the respondent appellant took his mother to Aurangabad. In Dr. Vargantiwar Hospital she was admitted for three days only and appellant took the discharge on request to Dr. Vargantiwar. While discharging the patient Dr. Vargantiwar issued certificate according to which there was infection and all possible treatment at Jalgoan could not improve the health of Arunabai. It is therefore submitted by Adv. Sandesh Patil that not a single piece of evidence produced by appellant on record to prove the fact that respondents are liable for medical negligence as alleged by the appellant. Therefore appeal be dismissed with cost.
7. We thus heard both counsel and perused the record. It is seen from the record that respondent No.1 i. e. Dr. Mahajan accompanied the appellant as he is belonging to same village and with a humanitarian point of view. Hence Dr. Mahajan only accompanied appellant upto Jalgaon he has no concern with any treatment. Therefore in our view there 6 is no medical negligence on the part of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 is now deceased.
8. It is an admitted fact that respondent No. 2 & 3 thoroughly checked Arunabai and after getting the report of C. T. Scan brain surgery was conducted as there was blood clot in the brain of Arunabai, second surgery was necessary hence was advised and accordingly completed. In our view it is seen from record that whatever is settled practice and procedure was adapted by respondent No. 2 & 3 for improving the health of Arunabai. No evidence brought on record by complainant/appellant to prove the fact that respondent No. 2 & 3 are liable for medical negligence. Appellant thereafter against the medical advise shifted her mother at Aurangabad at Dr. Vargantiwar Hospital. Said doctor also certified that the treatment taken at Jalgoan was proper and perfect. In our view there is not a single paper on record or expert evidence to prove the fact that respondents are liable for any medical negligence. In our view District Forum has rightly appreciated facts and evidence while dismissing the complaint. We do not want to disturb the reasoning recorded by Forum. Hence the following order.
-:: ORDER ::-
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. No order as to cost.
(Mrs. Uma S. Bora) (S.M. Shembole)
Member Presiding Judicial Member
Kalyankar