Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

[
17. The pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly."

2. For the convenience, the parties are being referred to, in the instant Appeal, as position held in Consumer Complaint before the Ld. District Commission.

3. Before the Ld. District Commission, it was the case of the Complainant that in month of Feb. 2018, he was having constant pain and heaviness in the lower abdominal area, for which he visited the Opposite Party No.2 Hospital (Max Super Speciality Hospital), where he was checked & medically examined by Opposite Party No.1 (Dr. Kanwarjit Singh Dhillon). After various Tests, ECG, X-Ray and Ultrasound Report, the complainant was diagnosed as Bilateral Inguinal Hernia in the right side & minimum in the left side and advised to undergo for surgery immediately. The Complainant got admitted in the Hospital on 03.03.2018, where a Laparoscopy Surgery of Inguinal Hernia by placing & fixing the B/L 3D BARD MESH in the body was performed by OP No.1 on 03.03.2018. The Complainant remained hospitalized from 03.03.2018 to 04.03.2018. After discharge from the Hospital, the Complainant followed up the instructions of Dr. Kanwarjit Singh Dhillon as advised from time to time and strictly adhered to all the instructions of the Doctors and took the medicine timely as per the advice. However, he started facing Constipation, Burning Micturation and Pain in Pelvic Area, for which he time & again visited to the Opposite Party No.2 Hospital, but to no effect. Instead of getting relief from the problems, when the Complainant started facing another problem of pain in bowel area ne ar Mesh implant, discomfort in lower abdomen and incomplete sense of Evacuation, he again asked the Doctor of the Opposite Party No.2, but the Doctor of the Opposite Party No.2 had not taken it seriously. It has been averred that finally, the complainant consulted Dr. Desarda Mohan, MS; FICS (USA); FICA (USA), Chief of Hernia Center, Poona Hospital & Research Centre, Pune Maharashtra, a promine nt Doctor in India specially for Hernia Surgery, who opined that the problems of Constipation, Pain & Burning Micturation, discomfort in lower abdomen and Incomplete sense of Evacuation was due to placing & fixing the MESH in the body of the Complainant while surgery of Inguinal Hernia. He further opined that to get rid of all these problems, the only way was to undergo for surgery and to remove the same. The complainant also consulted online with Dr. Kevin C. Petersen, MD, Las Vegas, USA and also with Dr.R.Padma Kumar, Sr. Consultant & HOD-General & Laparoscopic Surgery, VPS Lakeshore Hospital, Kochi, Kerala. It was alleged that now from the last 6-7 months, the complainant was also facing pain and inability to carry out and continue with his routine activities i.e. walking, sitting and keeping himself in one posture for more than 15 minutes. According to the Complainant, the complications caused by Mesh affixed while performing the Hernia Surgery by the Opposite Parties, had directly affected the performance and loss to the earnings of the Complainant. It was further alleged that the Mesh is a foreign object, a simple piece of cloth prepared from the polyester, polypropylene or similar synthetic threads, which has already been recalled by U.S. Food and Drug Administration since March 2008-09. Its use in hernia repairs is known to cause all sorts of complications like Constipation, Pain & Burning Micturation, discomfort in lower abdomen and incomplete sense of Evacuation to the Complainant. The Opposite Parties must be aware of it, but they had failed to perform their duties towards the Complainant. Had the Doctors disclosed its complications, the Complainant would not have gone for the Hernia Surgery with Mesh repair. It was also alleged that the acts of the Opposite Parties were highly unethical as well as against the Medical Protocol and rather amounts to medical negligence. The Complainant had suffered monetary loss, mental and physical harassment for no fault on his part. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. District Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

4. In the reply filed before the Ld. District Commission, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, Opposite Parties pleaded there was no case of medical negligence, mal practice, as alleged by the complainant; the allegations leveled in the complaint were frivolous, baseless and formulated on wrong and misleading facts; the complainant failed to spell out anything that could be termed as negligence or malpractice on part of the Opposite Parties; as per the settled law, as well the settled medical norms, the action of the Opposite Parties in treating the complainant to the best of their ability and skills with best doctors and while keeping in view the standard medical procedure and the condition and safety of the complainant, the Opposite Parties cannot be held liable for deficiency in service or for medical negligence. It was admitted that Dr. Dhillon was working with the Opposite Party No.2 - Max Hospital, and no longer served the hospital after 10.07.2019. It was asserted that the complainant was treated as per the protocol set in the International Guidelines for Hernia Repair through 'Laparoscopy with Mesh Repair'. The complainant was diagnosed with CPPS (Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome) by two renowned Super Specialists, firstly, on 29.10.2018 by Urologist Dr. R.S. Rai and then on 31.01.2019 by Urologist Dr. Abhay Kalra who were both experts at Hernia Surgery too. Further, the CPPS was a disease which existed independently and had no connection with hernia or Mesh or post surgical complications of a Laparoscopic Surgery. Instead of taking treatment of CPPS, the complainant had been taking online consultations with Surgeons, who have not examined him physically. It was pleaded that before visiting the Opposite Parties, the complainant had consultations with another Urologist Dr. Karun Singla, apparently for his urinary problems and undergone various tests dated 23.02.2018 whereby he was diagnosed with 'INGUINAL HERNIA' on both sides. The complainant sought consultation with Opposite Party No.1 for the first time on 24.02.2018 with Pre-diagnosis of Bilateral INGUINAL HERNIA' as per his Ultrasound Report dated 23.02.2018. However, he intentionally did not attach his Max Super Specialty Hospital OPD prescription slip dated 24.02.2013, which slip clearly showed his previous histor y of consultations with a Urologist and Tests got done on his advice for his micturition problems even before consulting Opposite Party No.1. Since the only treatment of INGUINAL HERNIA was surgery, hence Opposite Party No.1 advised 'Laparoscopic Surgery with Mesh to the complainant, which surgery is preferred for "minimal incision, faster recovery and less pain". The complainant was categorically explained about his diagnosis and the treatment. The five risks of the procedure i.e. bleeding, infections, visceral injury, post operation pain and recurrence were duly brought to the knowledge of the complainant and his family members. It was asserted that when the complainant visited after more than 3 months of the surgery and again after 4 ½ months, on checking no complication was found on physical examination and all tests advised by Opposite Party No.1 for blood, urine and ultrasound were normal. It was also asserted that the medical prescription Annexure C-31 clearly shows that the complainant had no pain when he was examined by Dr. N.M. Gupta, Former Professor and Head of the Department of Surgery, PGI. Denying all other allegations and pleading no medical negligence, deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the Opposite Parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint.