Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Op Nos. 1 to 3 in their joint reply took the preliminary objections that the complaint was hopelessly mis-conceived, unwarranted and not maintainable as there was no negligence on the part of Ops or deficiency in service rendered by them to the complainant; complaint was fragrant abuse of process of law filed just to harass, malign and blackmail Ops; the complaint was false, frivolous and vexatious, therefore, liable to be dismissed on that ground that there was no expert evidence to prove that there was any lapse on the part of Ops; complaint was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital and Research Institute, Mumbai; complainant had not approached the Forum with clean hands and had concealed the material facts. In fact the complainant was called for ACL surgery alone and when Arthroscopy was done, PCL were also found damaged, therefore, surgery was not completed. Ligaments in the knee were called Anterior Cruciate (ACL) and Posterior Cruciate (PCL) and injury to these ligaments can cause loss of joint stability, excessive and abnormal side to side or forward and backward motion repeated damage to other internal structures of the joint, disturbance of normal joint movement and early wear and tear of the joint. MRI is definitely helpful in adding or confirming of clinical diagnosis but it has its own limitations. Whereas Arthroscopy allowed a more complete and precise diagnosis, picking up damage that may not have been suspected. The Surgeon could view all tissue inside the knee and it is helpful for precise diagnosis and it is most superior diagnosis. During clinical examination, the complainant was suspected to have ACL tear only. MRI of the knee indicated chronic sprain of the ACL with suspicion of lateral meniscus injury. There was no mention of injury to the PCL or laxity of capsular structures. During the course of Arthroscopy by Op No. 3, it revealed that there was a large bucket handle tear of the lateral meniscus, which was chronic stucking between the centre of the joint, explaining why clinical tests were not able to detect the complexity of the problem. In addition, it also revealed torn PCL, which was more serious injury. In such like eventuality, patient like complainant had to be first counselled about the outcome of multi ligament reconstructive procedures and prior consent to operate non-involved extremity was not obtained prior to surgery. Accordingly, CD was handed over to the patient in addition to illustrated record of the intra-operative findings and surgical procedure performed. Op No. 3's contact details and email address was also clearly mentioned on this booklet. After complainant's surgery, complainant never contacted Orthopaedic Surgeons at Fortis Hospital nor Op No. 3. In the Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital and Research Institute, Mumbai; the complainant had undergone left knee arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction + anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction + partial medial meniscectomy done under G.A. on 7.12.2010, therefore, medically and legally correct procedure was adopted to deal with the situation according to the skill possessed by Ops. In case the complainant was alleging any case of medical negligence, he will have to give specific instances of the act of omission and commission on the part of the Doctor and hospital. Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again has held that a medical professional is to exercise a requisite degree of skill and knowledge and reasonable degree of care and that procedure was followed by Op No. 3. Op No. 3 is a graduate and post graduate from University of Mumbai and is qualified Orthopaedic Surgeon, who completed his Post Graduate Degree in 1982 to 1984. He completed Master's Degree in Sports Science from United States Sports Academy. He is practising Arthroscopic surgery since then and kept himself abreast with newer trends by visiting specialized centres. He has his own private clinic in Mumbai since 1986 and is Consultant to Bombay Hospital, Dr. B. Nanavati, Lilavati & Shushrusha Citizen's Co-op. Hospitals and has been operating in various cities in India like Srinagar, Guwahati, Kolkata, Rajkot etc.. On merits, the averments taken in the preliminary objections were reiterated. It was reiterated that the complainant was admitted for surgery for ACL but during arthroscopy, his PCL was also found damaged and both were required to be operated. Accordingly, the surgery of ACL was not completed. After that the complainant had neither approached Orthopaedic Surgeon at Mohali nor Op No. 3 at Mumbai. There was no deficiency in services or any negligence in the procedure adopted by Op No. 3. Complaint was filed just to harass and to extract monetary gain from Ops. Complaint was without merit and it be dismissed.

4. Op No. 4 in its written reply denied the averments of the complaint. It was submitted that the complaint was without merit and it be dismissed.

5. Parties tendered their respective evidence in support of their contentions.

6. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. CW-1/1, bill/receipt Ex. C-1, Doctors notes Ex. C-2, receipt Ex. C-3, discharge summary Ex. C-4, email Exs. C-5 to 11, bills Exs. C-12&13, Kokilaben Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital report Ex. C-14, MRI left knee Ex. C-15, knee arthroscopy Ex. C-16, discharge summary of Kokilaben Dhirubhai Hospital Ex. C-17, CD Ex., C-18. On the other hand, Op Nos. 1 to 3 had tendered into evidence affidavit of Col. H.S. Chehal, Director Ex. RW-1/1, affidavit of Dr. Manuj Wadwa Ex. RW-2/1, affidavit of Dr. Anant Joshi Ex. Rw-3/1. Op No. 4 had tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Ram, Sr. DM Ex. RW-4/1, affidavit of Ram Avtar, Dp. Manager Ex. RW-5/1, Authorization for & consent to Administration of Anaesthesia Exs. R-1/1 & 2, General consent Ex. R-1/3, Surgery/observation counselling form Ex. R-1/4, physical examination of the knee Ex. R-3/1, record of Arthroscopic Surgery Ex. R-4, bill cum receipt Ex. R-5, medical slip Ex. R-6, Arthroscopy report Ex. R-7, proposal form of New India Assurance Ex. R-8, insurance policy Ex. R-9.

8. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, Appeal No. 1295 of 2013 has been filed by Op No. 4 whereas Appeal No. 1466 of 2013 has been filed by appellants/OPs No. 1 & 3.

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. FIRST APPEAL NO. 1466 OF 2013

10. This appeal has been filed on the ground that the District Forum has ignored the judgment of "Samira Kohli vs. Dr. Prabha Manchanda", (2008) 2 SCC 1. They have also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble National Commission in "St. Antony Hospital vs. C.L. D'Silva", 2013(2) CLT 265 and "M/s Manipal Hospital Banglore & Others versus Alfred Benedict & Others" 2013(3) CLT 357 which are not applicable to the facts of this case. Even the judgment of "Indian Medical Association Vs. V.P. Shantha" (1995) 6 SCC 651 was cited out of the context. The consent of the patient for PCL was necessary, which was not on the record and the consent cannot be taken when the patient was on the table because the patient may not be truly willing at that time and according to this judgment, the Doctor cannot approach for the consent to be taken from the patient before undergoing the surgery. As per the history of this case, the patient was admitted for surgery for ACL but during the Arthroscopy, it was found that he had torn PCL, Arthroscopy showed significant medial capsular stretching, postero lateral capsular laxity, chondromalacia patellae, osteophyteover the medial femoral condyle. It called different surgery but the complainant had not consented for that surgery, therefore, surgery of ACL was left. He was advised to again contact Op Hospital. Op hospital had tried to contact the complainant but complainant did not report and he had undergone the requisite surgery in Dhirubhai Ambani Hospital and Research Institute, Mumbai. There was reason to leave the surgery in between, which cannot be categorized as a case of medical negligence. There is no expert opinion to say that in the given circumstances surgery was possible. The findings given by the District Forum are based upon surmises and conjectures. The principal of 'Res Ipsa Loquitor' was wrongly applied when the complainant had failed to lead any evidence pertaining to the negligence and deficiency in service.

12. We have heard the contentions as raised by the counsel for the parties. As per the pleadings of the parties, a few facts are admitted that on 10.7.2010, complainant approached Op No. 1 and he was referred to Op No. 2, who had advised PCL reconstruction and ACL reconstruction but lateron PCL was struck down and he was referred for left ACL on 13th evening. However, the complainant was admitted in Op No. 1 on 14.8.2013 for ACL surgery but during the surgery Arthroscopy was done, which was the most superior diagnosis because it allows one to look into the joint and feel the structures. On Arthroscopy, ACL/PCL bucket handle tear of lateral meniscus found and PCL and MCL injury found post conservatively with IV widcef, analgesics alongwith other supportive measures. Patient was being discharged in a stable condition with the advice to follow up in OPD after 10 days after prior appointment under Dr. Manuj Wadhwa for suture removal/further management. In case of any problem report to emergency. Keep the operated side elevated on a pillow for 10 days and follow the instructions as given in protocol given by Op No. 3.