Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17). Thus, the complainant suffered pain, mental tension, physical harassment and financial loss due to the act & conduct of the OP. Hence, alleging deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the OP doctor, the complainant preferred a complaint before the Ld. Lower Commission.

4. Pursuant to issuance of notice, OP appeared and contested the complaint. In his reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case about the performing of surgery in question , stated that he is qualified to conduct surgeries as has been done in the present case. The OP is stated to be M.S. (Ortho) from KEM Hospital, Mumbai, Fellowship Trained in Joint Replacement from University of Minnesota, Minneapolis and Lenox Hill Hospital, New York (FRHKS) (USA). OP Doctor is stated to be registered with Punjab Medical Council having Regd. No.37592 issued by Authority (Annexure OP-1 & OP-2) and further stated that he had performed about 3000 knee replacements which included total knee replacements of both the knees or single knee apart from other surgeries and having total experience of many years and thus, he is competent as per law as well as is master of his own field. The complaint was stated to be bad for non-joinder of necessary party i.e. Hospital where the surgery took place i.e. COSMO Hospital, Phase-8, Mohali. It was also stated that the present complaint was liable to be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction as the complainant's address on Aadhaar card was of Mohali, the surgery was conducted at Cosmo Hospital Mohali and payment was also made at Cosmo Hospital Mohali, so no cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Commission at Chandigarh. It was asserted that the complainant/patient came to the clinic of the OP with problem in her knees; she was advised total knee replacements in both the legs; the surgery was conducted as per settled practice and both the knees were replaced completely; the patient was discharged after 4 days without any complications and she was advised physiotherapy and follow-ups. The complainant went home walking comfortably without any complaints and she followed up till May, 2021 and at that time she was walking comfortably. It was further asserted that the complainant's husband never complained of any knee pain or any such problem, rather he wrote a Google review on 18.2.2018 i.e. after 6 months of surgery where her husband clearly mentioned that she had no complaints and was fully recovered and was satisfied with the treatment (Annexure OP-3).

5. It was further stated in the reply that in total knee replacement, the whole knee is replaced which causes little discomfort in the starting but when the body gets used to it, the patient forgets about it. It was further stated that after total knee replacement is done, the patient is advised to go through exercises on regular basis to adjust the external fixture with day to day exercise. The patient was advised to avoid heavy loads for few months and that there was initial discomfort in some patients but that gradually goes with time. The complainant has concealed her x-rays done post treatment and other test reports which would show that her knees were as per medical standards when she was discharged. It was further asserted that the complainant visited many doctors and placed on record their respective medical advices but none of the medical opinions supported the version of the complainant that the operation was not done in correct manner and none of the reports suggested that the method used in operation was not correct or some other method not acceptable in medical jurisprudence was used.

6. As regards to the allegation of stiffness, it was further stated in the reply that there could not be any stiffness and false allegations have been levelled. The prescription Annexure C-15- a finding given by the competent doctor says that there was movement of 0 degree to 120 degree which could not be there in case of stiffness. Regarding pain, it was stated that in the WhatsApp Chat complainant's husband wrote in message (Annexure C-7 at page 27) that there was no pain. In various medical advices sought, there was no history of pain recorded by any doctor except Annexure C-14 where it was mentioned so. It was further stated that even if there was element of pain then that also could be caused due to disk (as there is finding in MRI "Left traversing nerve root impingement is seen") which was major cause of pain in leg. The complainant was having low vitamin D levels which could cause stiffness and bone pain. There could be other factors which may be attributed to old age, some stress or something hit on the knee. As regards Valgus, there are again different versions placed on record without any conclusion as in Annexure C-14 Valgus Stress Test shown Positive (for Medial Collateral Ligament (MCL)) and Anterior Drawer Test (for Anterior Cruciate ligament (ACL)) which is negative; these tests are done manually for checking the ligament supporting the knees. Test report positive means there was issue with regard to ligament and negative means there was no such issue. It was further stated that the positive valgus stress test pointed that one of the ligaments supporting the knee was having problem and this finding was unrelated to the knee replacement and that the problem may be due to rupture of ligament which might be result of some over stress or fall or hit on the knee. It was pleaded that the MCL ligament was absolutely fine at the time of surgery and discharge and till the last follow up with OP. It is further pleaded that the patient was perfectly fine till May, 2021 when she followed up with OP and the possibility of subsequent fall or some other reasons for valgus could not be ruled out. It was further stated that the complainant has concealed her previous X-rays and reports which were done after the operation. It was further stated that it was obligatory on the part of the complainant to prove specific instances of medical negligence but in the present case none of the documents or assertions in the complaint proves that there was negligence on the part of the OP and that various studies suggest that after Knee replacement operations people remain dissatisfied (between 15-20 %) for one reason or the other and there are various facts which includes old age as well; the subsequent events like proper exercise and due care plays an important role post operation. Thus, it was pleaded that there was no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the OP and a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.

11. A perusal of the discharge summary placed on record by the respondent reveals that the respondent visited the appellant with history of pain in both the knees since 15 years & upon local examination by the appellant , it was recorded as under:-

"B/L knees 10 degree varus, synovitis+, PF- Crepitus+"

This diagnosis by the appellant depicts that the condition of the knees of the complainant was of 10 degree varus which means that besides pain, some deformity was also there, for the correction of which the surgery was suggested by the appellant, to which the respondent agreed with the understanding & assurance given by the doctor that her knees problem would be resolved after TKR (total knee replacement)of both the knees.