Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

03). The brief averments of the written version of opposite parties 1 & 2 are that the complaint is not maintainable either on facts or under law; that the complainant is put to strict proof of all averments made in the complaint; that though the deceased came to the opposite parties on the dates as mentioned, but the first alarm symptoms such as weight loss, vomiting etc. were reported only in the month of October,2013; that immediately the opposite party no.2 prescribed several diagnostic tests and after consulting Dr.Pradeep, a surgeon taken up further treatment; that on 9.7.2013 when the deceased presented with symptomatic improvement and was doing well at that particular point of time, there were no fresh complaints; that on 26.7.2013 the deceased came with persistent symptom of gastro esophageal reflux and no history of weight loss; that she was treated as a case of refractory gastro esophageal disease with modification drugs; that on 29.8.2013, the deceased came with a new symptom of occasional vomiting, but there was no weight loss; that in view of the said symptom, she was advised ultra sonography of abdomen on 29.8.2013 itself, but her husband had not done with the same for the reasons best known to him; that on 2.10.2013 when the deceased undergone investigations like endoscopy test, biopsy test, CT Scan etc., which re vealed that she was suffering with carcinoma, so, she was advised to undergo surgery after consultation with Dr.Pradeep; however, the patient and complainant left the hospital without opting for surgery; that the opposite parties have no knowledge about her treatment in the Sowmay hospital and in a hospital at Kakinada; that when the complainant failed to cause sonography test of abdomen on the deceased cannot contend any negligence or deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties; that the complaint is liable for dismissal with exemplary costs being vexatious and speculative in nature.

07). It is a fact that the deceased went to opposite party no.1 hospital and consulted opposite party no.2/RW.1 on 26.2.2013. The name of opposite party no.1 hospital itself shows that it is specialized in gastroenterology. Ex.A3 is the out patient record maintained by opposite party no.1 hospital on the deceased. In the OP record it is mentioned that the deceased is suffering with Epi Gastric burning and reflux symptoms for the last 6 months and her weight is noted as 65 kgs. Doctor prescribed medicines for one month and advised to come for re view after one month. On 2.4.2013, she again went to the RW.1 and this time he gave medicines for two months and advised to come for review after two months. On 9.7.2013, she again went to the opposite party no.2 who noted that she was doing well and her weight is noted as 64 kgs. and prescribed medicines for two months. However, on 26.7.2013 itself, she went to opposite party no.2 and this time it is noted as reflux +, sleep( ) and prescribed medicines for one month. On 29.8.2013, she again went and it is noted as occasional vomiting :- immediately advised to undergo ultra sonography of abdomen. This time her weight is noted as 65 kgs. and asked to come for review after one month. Admittedly, the deceased not undergone the ultra sonography test.

13). It is important to note that patient on 9.7.2013 reported that she was doing well and for that reason, RW.1 advised her to discontinue all the medicines except nexpro -RD and it shows RW.1 earnestly believed that the treatment is on the right path. However, on 29.8.2013 when the patient came with a complaint of vomiting after food, advised to undergo sonography and for the reasons better known to the patient and the complainant, she was not subjected to such test. Only on 2.10.2013, she approached RW.1 with similar symptoms and there was also weight loss of 4 kgs. Till then there are no alarming symptoms to suspect any carcinoma of stomach. Therefore, we are of the view that not prescribing the endoscopy test from 26.2.2013 to 2.10.2013 cannot be considered as a negligent act done by RW.1, more so when he ordered ultrasound USG sonography 29.8.2013.

14). It is the contention of the complainant counsel that USG sonography is not a substitute for the endoscopy examination in detecting cancer. RW.1 clearly denied the same and stated that with USG Sonography, cancer can be detected. When we googled, it is observed that ultrasound scans use high frequency sound waves to create a picture of a part of a body and they can show up changes, including abnormal growths to diagnose a cancer or find out if it has spread. Doctors order an abdominal scan when they are concerned about symptoms such as belly pain, repeated vomitings, abnormal liver or kidney function tests, or swollen belly. The test can show them the size of the abdominal organs and help them check for injuries to or diseases of the organs. So, the argument of complainant counsel is also not having much force to contend that only endoscopy test is the "be all and end all". Prescribing USG sonography by RW.1 shows he is vigilant in treating the patient. It is also not the contention of PW.1 that, as USG Abdomen was found to be inferior to Endoscopy, the test was not conducted on the deceased. Taking all these discussions into consideration, we are of the view that there is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.