Consumer Case No. 70 of 2007


Shri Sheo Shankar Singh s/o late Devidayal Singh
R/o Qr. NO.1350, Street-28, Sector-IX/C, P.S.-Harla
Bokaro Steel City. Dist.- Bokaro.
Versus
1.Sri SAI Hospital, GG-8, City Centre, Sector-4, (Near Devi Cinema) Bokaro Steel City.Dist.-Bokaro.
2.Dr. Sujit, Doctor Incharge & Consultant of Sri SAI Hospital GG-8 City Centre, Sector-4(Near Devi Cinema) Bokaro Steel City, Dist.-Bokaro.
3.Dr. Avins, Doctor Incharge & Consultant of Sri SAI Hospital, GG-8 City Centre, Sector-4 (Near Devi Cinema) Bokaro Steel City, Dist.-Bokaro.
Before-
S.M.Alam, President
Vijay Bahadur Singh, Member
Shabnam Praveen, Member

Date of Judgment-: 20 April 2009
Date of case filing-: 03 December. 2007.
-: Judgment:-
The complainant has filed this case against the opposite parties and sought direction against them to pay Rs. 214083.50 cost of treatment from 28.12.2006 to 28.03.07 with interest @ 18% from 28.12.2006 till payment besides Rs. 500000/- as compensation and Rs. 10000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant.


2 Brief fact of the case is that the complainant felt severe pain in his abdomen and thereafter he went in the SAI Hospital at City Centre, Sector-IV, B.S.City on 28.12.2006 and on the strength of pathological and ultrasonography, gallstone was detected in the gall bladder of the complainant. The treating doctors of O.P. Hospital advised urgent operation of complainant. The complainant was admitted in the opposite party Hospital on 28.12.2006 vide Hospital No.10086, I.P. No.2769/2006. ON 28.12.2006 the complainant deposited Rs. 5000/- and on 02.01.2007 he further deposited Rs. 4000/- as advance money. On 28.12.2006 Gall Bladder open chotecystectomy was done upon complainant by the doctor of SAI Hospital. The complainant was hospitalized from 28.12.2006 up to 05.01.2007 in the Hospital. He was taking medicines as per the advice of the treating doctor. The complainant was discharged from SAI Hospital on 05.01.2007 and on the same day he paid the balance amount out of Rs. 16121/- to the SAI Hospital as operation fees and another treatment charges. The complainant also spent huge amount of several pathological test and examination during the pre post operation period. After discharge from hospital the complainant stayed with his son at Bokaro but he was surprising that some amount of pus started to discharge from the wound of said operation and the said matter was intimated to the doctor of SAI Hospital. The complainant again admitted on 07.01.2007 in the SAI Hospital for the treatment of Post Operation wound infection and where pus drained out and dressing done daily and he was released on 13.01.2007 during the said period the bill of treatment of Rs. 6737/- which was paid by the complainant. At the time of discharge the treating doctor told the complainant that operative would completely healed up and no such problem is arose in future. After discharge from Hospital on 13.01.2007 the complainant felt himself healthy to some extent but surprisingly after some days he felt severe pain in his abdomen and pus started to come out from the would of operative part. The complainant again went to SAI Hospital on 25.02.2007 for check up where he was admitted 3rd time on 28.02.2007 in the said hospital. It was a matter of great surprise that complainant gall bladder operated on 28.12.206 and the operative would was alive and discharging pus even in the last February,207 despite several treatment and intake of high dose of antibiotics as advised by treating doctor of SAI Hospital. The complainant was discharged on 27.02.2007 after several dressing and treatment by the opposite parties. The complainant paid Rs. 1760/- 3rd time to the SAI Hospital as bill raised by them. In this way the complainant remained under treatment in the said SAI Hospital since 28.12.2006 to 27.02.2007 and spent huge amount in his treatment including Hospital charge, cost of medicines and investigation etc. But in spite of spending so much money the operation was done by the opposite party Hospital did not give any relief and the lastly Doctors of SAI Hospital raised their hands and expressed their inability to treat the complainant because the health condition of the complainant was deteriorated and beyond the treatment of doctor of SAI Hospital. The complainant was in severe pain and mental agony due to negligent in treatment on the part of the opposite party as such he was under perpetual threat to his life and therefore, the complainant arranged money, went in Agarwal Clinic, Mumbai where he was admitted on 04.03.2007 for treatment of abdomen pain, discharge of pus from post operative would. Several test and investigation were done in Agarwal Clinic and the treatment of the complainant was started there. The wound healed up and the complainant was feeling relief to some extent and he was discharge on 13.03.2007 from the Agarwal Clinic, Mumbai. The complainant spent Rs. 28630/- in Agarwal Clinic since 09.03.2007 to 13.03.2007 besides Rs. 15000/- on medicines and test and misllenious expenses about of Rs. 7000/-. The complainant after discharge from said Clinic on 13.03.2007 stayed at Mumbai and he found himself healthy only for 4 days of 5 day of his discharge he once again felt pain and he was brought in Agarwal Clinic again on 18.03.2007 and admitted there for treatment on the advice of consulted in charge doctor J.B. Agarwal for thorough check up, investigation and examination were done and after proper investigation it was detected that gauge was left during gall bladder operation dated 28.12.2006 at SAI Hospital, Bokaro. Due to presence of gauge in abdomen of complainant his intestine badly infected and owing to that four perforal was detected in intestine of complainant. Due to presence of gauge in abdomen of complainant his intestine badly infected and owing to that four perforal was detected in intestine of complainant. In Agarwal Clinic all perforal were repaired in two layers and abdomen and intestine of complainant was washed by surgical method. The complainant deposited Rs. 66335/- in Agarwal Clinic in his treatment between the 18.03.2007 to 28.03.2007 and he also spent Rs. 33000/- on medicines and their investigation. However after discharge from Agarwal Clinic on 28.03.203 the life of the complainant was save on the strength of money and better skillful service of the Agarwal Clinic of Mumbai. In the light of above facts and circumstances, it appears that due to negligence and deficiency in medical treatment of SAI Hospital gauge was left in the abdomen of the complainant during his gall bladder operation on 28,.12.2006 and on account of that intestine of the complainant badly infected and four perforal occurred from which fecal matter and pus was releasing from the post operation wound of complainant. The complainant had given details of expenditure on account of the treatment in both the hospital at Bokaro and Mumbai.



3 The complainant had served legal notices on 28.05.2007 upon the opposite parties and mentioned there, that medical expenditure during operation dated 28.12.2006 and also demanded to refund the entire amount expend on treatment during 28.12.206 to 28.03.2007. The opposite parties No.1 had replied the said notice through his lawyer on 06.06.2007 but they did not show inclination to refund the said amount. Opposite party No.2 and 3 refused to receive legal notice intentionally. The complainant is a bonafied Consumer and cause of action arose on 28.12.2006 in the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum, hence the complainant is entitled to get the amount mentioned in his relief from the opposite parties.


4 Upon issuance of notices the opposite party No.1 appeared and filed its written statement. But opposite parties No.2 and 3 in spite of receipt the notice have not appeared in the case and did not file any written statement, hence the case against them preceded Ex-parte.


5 The written statement of the opposite party No.1 is that the claim of the complainant as against this opposite party is absolutely false and baseless and without any merit. However the opposite party admitted that the complainant was admitted in the opposite party Hospital for the operation on his gall bladder but he was discharged on 05.01.2007, the opposite party also admits that the complainant had deposited Rs. 5000/- at first as advance and subsequently Rs. 4000/- but denied to have any knowledge on the expenditure of Rs. 7000/- on medicines and other expense for investigation. The opposite party further admits that the complainant admitted again on 07.01.2007 and was discharge on 13.01.2007 he paid Rs. 1000/- only to this opposite party, and the remaining bill amount is still to be paid by him to this opposite party. It is pertinent to mentioned that the complainant did not pay Rs. 2870/- at time of discharge on 05.01.2007. The opposite party also admits that the complainant was admitted in the hospital on 25.02.2007 and was discharged on 27.02.2007 and had paid Rs. 1000/- only leaving of Rs. 760/- as balance to be paid by him later. In this way the complainant did not paid Rs. 6280/- to the opposite party which is liable to be paid by him. However the opposite party denied the claim of the complainant that he remained in the hospital from 28.`12.2006 to 27.02.2007. The complainant did not follow the instructions and direction of the treating doctor and consume the medicines properly and the opposite party was never complaint of any improper treatment by the complainant against the treating doctor either orally or in written and in that view of this matter the claim of the complainant can not sustained in the eye of law. The opposite party has not knowledge about the treatment of the complainant at Mumbai an on 04.03.2007 is discharged from there it has also got no knowledge about the expenditure stated to have been incurred by the applicant on this treatment at Mumbai.



6 Thus this opposite party in the background of the aforesaid facts & circumstances respectfully submits that there is no material worth the name in the four corners of the petition and there is also no iota of evidence that there was any lapse or lache on the part of this opposite party. It is also established beyond doubt that still the aforesaid balance amount is outstanding with the complainant. There is no assertion that this opposite party did not render proper care and service to the complainant. There is no assertion in the petition that he followed the instructions of the doctors and did consume proper medicine. There was no complaint of any sort form the side of the complainant to this opposite party during his treatment and therefore, the case of the complainant is legally not maintainable and is fit to be dismissed.



7 The complainant and opposite party No.1 have been heard. Opposite party No.2 and 3 have failed to appear and to argue their case. The entire case records and documents filed on behalf of the parties have been perused. It is observed that on 28.12.2006 the complainant under went gall bladder operation by the opposite parties doctors. The complainant was discharged on 05.01.2007. When pus started to discharge from the wound of the operated part, the complainant was again admitted on 07.01.2007 in the opposite party hospital where pus was drained out and dressing was done. The complainant was released on 13.01.2007. After some days the complainant felt pain in his abdomen and pus started to come out of the wound of the operated part. The complainant was admitted 3rd time in the same hospital on 25.02.2007 for necessary treatment of the Post operative complications. Again the alive wound and pus discharge where treated and the complainant was discharged on 27.02.2007 after dressing.



8 It is further observed that the complainant’s condition did not improve even after several treatment of his wound post operatively by the opposite parties doctors. The complainant then moved to Agrawal Clinic, Mumabi where he was admitted on 04.03.2007 for treatment of his abdominal pain, discharge of pus and faecal matter from the post operative wound. After test and investigation the treatment of the complainant was done there resulting in healing up the wound and relief to the complainant. The complainant was discharged on 13.03.2007. But on 5th day of his discharge the complainant felt severe pain in his abdomen and faecal matter started to discharge from his post operative wound. The complainant was admitted on 18.03.2007 in Agarwal Clinic, Mumbai where after proper investigation and examination it was detected that there were four perforations in his intestine. The perforation were repaired and intestine washed by surgical method. The complainant was released on 28.03.2007.


9 After going through the entire medical reports regarding the complainant’s treatment at Bokaro by the opposite parties doctors and also at Agarwal Clinic, Mumbai, we have come to the conclusion that the treatment of the post operative wound of the complainant by the opposite parties doctors was not done with due and proper care. But it has not been established that the perforations (four Numbers) in the intestine of the complainant was a result of his gall bladder operation on 28.12.2006 by the opposite parties doctors. In view of the above, we, therefore, hold that the opposite parties doctors have been negligent and deficient in service toward the complainant while treating his post operative wound. The opposite parties doctors are, hence held liable to pay relief to the complainant.


10 Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the opposite parties No.2 and 3 doctors are directed to pay jointly and severally Rs. 50000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) only to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order as compensation inclusive of cost of post operative wound treatment of the complainant at Bokaro and Mumbai mentioned above.