1. Shavinder Kaur wife of Late Amandeep Singh;



2. Navkirat Singh (Minor) son of late Amandeep Singh under the guardianship of his mother Smt. Shavinder Kaur, both residents of Manshahia house, Court Road, Sangrur.

(Complainant)



Vs.



1. Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana through its Medical Superintendent/Director.



2. Department of Surgery, Unit No.3, Dayanand medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana through Dr. P.S. Nain Surgeon.



3. Department of Medical Oncology, Dayanand medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana through Dr. D.S. Sandhu Oncologist/Consultant.



4. M/s United Insurance Company Ltd., Savitri Complex No.1, First Floor, G.T. Road, Ludhiana (Punjab)

(Opposite parties)







O R D E R


1. Complainants in this complaint are wife and minor son of late Sh. Amandeep Singh. They have alleged death of Sh. Amandeep Singh due to medical negligence committed by doctor P.S. Nain of Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana (Op No.2). Consequently, by filing this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, have sought compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/- for mental agony, harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

2. As per case of the complainants Sh. Amandeep Singh was holding post of Chairman, Sangrur Improvement Trust. On 10.6.2006, was diagnosed for jaundice, for which took treatment and his health improved. Thereafter, he changed the physician and started taking treatment from Dr. Prabhjot Singh Sibia of Sangrur and thereafter from Dr. Ravinder Bansal of Sangrur. They prescribed many tests which were got done. Ultra Sound as advised was got done on 2.8.2006.


Thereafter, Sh. Amandeep Singh consulted Dr. Parmodh Mittal of Patiala who recommended and got conducted various tests on 2.8.2006. At that time there was some bleeding from gums of Sh. Amandeep Singh. Dr. Parmod Mittal referred him to chest consultant namely Dr. Rajinder Singh Bedi, who after examining opined him suffering from Lymphnodes and advised cytology test, which was got done. Thereafter, friends and family members of Sh. Amandeep Singh decided to get sophisticated treatment from DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana due to its reputation. On 13.9.2006 Sh. Amandeep Singh as taken to Dr. Devinder Singh Sandhu-OP No.3, doctor in DMC, Ludhiana and he referred the patient to Dr. P.S. Nain-OP No.2 of surgery department of DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana. Dr. P.S. Nain without examining the fitness for surgery and without conducting PTC test, performed surgery and extracted Auxiliary Lymphonode. Due to such surgery bleeding did not stop resulting in death of Sh. Amandeep Singh on 18.9.2006.


At the time of surgery by Dr. Nain, Sh. Amandeep Singh was not fit for the same due to his condition. Dr. Nain gave 2” x 2.5”cut under the arm of Sh. Amandeep Singh without considering that the bleeding will not stop and it may cause his death. He conducted no test before surgery. Though PT, PTI, INR and RBS tests were required to be performed beofore performing the surgery. No consent for surgery was taken. Before surgery Dr. Nain was required to go for biopsy but by not doing so he acted negligently. On account of such negligence Sh. Amandeep Singh lost his life, leaving complainants at the mercy of others.

3. opposite parties no.1 to 3 in joint written statement in totality have controverted the allegations of the complainants. They averred that complaint is vague, indefinite and lack material particulars, it is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and complaint filed with greed and to harass the opponents.


Further claimed that false and frivolous complaint is filed by the complainants. Because, proper care and treatment of the deceased was taken during the course of admission in the hospital. Patients are treated as per medical norms and complainants failed to state what ought to have been done by the doctors which was not done. They admitted that Sh. Amandeep Singh had got treatment before coming to DMC & Hospital from other doctors at Sangrur and Patiala. But denied that he belong to progressive family and held post of Chairman, Improvement Trust, Sangrur. Also denied that he was suffering from jaundice and after treatment his condition remained constant.


As per record, supplied by the complainants of Sibia Health Care Center, Sh. Amandeep Singh was alcoholic hepatitis and record of Bansal Hospital & Health Centre, Sangrur shows him suffering from jaundice 1-1/2 months, bleeding from gums x 3days. Dr. Bansal referred him to Dr. Parmod Mittal for ultra sound and that report dated 2.8.2006 showed enlargement of liver, spleen, abdomen and water in lungs. Dr. Parmod Mittal also diagnosed him alcoholic hepatitis underline cirrohosis. Report dated 12.9.2006 of Dr. Rajinder Singh also shows history of jaundice since three months who referred him to CT scan of Dr. Narula at Patiala. Pathology report dated 12.9.2006 qua the patient shows that he had Exudative Pleural Effusion, with florid atypical mesothelial cell proliferation. Reports of all the doctors suggested that he was suffering from cancer and consequently on 13.9.1006 consulted Dr. Nain-OP No.2.


who advised for admission for a day. Patient was admitted on 13.9.2006 at 3.15 P.M. and was discharged on the same day after taking lymph node biopsy from left auxillary side which was sent for hystopathological examination. Sh. Amandeep Singh was admitted on 13.9.2006 as chronic alcoholic with low grade fever with left axillary lymph node and was diagnosed to have Mesotheliom. He was discharged on the same day on 13.9.2006 in satisfactory condition. Again patient was admitted on 17.9.2006 under Dr. D.S. Sandhu (Oncologist) (OP No.3) in a decompensated state.


The patient was bleeding from every side (oral, popliteal fossa, lungs, pleural cavity, previous wound). The patient was in shock and after emergency treatment was shifted to medical ICU with diagnosis of ALD with cyrrohosis with portal hypertension. Patient expired on 18.9.2006 inspite of best efforts. Therefore, claimed that complainant has filed complaint on false allegations, there was no negligence on the part of treating doctors and best prevalent medical treatment was provided to the deceased. Therefore, complaint being false deserves dismissal.

4. OP-Insurance company of opposite party no.1-Hospital vide separate reply have also controverted the allegations of the complainant by denying any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties no.1 to 3. They claimed that Sh. Amandeep Singh was provided best possible treatment. The allegations are false and frivolous.

5. in order to prove their respective contentions’, both the parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents.

6. We have heard the arguments addressed by the ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the files, scanned the documents and other material placed on the record.

7. Negligence, which complainant contributed to Dr. P.S. Nain –OP No.2 , as contained in para no.3 (E & f) of the complaint is that Sh. Amandeep Singh was taken to DMC & Hospital on 13.9.2006, where Dr. D.S. Sandhu-OP No.2 referred him to Dr. P.S. Nain-OP No.3. Dr. Nain without examining fitness for surgery and without conducting PTC test performed surgery and extracted auxiliary lymphonode. Thereafter, bleeding did not stop resulting in death of Sh. Amandeep Singh on 18.9.2006. Claimed that Dr. Nain was negligent as Sh. Amandeep Singh was not fit for surgery and without considering his condition gave cut of 2” x 2.5” under the arm and no consent for it was taken.

8. If such allegations proved, may appear to such extent showing negligence on the part of opposite party no.3, but unfortunately, it appears that the complainants have misquoted the allegations qua such medical negligence in this paragraph. Impression conveyed in the pleadings of the complainant is that on 13.9.2006 after surgery, extracting auxiliary lymphonode, bleeding did not stop and consequently Sh. Amandeep Singh died on 18.9.2006.


It is withheld by the complainants that on 13.9.2006 Sh. Amandeep Singh after so called surgery was discharged same day from the DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana and subsequently again got admitted there on 17.9.2006 and then died on 18.9.2006. These aspects are fully established on the record. Ex.CW1/24 is receipt dated 13.9.2006 issued from the hospital of opposite party no.1 qua admission of Sh. Amandeep Singh. It shows that he was admitted in the hospital on 13.9.06, discharged same day and paid total amount of Rs.1646/-. Ex.CW1/25 is the copy of treatment advised to him on that day and it is conveyed by discharge summary that was operated on 13.9.2006 for L.N. Biopsy under left arm.

9. So, it is established that Sh. Amandeep Singh for biopsy was operated on 13.9.2006 and discharged same day. What happened to him after discharge from DMC till he again took admission as indoor patient in DMC & Hospital on 17.9.2006, we are groping in the dark as no version qua his condition is made by the complainants in this complaint. Suffice to say that from receipt Ex.CW1/26 and CW1/27 of DMC & Hospital, it is proved that Sh. Amandeep Singh again got admission in DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana and died on 18,.9.2006 as recorded in receipt Ex.CW1/28. Not only such record of the complainant but opposite parties have placed entire indoor case file of the patient on record. Ex.R.1 is copy of his admission file in the hospital on 13.9.2006.


This admission file also contains consent form dated 13.9.2006. Sh. Amandeep Singh had given consent for treatment and the same is attested by his friend. This belies allegation of the complainants that surgery on 13.9.2006 was conducted without consent of Sh.Amandeep Singh. Affidavit Ex.Rx of Dr. Sandeep Puri, Medical Superintendent-OP No.1, affidavit RY of Dr. Davinder Singh Sandhu-OP No.2 and affidavit RZ of Dr. Prabhdeep Singh Nain-OP3 go to show that biopsy on 13.9.2006 was conducted with consent of the patient and same day was discharged from the hospital.


It is mentioned in the hospital card of admission Ex.R1 that patient was suffering from cirrhosis and it was a case of chronic alcoholic . Dr. Nain had noted in his notes dated 13.9.2006 that patient was chronic alcoholic with low grade fever since 10 days and with left axillary lymphnode and finally cytology was done outside on 12.9.2006 and W.N.L. was also done on outside. It means Dr. Nain had considered reports of previous tests which were got done of his own at Sangrur and Patiala. After considering those reports, biopsy was done on 13.9.2006 and same day patient was discharged from the hospital.

10. Subsequently, Sh. Amandeep Singh got admission in DMC Hospital on 17.9.2006 where he died on 18.9.2006. Ex.R.2 is indoor patient record of Sh. Amandeep Singh. It is recorded in the history that the patient was having jaundice since three months, suffering from breathless, having oxilary L.N.S. He was given treatment. It is recorded at the time of admission on 17.9.2006 that it was a known case of alcoholic lever disease, had jaundice since three months and was bleeding at multiple sides of the body. Complainants, consequently are guilty of suppressing material particulars by withholding that on 13.9.2006 Sh. Amandeep Singh was discharged by opposite party and again got admission in DMC & Hospital on 17.9.2006. Rather, impression created in the complaint is that due to negligence in treatment on 13.9.2006, Sh. Amandeep Singh expired on 18.9.2006. Such averments on the part of complainants are totally untrue and false.

11. Complainants have admitted in compliant that on 10.6.2006 Sh.Amandeep Singh was diagnosed of jaundice and earlier took treatment from Dr. Prabhjot Singh Sibia at Sangrur and thereafter from Dr. Ravinder Bansal of Sangrur and ultra sound of abdomen, liver gallbladder, CBD, Pancarics, Spleen , Kidneys etc was done on 2.8.2006. Then consulted Dr. Parmod Mittal who recommended various tests as there was bleeding from gums. All tests as required were conducted and as advised by Dr. Parmod Mittal, consulted Dr. R.S. Bedi who diagnosed Sh. Amandeep Singh suffering from Lymphnodes, and recommended cytology test. Then on advise of family members and friends decided to take treatment in DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana. Record of such treatment taken prior to getting admission on 13.9.2006 in the hospital of OP No.1 is placed on record by the complainant as Ex. CW1/2 to CW22. Ex.CW1/23 is cystology report. On the basis of this report and other test reports, Sh. Amandeep Singh took admission in DMC &Hospital Ludhiana, where on 13.9.2006 only biopsy was done by extracting auxiliary lymphonode from left arm. No operation or surgery as claimed by the complainants was conducted on that day.

12. Hon’ble National Commission in case Saleemuddin & ors. Vs. Dr. Sunil Malhota reported in II 920060 CPJ 348 (NC) has held that biopsy is not a complete surgery. In that case biopsy was done for removal of piece of size of 2 x2 x 1 cm. and allegations were that surgery was done and not biopsy. Consequently due to surgery death occurred. In the instant case biopsy was done for extracting auxiliary lymphonode as per cystology report.

13. Complainants have failed to prove medical negligence on the part of any of the opposite parties. Neither any expert opinion is brought on the record to prove such negligence. Had bleeding after so called surgery on 13.9.2006 not stopped, Sh. Amandeep Singh would not have been discharged by the opposite parties and if they insisted for discharge, complainant would have declined such request. What happened after discharge on 13.9.2006 till his admission again on 17.9.2006, there is nothing on the record. Appears that as the patient was suffering from alcoholic cirrhosis and when again admitted on 17.9.1006 was bleeding from different parts of the body, meaning thereby blood was not clotting at the wounds due to he being suffering from cirrhosis and liver damaged. It resulted in his death. OP doctors in these circumstances can not be termed guilty of providing negligent treatment to Sh. Amandeep Singh.

14. Sequel to the discussions, complainants have miserably failed to bring home the allegations of medical negligence on the part of OP doctors. Hence, finding no merit, the complaint is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record.

1. Shavinder Kaur wife of Late Amandeep Singh;



2. Navkirat Singh (Minor) son of late Amandeep Singh under the guardianship of his mother Smt. Shavinder Kaur, both residents of Manshahia house, Court Road, Sangrur.

(Complainant)



Vs.



1. Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana through its Medical Superintendent/Director.



2. Department of Surgery, Unit No.3, Dayanand medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana through Dr. P.S. Nain Surgeon.



3. Department of Medical Oncology, Dayanand medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana through Dr. D.S. Sandhu Oncologist/Consultant.



4. M/s United Insurance Company Ltd., Savitri Complex No.1, First Floor, G.T. Road, Ludhiana (Punjab)

(Opposite parties)






O R D E R

1. Complainants in this complaint are wife and minor son of late Sh. Amandeep Singh. They have alleged death of Sh. Amandeep Singh due to medical negligence committed by doctor P.S. Nain of Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana (Op No.2). Consequently, by filing this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, have sought compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/- for mental agony, harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

2. As per case of the complainants Sh. Amandeep Singh was holding post of Chairman, Sangrur Improvement Trust. On 10.6.2006, was diagnosed for jaundice, for which took treatment and his health improved. Thereafter, he changed the physician and started taking treatment from Dr. Prabhjot Singh Sibia of Sangrur and thereafter from Dr. Ravinder Bansal of Sangrur. They prescribed many tests which were got done. Ultra Sound as advised was got done on 2.8.2006. Thereafter, Sh. Amandeep Singh consulted Dr. Parmodh Mittal of Patiala who recommended and got conducted various tests on 2.8.2006. At that time there was some bleeding from gums of Sh. Amandeep Singh. Dr. Parmod Mittal referred him to chest consultant namely Dr. Rajinder Singh Bedi, who after examining opined him suffering from Lymphnodes and advised cytology test, which was got done.


Thereafter, friends and family members of Sh. Amandeep Singh decided to get sophisticated treatment from DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana due to its reputation. On 13.9.2006 Sh. Amandeep Singh as taken to Dr. Devinder Singh Sandhu-OP No.3, doctor in DMC, Ludhiana and he referred the patient to Dr. P.S. Nain-OP No.2 of surgery department of DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana. Dr. P.S. Nain without examining the fitness for surgery and without conducting PTC test, performed surgery and extracted Auxiliary Lymphonode. Due to such surgery bleeding did not stop resulting in death of Sh. Amandeep Singh on 18.9.2006.


At the time of surgery by Dr. Nain, Sh. Amandeep Singh was not fit for the same due to his condition. Dr. Nain gave 2” x 2.5”cut under the arm of Sh. Amandeep Singh without considering that the bleeding will not stop and it may cause his death. He conducted no test before surgery. Though PT, PTI, INR and RBS tests were required to be performed beofore performing the surgery. No consent for surgery was taken. Before surgery Dr. Nain was required to go for biopsy but by not doing so he acted negligently. On account of such negligence Sh. Amandeep Singh lost his life, leaving complainants at the mercy of others.

3. opposite parties no.1 to 3 in joint written statement in totality have controverted the allegations of the complainants. They averred that complaint is vague, indefinite and lack material particulars, it is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and complaint filed with greed and to harass the opponents. Further claimed that false and frivolous complaint is filed by the complainants. Because, proper care and treatment of the deceased was taken during the course of admission in the hospital. Patients are treated as per medical norms and complainants failed to state what ought to have been done by the doctors which was not done.


They admitted that Sh. Amandeep Singh had got treatment before coming to DMC & Hospital from other doctors at Sangrur and Patiala. But denied that he belong to progressive family and held post of Chairman, Improvement Trust, Sangrur. Also denied that he was suffering from jaundice and after treatment his condition remained constant. As per record, supplied by the complainants of Sibia Health Care Center, Sh. Amandeep Singh was alcoholic hepatitis and record of Bansal Hospital & Health Centre, Sangrur shows him suffering from jaundice 1-1/2 months, bleeding from gums x 3days. Dr. Bansal referred him to Dr. Parmod Mittal for ultra sound and that report dated 2.8.2006 showed enlargement of liver, spleen, abdomen and water in lungs.


Dr. Parmod Mittal also diagnosed him alcoholic hepatitis underline cirrohosis. Report dated 12.9.2006 of Dr. Rajinder Singh also shows history of jaundice since three months who referred him to CT scan of Dr. Narula at Patiala. Pathology report dated 12.9.2006 qua the patient shows that he had Exudative Pleural Effusion, with florid atypical mesothelial cell proliferation. Reports of all the doctors suggested that he was suffering from cancer and consequently on 13.9.1006 consulted Dr. Nain-OP No.2. who advised for admission for a day. Patient was admitted on 13.9.2006 at 3.15 P.M. and was discharged on the same day after taking lymph node biopsy from left auxillary side which was sent for hystopathological examination. Sh. Amandeep Singh was admitted on 13.9.2006 as chronic alcoholic with low grade fever with left axillary lymph node and was diagnosed to have Mesotheliom.


He was discharged on the same day on 13.9.2006 in satisfactory condition. Again patient was admitted on 17.9.2006 under Dr. D.S. Sandhu (Oncologist) (OP No.3) in a decompensated state. The patient was bleeding from every side (oral, popliteal fossa, lungs, pleural cavity, previous wound). The patient was in shock and after emergency treatment was shifted to medical ICU with diagnosis of ALD with cyrrohosis with portal hypertension. Patient expired on 18.9.2006 inspite of best efforts. Therefore, claimed that complainant has filed complaint on false allegations, there was no negligence on the part of treating doctors and best prevalent medical treatment was provided to the deceased. Therefore, complaint being false deserves dismissal.

4. OP-Insurance company of opposite party no.1-Hospital vide separate reply have also controverted the allegations of the complainant by denying any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties no.1 to 3. They claimed that Sh. Amandeep Singh was provided best possible treatment. The allegations are false and frivolous.

5. in order to prove their respective contentions’, both the parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents.

6. We have heard the arguments addressed by the ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the files, scanned the documents and other material placed on the record.

7. Negligence, which complainant contributed to Dr. P.S. Nain –OP No.2 , as contained in para no.3 (E & f) of the complaint is that Sh. Amandeep Singh was taken to DMC & Hospital on 13.9.2006, where Dr. D.S. Sandhu-OP No.2 referred him to Dr. P.S. Nain-OP No.3. Dr. Nain without examining fitness for surgery and without conducting PTC test performed surgery and extracted auxiliary lymphonode. Thereafter, bleeding did not stop resulting in death of Sh. Amandeep Singh on 18.9.2006. Claimed that Dr. Nain was negligent as Sh. Amandeep Singh was not fit for surgery and without considering his condition gave cut of 2” x 2.5” under the arm and no consent for it was taken.

8. If such allegations proved, may appear to such extent showing negligence on the part of opposite party no.3, but unfortunately, it appears that the complainants have misquoted the allegations qua such medical negligence in this paragraph. Impression conveyed in the pleadings of the complainant is that on 13.9.2006 after surgery, extracting auxiliary lymphonode, bleeding did not stop and consequently Sh. Amandeep Singh died on 18.9.2006. It is withheld by the complainants that on 13.9.2006 Sh. Amandeep Singh after so called surgery was discharged same day from the DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana and subsequently again got admitted there on 17.9.2006 and then died on 18.9.2006. These aspects are fully established on the record. Ex.CW1/24 is receipt dated 13.9.2006 issued from the hospital of opposite party no.1 qua admission of Sh. Amandeep Singh. It shows that he was admitted in the hospital on 13.9.06, discharged same day and paid total amount of Rs.1646/-. Ex.CW1/25 is the copy of treatment advised to him on that day and it is conveyed by discharge summary that was operated on 13.9.2006 for L.N. Biopsy under left arm.

9. So, it is established that Sh. Amandeep Singh for biopsy was operated on 13.9.2006 and discharged same day. What happened to him after discharge from DMC till he again took admission as indoor patient in DMC & Hospital on 17.9.2006, we are groping in the dark as no version qua his condition is made by the complainants in this complaint. Suffice to say that from receipt Ex.CW1/26 and CW1/27 of DMC & Hospital, it is proved that Sh. Amandeep Singh again got admission in DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana and died on 18,.9.2006 as recorded in receipt Ex.CW1/28. Not only such record of the complainant but opposite parties have placed entire indoor case file of the patient on record. Ex.R.1 is copy of his admission file in the hospital on 13.9.2006. This admission file also contains consent form dated 13.9.2006. Sh. Amandeep Singh had given consent for treatment and the same is attested by his friend.


This belies allegation of the complainants that surgery on 13.9.2006 was conducted without consent of Sh.Amandeep Singh. Affidavit Ex.Rx of Dr. Sandeep Puri, Medical Superintendent-OP No.1, affidavit RY of Dr. Davinder Singh Sandhu-OP No.2 and affidavit RZ of Dr. Prabhdeep Singh Nain-OP3 go to show that biopsy on 13.9.2006 was conducted with consent of the patient and same day was discharged from the hospital. It is mentioned in the hospital card of admission Ex.R1 that patient was suffering from cirrhosis and it was a case of chronic alcoholic . Dr. Nain had noted in his notes dated 13.9.2006 that patient was chronic alcoholic with low grade fever since 10 days and with left axillary lymphnode and finally cytology was done outside on 12.9.2006 and W.N.L. was also done on outside. It means Dr. Nain had considered reports of previous tests which were got done of his own at Sangrur and Patiala. After considering those reports, biopsy was done on 13.9.2006 and same day patient was discharged from the hospital.

10. Subsequently, Sh. Amandeep Singh got admission in DMC Hospital on 17.9.2006 where he died on 18.9.2006. Ex.R.2 is indoor patient record of Sh. Amandeep Singh. It is recorded in the history that the patient was having jaundice since three months, suffering from breathless, having oxilary L.N.S. He was given treatment. It is recorded at the time of admission on 17.9.2006 that it was a known case of alcoholic lever disease, had jaundice since three months and was bleeding at multiple sides of the body. Complainants, consequently are guilty of suppressing material particulars by withholding that on 13.9.2006 Sh. Amandeep Singh was discharged by opposite party and again got admission in DMC & Hospital on 17.9.2006. Rather, impression created in the complaint is that due to negligence in treatment on 13.9.2006, Sh. Amandeep Singh expired on 18.9.2006. Such averments on the part of complainants are totally untrue and false.

11. Complainants have admitted in compliant that on 10.6.2006 Sh.Amandeep Singh was diagnosed of jaundice and earlier took treatment from Dr. Prabhjot Singh Sibia at Sangrur and thereafter from Dr. Ravinder Bansal of Sangrur and ultra sound of abdomen, liver gallbladder, CBD, Pancarics, Spleen , Kidneys etc was done on 2.8.2006. Then consulted Dr. Parmod Mittal who recommended various tests as there was bleeding from gums. All tests as required were conducted and as advised by Dr. Parmod Mittal, consulted Dr. R.S. Bedi who diagnosed Sh. Amandeep Singh suffering from Lymphnodes, and recommended cytology test. Then on advise of family members and friends decided to take treatment in DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana. Record of such treatment taken prior to getting admission on 13.9.2006 in the hospital of OP No.1 is placed on record by the complainant as Ex. CW1/2 to CW22. Ex.CW1/23 is cystology report. On the basis of this report and other test reports, Sh. Amandeep Singh took admission in DMC &Hospital Ludhiana, where on 13.9.2006 only biopsy was done by extracting auxiliary lymphonode from left arm. No operation or surgery as claimed by the complainants was conducted on that day.

12. Hon’ble National Commission in case Saleemuddin & ors. Vs. Dr. Sunil Malhota reported in II 920060 CPJ 348 (NC) has held that biopsy is not a complete surgery. In that case biopsy was done for removal of piece of size of 2 x2 x 1 cm. and allegations were that surgery was done and not biopsy. Consequently due to surgery death occurred. In the instant case biopsy was done for extracting auxiliary lymphonode as per cystology report.

13. Complainants have failed to prove medical negligence on the part of any of the opposite parties. Neither any expert opinion is brought on the record to prove such negligence. Had bleeding after so called surgery on 13.9.2006 not stopped, Sh. Amandeep Singh would not have been discharged by the opposite parties and if they insisted for discharge, complainant would have declined such request. What happened after discharge on 13.9.2006 till his admission again on 17.9.2006, there is nothing on the record. Appears that as the patient was suffering from alcoholic cirrhosis and when again admitted on 17.9.1006 was bleeding from different parts of the body, meaning thereby blood was not clotting at the wounds due to he being suffering from cirrhosis and liver damaged. It resulted in his death. OP doctors in these circumstances can not be termed guilty of providing negligent treatment to Sh. Amandeep Singh.

14. Sequel to the discussions, complainants have miserably failed to bring home the allegations of medical negligence on the part of OP doctors. Hence, finding no merit, the complaint is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record.

1.Lachhman Singh aged 42 years son of Sh.Tehal Singh, Ludhiana.

2.Lovepreet Singh aged 13 years (Minor) through his next friend and guardian his father Sh.Lachhman Singh

3.Harpreet Singh aged 12 years (Minor) through his next friend and guardian his father Sh.Lachhman Singh.

All residents of Village Daulewala Kalan, P.O. Kaina (Dharamkot) District Moga.

….Complainant.

Versus



1- Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana Dr.Gagandeep Singh.

2- Dr.Gagandeep Singh, Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana.

….Opposite parties.





O R D E R







1- In this complaint qua medical negligence by OP2 a doctor in the hospital of OP1, the matter in view of direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Martin F. D’Souza Vs. Mohd. Ishfaq, civil appeal no.3541 of 2002 decided on 17.2.2009 was referred to Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Ludhiana, alongwith medical record of Smt.Jaswinder Kaur. The said Civil Surgeon was requested to constitute board of specialized doctors for examinations of the medical record and to opine whether there is any medical negligence in treatment of Smt.Jaswinder Kaur by treating doctor of DMC, Ludhiana.

2- Medical Board has furnished report dated 17.02.2009, report of doctors certified that treating doctors in DMC, Ludhiana & Hospital has followed the standard diagnostic and treatment protocols for treating Smt.Jaswinder Kaur and there is no negligence and wrong treatment was given to the patient by said doctor.

3- In view of the aforesaid report dated 17.06.2009, it is apparent that there is no deficiency in treatment of Smt.Jaswinder Kaur in the hospital of OP1. Therefore, we do not admit this complaint, as no material has come on record, to show negligence of OP doctor. Therefore, complaint is not admitted. Consequently, the same is dismissed. Copy of order be supplied to the complainant. File be consigned after registration.





Complainant consulted ophthalmology section of opposite party no.1 hospital, where his eyes were examined by opposite party no.2 Dr. Sumeet Chopra. The doctor diagnosed the disease as ISC L/E and advised operation. Complainant got admitted on 16.1.2007 and after operation, was discharged on 17.1.2007. He was operated for surgery. Thereafter in routine, visited opposite parties no.1 & 2, as outdoor patient and complained regarding low vision of eyesight, which occurred despite operation. Opposite party changed medicines. He had been complaining losing eyesight, to which no heed was paid by opposite party and as such, he has become blind, due to negligence of opposite parties. Consequently, this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for compensation of Rs.5 lacs.

2- Opposite parties no.1 & 2 claimed that complaint lacks material particulars and no deficiency in service on their part, is alleged by the complainant. Admitted that complainant was diagnosed of immature senile cataract with central corneal opacity of left eye. He underwent cataract surgery on 17.1.2007. Surgery was uneventful, with no complications. On first post-operative day, patient’s visual activity was 6/36. Had corneal edema and put on antibiotics and prescribed eye-drops. After one month of operation, his corneal edema was still persisting, so, possible need for Keratoplasty was explained. Subsequently, complainant underwent Keratoplasty on 10.12.2007 from Dr. G.S. Bajwa, Professor and Head of eye department. Averred that in case of operation for cataract corneal edema and bullous, Keratoplasty may occur. There was no negligence on part of opposite doctor, or was observed by Dr. G.S. Bajwa, when second operation was conducted. Hence, complaint is not maintainable.

3- Opposite party no.3, Insurance Company of opposite parties no.1 & 2, have also disputed and denied allegations of the complainant, by way of filing separate written statement.

4- Parties adduced evidence in support of the claims, by way of affidavits and documents. We have heard ld. counsel for parties and have also scanned the documents and other material placed on the file carefully.

5- Complainant has based his allegations, relying on own affidavit Ex.CA1 and Ex.C1 & Ex.C2 discharge summary of opposite party hospital. Whereas, opposite party have placed on the record, extract from entire case file and treatment of the complainant, copy of which is Ex.R1. As Ex.R1 is the complete record of treatment of the complainant, so we would be referring to this record only, without touching one or two pages of the discharge summary filed by the complainant.

6- Complainant consulted opposite party, due to low vision of left eye and certain medicines were prescribed on 16.1.2007. After obtaining his consent, was operated for left eye cataract on 17.1.2007 and discharged. Mentioned that he was discharged in satisfactory condition and was advised regularly follow up in the Eye OPD. After operation, corneal edema (swelling) was noticed and to remove the same, medicines were administered despite which, edema persisted, as per findings dated 13.2.2007. Then suggested for Keratoplasty of corneal edema persisted and the same was explained to the complainant.

7- Again, complainant got admission in hospital on 10.12.2007 and was discharged on 13.12.2007. He was diagnosed Keratoplasty bullous left eye. Second operation in December, 2007 in hospital of opposite party, was performed by Dr. G.S. Bajwa. Dr. Bajwa in his prescription and notes, never opined that Keratoplasty was required to be done, due to negligence in operation of cataract by earlier doctor. In fact, complainant has not led any expert evidence, to show that opposite party no.2 was negligent while removing cataract from his left eye or due to his negligence, edema occurred and persisted for long. On this ratio, we refer ourselves to a case reported as Ms Rohini Devi Vs H.S. Chudavat & Anr. 2002(1) CLT-173(NC).

8- In case of medical negligence, complainant is required to prove, by cogent evidence that doctor treated him negligently. In support of this, we refer ourselves to a case decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as Martin F. D’Souza Vs. Mohd. Ishfaq 1 (2009) CPJ 32 (Supreme Court). Hon’ble Apex court in that case has led general principles of medical negligence. In the words of their Lordships “A medical practitioner is not liable to be held negligent simply because things went wrong from mischance or misadventure or through an error of judgment in choosing one reasonable course of treatment in preference to another. He would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field. For instance, he would be liable if he leaves a surgical gauze inside the patient after an operation vide A****rao Haribhau Khodwa & Others Vs, State of Maharashtra & Others, AIR 1996 SC 2377, or operates on the wrong part of the body, and he would be also criminally liable if he operates on someone for removing an organ for illegitimate trade.”

9- In another case titled as State of Punjab Vs. Shiv Ram & Ors. 2005 (3) Apex Criminal 268 (Supreme Court), their Lordships have held that “A professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings: (i) either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed, (2) or, he did not exercise, with reasonable competence in the given case, the skill which he did possess. Further their Lordships concluded that unless negligence is established, primary liability can not be fastened on the medical practitioner.

10- Now coming to the present case, whether corneal edema, after cataract operation of left eye, was on account of negligent treatement by opposite party. In medical literature of American Academy of Ophthalmology, under “Head Lens and Cataract”, it is recorded that complication rates of cataract surgery, are low. In a meta-analysis of 90 published studies of cataract surgery outcomes, less than 0.5% of eyes developed endophthalmitis or bullous keratopathy, less than 1% developed retinal detachment. In case of “Corneal Edema”, stated that they may occur in immediate post operative period. The incidence is higher in eyes with pre existing corneal endothelial dysfunction. Edema is most often caused by a combination of mechanical trauma, prolonged intraocular irrigation, inflammation and elevated IOP, resulting in acute endothelial decompensation with an increase in corneal thickness. It generally resolves in 4-6 weeks, following surgery.

11- Similarly, Ld. Authors Myron Yanoff and Jay S Duker in their papers “Ophthalmology”, have described post operative complications and the factors predisposing to corneal edema following cataract surgery which include (i) prior endothelial disease or cell loss; (ii) intraoperative mechanical endothelial trauma; (iii) excessive postoperative inflammation; and (iv) prolonged postoperative elevation of intraocular pressure (IOP). However, mentioned that corneal edema may take upto about 3 months and advisable to wait at least this long prior to recommending penetrating keratoplasty.

12- It is, as such, clear from the medical literature that corneal edema generally occurs, due to reasons, as discussed by the ld. Authors in their respective books and papers. If after cataract operation of the complainant, corneal edema occurred, opposite party can not be blamed for it. For corneal edema, he had administered and prescribed medicines. There is no material on the record that opposite party wrongly prescribed and administered such medicines to the complainant, to remove corneal edema.

13- However, on behalf of complainant, argued that loss of vision was due to negligence of opposite party and consequently, opposite party would be liable for compensation. In support, referred case reported as S.S. Vats(through LRs) Vs Avtar Singh Gill (Dr.) 2008(3)CLT-704 (Delhi State Commission) and Sarwat Ali Khan Vs Prof. (Dr.) R. Gogi & Ors. 2007(3) CLT-40(NC).

14- In case S.S. Vats (through LRs) Vs Avtar Singh Gill (Dr.) supra, there was a clear finding that deformity in the eye surgery was due to shortcomings or imperfections in the operation.

15- Whereas in case Sarwat Ali Khan Vs Prof. (Dr.) R. Gogi & Ors, it was proved that the doctor wasn’t maintaining proper equipment and other material, which was required before and after the operation. Whereas, in the instant case, there is no allegation that opposite party had no proper apparatus, to conduct cataract operation or that the doctor was negligent or imperfect, in doing his duty. Therefore, these authorities will have no bearing to the case in hand.

13- Also, Dr. G.S. Bajwa, who subsequently, in December, 2007, conducted operation for bullous keratoplasty, never found any fault with the treatment provided to the complainant by opposite party no.2. Complainant has also not examined any expert, to bring home his point that opposite party no.2 was negligent in treating him or that loss of left eye vision of complainant, was on account of negligence committed by opposite party no.2. Therefore, finding no merits in the complaint, the same is dismissed. Parties left to bear own costs. Copy of order be provided to the parties free of cost. File be completed and consigned to record room.

nobody good here docters and all staff