District Consumer Forum, Bokaro.

Consumer Case No. 61 of 2007



Rina Singh w/o Shri Suresh Chandra Singh

R/o Qr. No.-2011, Sector-XII/B, Bokaro Steel City.

Dist.- Bokaro.

Versus

1. Shanti Health Care Hospital

2. Dr. N.K. Sinha

Both R/o 157, Co-operative Colony, Bokaro Steel City.

Dist.- Bokaro.

Before-

S.M.Alam, President

Vijay Bahadur Singh, Member
Shabnam Praveen, Member



Date of Judgment-: 25 March, 2009

Date of case filing-: 21September, 2007

-: Judgment:-

The complainant has filed the present case against the opposite parties and sought direction against them to pay Rs. 14717/- which was charged as fee and various test etc. Rs. 18562/- towards expenses on treatment at Kolkata, Rs. 57807/- incurred by the complainant for treatment at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital at New Delhi, Rs. 50000/- for fooding and lodging and Rs. 50000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment to the complainant.

2 Brief fact of the case is that the complainant got herself examine by Dr. Arti Shukla on 09.02.2006. The said Dr. advised her some medicines and test including Ultrasonography and after going through the report of various tests, the complainant was referred by the said Doctor to Dr. N.K. Sinha (opposite party no.2). The complainant rushed to the opposite party no.2 where she was also gone under several test and after various examine test report, the opposite party .2 opined that the complainant was suffering from multiple small calculi in her gall bladder which was causing abdominal pain and advised for operation for removing calculi (Stones) from the Gall bladder of the complainant. The complainant was admitted on 15.08.2006 in Shanti Health Care Hospital (opposite party No.1) and she was operated upon on 16.08.2004 by Dr. N.K. Sinha and discharged on 25.08.2006. However after the said operation the complainant was suffered from Jaundice, the opposite party No.2 told the complainant that Jaundice is effect of medicines which where prescribed for post operational relief and assured that she would fully relieve from it within a few days but in spite of improvement, health of the complainant deteriorated and as such she again examined by Dr. N.K. Sinha on 30.06.2006 and blood test of the complainant was done which revealed that Jaundice has reached to 10.5% mg for which the opposite party no.2 prescribed some medicines but there was no improvement in the condition of the complainant. The complainant developed other complications like weakness, loss of apetite and sound sleep etc. and, therefore, she again went to the opposite party no.2 on 30.09.2006 on whom advised further test were conducted which indicated reduction in the level of Jaundice to 5.3% mg but there is no improvement in the conditions of the complainant. On 25.12.2006 the complainant again consulted the opposite party no.2 and she was advised certain test including Ultrasonography (HBS) and on 27.12.2006 the opposite party No.2 after examining the report of the said test referred the complainant to Dr. Om Tatia of ILS at Kolkata for treatment as because the opposite party no.2 was of the opinion that there was calculi measuring 9.10 mg in upper CBD, which required removal. Accordingly the complainant went to Kolkata and consulted Dr. Om Tantia and she was admitted in his Nursing Home on 05.01.2007 and number of test were conducted in which her Jaundice was found 21.3% and she was also suffering from anemia for which 3 units of blood were given to her. At the instructions of Dr. Tantia ERCP was done on 08.01.2007 and for MRCP, the complainant was sent to Susrta Clinic and Research Institute, Kolkata the report whereof revealed high CBD stricture just distal to the confluence of hepatic duct without any intratuminal alculi and a normal distal CBD. Dr. Tantia after going through the report of MRCP and ERCP referred the complainant to Doctor Adarsh Choudhary, Surgeon, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi for further management. The complainant was admitted on 14.01.2007 in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital were she was again operated on 16.01.2007 for type-2 benign billiary stricture post cholecystectomy and was discharged on 22.01.2007.

3 The complainant sent a legal notice on 22.02.207 to the opposite party no.2 narrating the fact and asked for payment of Rs. 200000/- towards her expenses and mental agony but the opposite party did not reply. Therefore, from the above fact it is apparent that the opposite party no.2 was negligent in diagnosis and treatment of the complainant which led to the development of various complications causing suffering of the complainant as well as unnecessary expenditure on the treatment of the complainant at Kolkata and New Delhi. Thus there is negligence and deficient in service on the part of the opposite party and hence the complainant is entitled to get the claim of her relief from the opposite parties.

4 Upon issuance of notice the opposite party appeared and filed their written statement. The written statement of the opposite party no.1 and 2 are common according to which the present case against the opposite parties is without any cause of action and is based on mere surmise and frivolous ground and the answering opposite parties have been unnecessary been dragged in the instant proceeding for no fault or latches on their part and is liable to be dismissed. The complainant came to the opposite party no.1 on 10.08.2006 with complaint of severe pain on right hypochondrium. She had undergone ultrasound the same day and was diagnosed as a case of cholelithiasis ie, stones in Gall Bladder by opposite party no.2. The complainant was put up on conservative treatment, the pain subsided, she was advised for surgery by opposite party no.2 and a date was fixed for surgery and was asked to get admitted at Shanti Health Care Hospital, a Hospital run by opposite party no.2. The complainant was discharged on 25.08.2006 after her sutures were removed and post operative medicines were prescribed on discharged ticket and was asked to come on 01.09.2006 for re-examine by opposite party no.2 but the complainant came on 30.08.2006 with yellowish discoloration of sclera, she was advised to undergo blood test which revealed that her jaundice was 10.5 mg for which she was given medicines. The complainant again came on 03.09.2006 and test was repeated and it was found that her jaundice had fallen to 5.3 mg as such she was advised for rest and further follow-up. But the complainant did not follow up opposite party no.2 for nearly four months and reported back again on 25.12.2006 with complaints of jaundice. She was advised to undergo blood test and Ultrasonography examination. The Ultrasonography examine revealed that there was stone in the common Bile Duct (CBD), which was causing jaundice. The complainant was operated by opposite party no.2 on 16.08.2006 for stone in goal bladder and according to USG report dated 26.12.2006 by Dr. R. N.Ray, MD. Consultant Radiologist revealed that there was stone measuring 9-10 mg in upper common Bile Duct. Since best possible treatment for stone in CBD is Endoscopic Retrograde Choloangio Pancreatography (ERCP) and the expertise for this procedure is not available in this region the complainant was referred to Dr. Om Tantiya, Kolkata for further treatment. At Kolkata she under went ERCP were it was found that she had tight “high up” BDS stricture which was not negotiable. In Kolkata the Dr. advised her to undergo MRCP which revealed that stricture of common hepatic duct, hence she was referred to Dr. Adarsh Choudhary at Sri Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi for further management where she under went Roux-en-y Hepaticojejunostomy.

5 The further statement of the opposite parties is that the complainant was operated upon on 16.08.2006 and the post operational period was uneventful, her sutures were removed and she was finally discharged on 25.08.2006 and at the time of discharged post operative medicines were prescribed to the complainant by opposite party no.2 and was also asked to come on 01.09.2006 for re-examination. So far other allegations against the opposite party is concerned it is submitted that the opposite party no.2 is the competent professional and he performs his duty as a professional man with proper care and attendance and in the best interest of the complainant. There is no documents or expert opinion to prove that the opposite party no.2 had adopted wrong line of treatment nor any doctor either at Kolkata or New Delhi opined that diagnosis and surgery done by the opposite party negligently. Simply because some part of treatment was done at other hospitals, it can not be said that opposite party no.2 was negligent in performing his duty. The opposite party has conducted more than 2000 cholecystectomy till now. Therefore, there is no question of any negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.2, so the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

6 The written statement of the opposite party no.3 which was subsequently added in the present case in brief is that the policy submitted by the opposite party No.2 is related to valid period from 05.02.2007 to 04.02.2008 where as the matter under referred to the period from August, 2006 to 25.06.2006 and there is no policy for the aforesaid period had been taken by the opposite party no.2. It is further stated that there is no proof that the opposite party no.2 committed negligence in providing medical aid and treatment to the complainant and in absence of any concrete proof of negligence on the ground of professional indemnity (Med.) of opposite party no.2 with the opposite party no.3 which is bad in law. The claim is not maintainable against the opposite party no.3 in any manor whatsoever and, therefore, the present complaint petition against the opposite party no.3 is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

7 We have heard both the parties and have perused the entire case records and documents filed on behalf of the parties. It is observed that the complainant was operated on 16.08.2006 by the opposite party no.2 at opposite party no.1 for removable of stone from the gall bladder after her thorough investigation including her Ultrasound test on 10.08.2006 and discharged on 25.08.2006. After the said operation the complainant was afflicted with jaundice for which she consulted the opposite party no.2 who advised her for ultrasonography. After seeing the ultrasonography report dated 26.12.2006 the complainant was referred by the opposite party No.2 to Dr. Om Tantia at Kolkata for further treatment, since vital facilities were not available at Bokaro. The complainant was then admitted in ILS multi specialty clinic for treatment by Dr. Om Tantia on 05.01.2007. ERCP and MRCP tests of the complainant were done at ILS clinic. After treatment there the complainant was again referred to Dr. Adarsh Choudhary at Sir Ganga Ram New Delhi where she was treated from 14.01.2007 to 22.01.2007.

8 Upon close scrutiny of the Medical Reports in respect of treatment of the complainant by the opposite party no. 2 including ultrasound test report dated 10.08.2006 of City Ultrasound 138, Co-operative colony, B.S.City, the ultrasonogrphy test report dated 26.12.2006 of MediScan Diagnostic centre 137, Co-operative Colony, B.S.City, Medical Reports of ILS Clinic of Kolkata and Medical Reports of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi, we have arrived at the conclusion that the affliction of Jaundice by the complainant was a fall out of the defective operation of the complainant by the opposite party no.2 for remove of stone from her goal bladder since the said operation led to presence of calculus measuring 9-10 mm and stricture in upper CBD.

9 In view of the above, we, therefore, hold that the opposite party no. 2 Dr. N.K. Sinha was negligent and deficient in service towards the complainant while doing the operation of removable of stone from her goal bladder at opposite party no.1. The above Doctor is insured for medical negligence with oriental insurance co. Ltd. who is opposite party no.3 in this case. The opposite parties are hence held liable to pay relief to the complainant.

10 Under the fact and circumstances of the case the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 100000/-(Rupees one lac) only to the complainant as compensation inclusive of her medical treatment expenses at Bokaro, Kolkata and New Delhi within 30 days from the date of this order.