Orissa

Sundargarh II

CC/156/2017

Smt. Manashi Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Sunil Nanda - Opp.Party(s)

Sri P.K Jena

03 May 2024

ORDER

IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

SUNDARGARH-II, ROURKELA

Consumer Complaint No. 156   OF   2017

             Present:       Sri Rajesh Prasad, President

                                 Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member

 

            Smt. Manasi Sahoo

            Wife of Sri Ishwar Kumar Sahoo, Resident of Laxmipalli,

            Golghar, Sector-05, Po: Rourkela-02, Ps: Sector-7,

            Dist: Sundargarh, Odisha.

 

                                                                        ….                   Complainant

                                                Versus

 

1. Dr. Sunil Nanda, M.S. (Obst. &Gynee).

Shop No.9, Infront of RGH, STI Chowk, Po: Rourkela-4,

            Ps: Raghunathpalli, Dist: Sundagarh, Odisha.

2. Rajasthan Seva Sadan Hospital,

( A Unit of Rajasthan Parishad) EM Block, Basanti Nagar,

            Po: Rourkela-12, Ps: Uditnagar, Dist: Sundargarh, Odisha.

3. The Divisional Manger,

United India insurance Company Ltd.

Divisional Office Rourkela, Uditnagar, Po: Rourkela-12.

Ps: Uditnagar, Dist: Sundargarh, Odisha.

 

                                                            ….Opposite Parties.

 

For the Complainant         :           Sri P.K.Jena,    Sri K.Ravi, Miss.      Sunika

                                                      Kumari Singh, and A.K.Mandal,  Advocates .

For the OP    No.1               :         Exparte

For the OP No.2                 :          Sri R.P.Pattnaik, Advocate

For the OP No.3                 :          Sri B.N.Padhiary, Advocate

Date of filing                      :          04.10.2019

Date of hearing                   :         02.02.2024

Date of Judgement             :          03.05.2024

 

                                                                                                  JUDGEMENT

Sri Rajesh Prasad: President:

Brief facts of the case is that the Complainant was developed some gynaec problem of irregular menstrual cycles and excessive bleeding for which she consulted the OP No.1 in his clinic on 10.10.2015. The OP No.1 diagnosed the problem of the Complainant as DUB and advised for the removal of Uterus and advised her that he will carry out laparosecopic operation and asked her to get herself admitted in th OP No.2 Hospital. Accordingly, the complainant admitted in the OP No.2 Hospital on 14.10.2015 as indoor patient vide Regd.No. 1724/15-16 and after performing all clinical and pathological investigation the OP No.1 operated the complainant and removed her uterus on 16.10.2015 through laparescopic operation and  thereafter the complainant was remained  in the hospital as indoor patient and was discharged on 20.05.2015 evening with an advice to review on 25.10.2015. For the above operation the complainant paid a sum of Rs.26,426/- only towards the fee of OP No.1, OT charge and other incidental charges to the OP No.2 and the OP No.2 granted money receipt thereof to the complainant. After 5 days of discharge from the Hospital the complainant was developed a problem of continuous discharge of urine through vagina for which she contacted the OP No.1 and after thorough check up and several X-rays of the complainant as per the advice of the OP No.1, the OP No.1 could not able to diagnose the reason for such unwarranted flow of urine the health of the complainant was deteriorated  day by day for which the complainant consulted the OP No.1 for treatment and the OP No.1 advised her to have a check-up by Dr.P.K.Mishra, Urologist who was visiting Hi-Tech Medical College and Hospital, Rourkela and accordingly the OP No.1 took the complainant to Dr.P.K.Mishra for advice. Dr.P.K.Mishra Urologist after thorough examination of the complainant found that  the urine line of the complainant has been cut and he advised for another operation of the complainant after 2 months. Accordingly, Dr.P.K.Mishra, Urologist had given 7^th December, 2015 for further operation of the complainant. In the meantime before the 2^nd operation, the health of the complainant deteriorated and she became very weak and unable to move in her own and she was not in a position to even attend the call of nature without being assisted by her husband. As per the consultation of the OP No.1 and advice of Dr.P.K.Mishra, Urologist the complainant met Dr.A.G.Samal, Super Speciality Hospital, Civil Township, Rourkela on 05.12.2015 and after all preliminary clinical and pathological tests the complainant was  admitted to super speciality hospital, Civil Town Ship, Rourkela on 06.12.2015. On the said date Dr.P.K.Mishra, Uroligist and Dr.A.G.Samal conducted a major operations under General Anaesthesia of the complainant  and connected the urine pipe of the complainant by a stay pipe and after the said operation she was discharged from the said Hospital on 14.12.2015 with an advice to remove the stay pipe after 3 months by another operation. That, in the above operation the complainant incurred a total sum of Rs.46,123/- only. As per the advice the complainant again admitted to Super Speciality Hospital, Rourkelaon  29.06.2016for removal of stay pipe (DJS removal) and she had undergone operations for the same and remain as indoor patient till 01.03.2016 and this time the complainant incurred a sum of Rs.6,332/- only. Due to the negligence of the OP No.1 the urine pipe of the complainant was cut and she suffered physically, mentally and financially and the same is still continuing. After all the treatments when the complainant met the OP No.1and  apprised him about his negligence OP No.1  told her that he had asked her the OP NO.2 to pay the expenses sicne there operating instruments were malfunctioning for which the urine pipe of the complainant was cut during the process of laparoscopic operation of uterus and asked her to go and demand the money to the OP No.2. The complainant sent a demand notice to the OP No.1 and 2 through her Advocate on 25.05.2017 by Regd. Post with A.D. Both the OP received the said demand notice and the OP No.1 replied the said notice which is not acceptable and intimated therein that he is having a insurance cover under the OP No.3 with policy No.260600/46/14/35/00000131 for the year,2014-15 which will take care of the claim. Under the above disclosure of the OP No.1 the OP No.3 has been made party and is liable to pay the compensation to the complainant under the contract of professional indemnity with the OP No.1. The OP No.2 replied the said notice on 14.06.2017 after much delay simply denying the liability thereby caused deficiency in service having received the cost of the OT and other charges towards the operation from the complainant. That in the aforesaid facts and circumstantes all the OPs is liable to pay the compensation to the complainant jointly and severally for causing deficiency in service and being negligent in their part. The complainant prays that the OPs may be directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- ( Rupees twenty lakhs) only towards compensation mental and physical agony as well as financial loss jointly and severally to the complainant. Hence, this case.

            The OPs are served with notice. OP No.1 despite receipt of notice of this Commission did not appear or file written version as such stand exparte. The OP No.2 appeared through his Advocate Sri R.P.Pattnaik and others Advocate but did not file written version or participated in the hearing. The OP No.3 appeared through his Advocate filed the written statement.

            The OP No.3 submits in the written statement that there is no cause of action against this OP. It is submitted that the policy is issued with terms and conditions. The case of complainant does not cover under the policy issued. This OP is unnecessarily impleaded in this  case. This OP is not liable to pay any cost compensation as prayed in the petition.

            The OP No.3 also filed the written argument and stated that there is no case against this OP. No.3. The Complainant was initial treated with Dr.Sunil Nanda in his clinic and during treatment she was advised to conduct operation laporoscopic in the Hospital of the OP No.2. She was admitted in the Hospital and was discharged after her operation. The Hospital has given only medical assistance and OT for conduting the operation by the OP No.1. There was no any complicacy during the operation and also during her admission to discharge. The Policy is issued only covering the doctors treating during hospitalization if in case she dies during the treatment and during the operation. Dr. Nanda was not in the regular employment of the OP No.2 and only he hired OT for operation and room to stay of his patient. The said Doctor was not overed under the policy issued to the Hospital. The present case of the complainant doe not cover under the policy issued. That, in any case this insurance company was not informed before or after the hospitalization of the patient by the OP No.2. That, the doctor treated the only hiring the OT of OP No.2 and the nature of the operation laporoscopic. There is no chance of the negligence of the Hospital. The allegation that the urine pipe was cut that is  not proved by the complainant. Further, no doctor has been examined in this case or has filed affidavit to prove that there was wrong in doing the treatment except allegation made by the complainant which is self speaking story. The Complainant was admitted in the Super Speciality Hospital for her treatment after some days but not immediately after the discharge from the Hospital nor it was referred case for admission in the super specialist Hospital which would attract the negligence of the Hospital. The policy being issued to the hospital as there was any mishap or wrong doing by the hospital staff or doctor,  the case does not cover under the policy. Hence, the case does not cover the policy issued to the OP No.1. That the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the complainant. 

On perusal of the case record and available documents therin, this commission comes to a specific finding that, this case is filed basing on the misrepresentation of facts. No where in any available documents filed by the complainant  or by the OPs, it has written that “urine line of the complainant has been cut.” No doubt, the complainant was treated before the OPs for some time which is a admitted fact. In this  instant case, the complainant has only filed Medicine Prescriptions, money receipts, Dischrage Certificate, Patholigical and clinical test reports, Medicine Bills, etc. which established , that the complainant is a patient of the OPs NO.1 and 2 and treated before them. It is also found that on Reply to the Advocate Notice, the OP No.1 (Dr. Sunil Nanda) stated that “ the patient was admitted in the hospital in a very low anemic condition due to heavy bleeding. The patient had her own choice of Doctor, Hospital and the treatment procedure and was well explained about the pros and cons of it. That, genetide-urinary complications do occur in the best of surgical hand, which is well documented in medical journals and as such it is a complication of the surgery. It is due to lose proximity of the genitor urinary system and also due to the disease itself which causes the change in the anatomy of the organs, its textures and blood supply, etc. As such , I deny your comments as written in the above letter. Further I am having insurane cover under United India Isurane Company Limited with policy No.260600/46/14/5/00000131 for year,2014-15 who will take care of it” . The complainant filed the xerox coy of the reply of Dr. Sunin Nanda OP No.1 which is  clearly not visible, which shows her intention is marked very much  by this Commission. We have gone through the Reply to the Advocate Notice, the OP No.2 Rajasthan Seva Sadan, stated that “ a normally the patient chooses his doctor, doctor chooses the hospital and explains about it and patient agrees to it and doctor explains the detail of surgery to be done and when patient agrees, “he/she gives a written consent for operation and anesthesia and doctor operates the patient after that and takes care of the patient till she is discharged. Also doctor asks patient follow up where she is comfortable and patient also comfortable. This is a normal procedure of treatment of the patient about the financial obligation patient is explained at the time of discharge which patient has to pay”. Further, submitted Hospital is no way concerned with the doctor told the patient. Further, alsosubmitted  that “our instruments are not malfunctioning”. Evidence to above (i) A similar case was operated same day with same instrument (ii) Another operation also another surgeon on very next day. (iii) Whereas both (i), (ii) the patients were discharged from hospital uneventfully and till now surgeon are using same instrument without any problem, and no surgeon have any complaints on this instrument. Our hospital has no negligence in providing wrong/malfunctioning instrument to any surgeon so far. We therefore stand here saying that hospital has no role to place in above case as we did not provide any malfunctioning instruments to the surgeon and concerned doctor have also never complained us about any difficulty he has faced during operation of your client. It is also found that only saying in the pleadings and filing of original money receipt, medical bills, discharge certificate etc cannot established the complainant’s case. It is observed that no doctor has been examined this case or has filed affidavit to prove that there was wrong treatment. It is also observed that the urine pipe was cut that has not been proved by the complainant. This Commisioncategoricaly observed that there is no Medical Expert Opinion  filed in this case.

Concluding to all those facts we hereby satisfied from all corner that, there is no deficiency in service from the side of the OPs and also there is no wrong treatment. The complainant failed to establish her part of claim beyond doubt as such considering this case as  a mistake of fact we hereby reject this case as no merit of the complaint petition. There shall be no cost to either party.

            Close the case accordingly as no merit of the complaint petition.

Supply free copies to the parties as per rule.  

 

  (SRI SADANANDA TRIPATHY)                                                              ( SRI RAJESH PRASAD )

                  MEMBER                                                                                            PRESIDENT