Delhi

North East

CC/389/2014

Narender Tomar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jaskok Medical Centre - Opp.Party(s)

15 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 389/14

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

		Narender Tomar (Deceased)  Through LR’s 1.Smt. Shakuntala Tomar (Mother) 2.Master Deepanshu Tomar(Son)   R/o H.No. 128, Gali No. 2 Karawal Nagar Road, New Chauhan Pur, North East, Delhi 110094		Complainant
		Versus
		Jaslok Medical Centre C-1/15A, Near Brijpuri Red Light, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi 110053		Opposite Party
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		22.09.2014 09.06.2023 15.09.2023

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

 

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant had some abdominal problem and got admitted in the Opposite Party Centre on 21.05.2014. After the medical check up, Opposite Party advised for the Gall Bladder Surgery (Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy). On 22.05.2014, Gall Bladder Surgery was done by the Opposite Party. It is his case that after surgery Complainant was facing massive problem of pain and condition of the Complainant was deteriorating day by day. After that Opposite Party advised for Full Abdomen Ultrasound wherein it was revealed that Gall Bladder was not demonstrated (post op) and further it was revealed that Peritoneium & Pleura - fluid was seen in abdomen and pelvis, drenage tube is in position. On 30.05.2014, Opposite Party referred the Complainant to  Mr. Hemendra Singh of Pushpanjali Crosslay Hospital, Vaishali, Ghaziabad with the observations that ‘Surgery was uneventful, bile leak, hypotension and patient is requiring ICU’. On 30.05.2014, Complainant was admitted to the Pushpanjali Crosslay Hospital and after medical check up it was revealed that Complainant had affected with severe bile leak injury. Complainant was discharged on 06.06.2014 with the observation that ‘the plan of further care had been explained to the attendants and definitive surgery would be conducted after two months’. At the time of discharge, Complainant was suffering from jaundice, looks pale and dehydrated, pulse feeble and BP not recordable. Foley’s having high coloured urine and drain having bile. Abdomen is distended, non tender with absent bowel sounds. Resuscitation started in emergency with supportive care. As per the observation, the MRI Right Knee was done on 23.08.2014 and Resonance Cholangiopancreatography reveals mild dilatation of Intrahepatic Billary Redicals. On 25.08.2014, Complainant again got admitted in Pushpanjali Crosslay Hospital, a follow up case of billary duct injury after ‘lap Cholecystectomy’. On 27.08.2014, the Opne Rouxeny Hepaticojejunostomy was done under GA. Complainant got discharged on 01.09.2014 with the observation that ‘slight wound infection is present which is being managed with the dressing’. Hence, this shows the gross medical negligence on the part of Opposite Party in conducting the Gall Bladder Surgery. Complainant spent more than Rs. 6,00,000/- in whole treatment.  Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party to pay an amount of  Rs. 6,00,000/- along with interest @ 18 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint, Rs. 5,00,000/- along with interest @ 18 % p.a. on account of mental agony. Complainant also prayed for Rs. 25,000/- along with interest @ 18 % as litigation expenses and Rs. 50,000/- as cost of the complaint. During pendency of the complaint, the Complainant expired and his two legal heirs named above were brought on record. His other two legal heirs i.e. his wife and daughter could not be brought on record as their address could not be furnished by the mother of the Complainant.

Case of the Opposite Party

2. Opposite Party contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the complaint is without any cause of action. It is stated that the doctors of the Opposite Party had conducted the surgery upon the Complainant in accordance with the guidelines and the prevalent latest techniques of surgery. It is stated that the Complainant was given proper and due medical care by the Opposite Party. It is stated that no injury was caused to the Complainant on account of the surgery performed by the doctors of the Opposite Party. The surgery was performed by the experienced doctors. The Opposite Party has denied the allegations of the Complainant. It is stated that the Complainant was a chronic alcoholic and had been treated for Pulmonary Tuberculosis. The Opposite Party has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party

3. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

 

 

Evidence of the Opposite Party

5. To support its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Dr. Jasvir Singh, Director of Opposite Party, wherein, he has supported the case of the Opposite Party as mentioned in the written statement.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party. The case of the Complainant is that on 22.05.2014, the doctors of Opposite Party Centre conducted surgery of his gall bladder. It is his case that due to the negligence of the doctors certain         post- surgery complications occurred and the Complainant was referred to the Pushpanjali Crosslay Hospital, Vaishali. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Party is that the surgery was performed with due and proper care by the experienced doctors. It is the case of the Opposite Party that the Complainant was a chronic alcoholic and was a patient of Pulmonary Tuberculosis. Vide order dated 20.04.2018, the matter was referred to GTB hospital for opinion. Medical opinion dated 11.06.2018 was submitted by GTB hospital. The relevant part of the said opinion is reproduced as under:

“In the opinion of the board, bile duct injuries are known complications of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and cannot be considered an act of negligence. A corrective surgery, after a reasonable time period, allowing the swelling (edema) to subside, is needed, as was done in this case.”

7. On the other hand, the Complainant did not lead any cogent evidence which could suggest any negligence on the part of the doctors of the Opposite Party Centre. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Complainant has failed to prove its case. Hence, the complaint is dismissed.
8. Order announced on 15.09.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Adarsh Nain)     Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President