BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.107 of 2016
Date of Instt. 10.03.2016
Date of Decision: 06.01.2020
Ajit Kumar aged about 17 years son of Sh. Nand Kishore R/o 33, Guru Sant Nagar, Basti Danishmandan, Jalandhar, being Minor through his Natural Guardian and Father Sh. Nand Kishore.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Rattan Multi Speciality Hospital, 280, SUS Nagar, Jalandhar, through its Prop./Partner.
2. Dr. Balraj Gupta, Partner/Prop. Rattan Multi Speciality Hospital, 280, SUS Nagar, Jalandhar.
3. Dr. Rajiv Sood, C/o Rattan Multi Speciality Hospital, 280, SUS Nagar, Jalandhar.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Present: Sh. R. K. Bhalla Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. Puneet Sareen, Adv. Counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2.
Sh. Kishore Sarren, Adv. Counsel for the OP No.3.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant Ajit Kumar through his natural guardian i.e. father Sh. Nand Kishore, as the complainant is a minor.
2. The complainant was suffering from problem of stone in gallbladder and the complainant alongwith his father visited the OP No.1 on 05.06.2015 and the OPs No.2 and 3 recommended for the surgery of the gallbladder and accordingly, the surgery of the gallbladder of the complainant was conducted by the OP No.3 on 06.06.2015 and gallbladder of the complainant was removed by conducting an operation. That few days of the said surgery, the complainant found that his eyes were getting yellow and then the complainant got check up from one Dr. Vijay of Basti Sheikh, Jalandhar, who diagnosed that the complainant is suffering from Jaundice. When the Jaundice of the complainant increasing day by day then the complainant visited Dr. M.K. Arora Hospital, Vijay Nagar, Jalandhar on 08.09.2015 and on the recommendation of Dr. M.K. Arora, one MRI was conducted from Dr. Satnam Singh, M. D. and thereafter, Dr. M. K. Arora referred the complainant to Kidney Hospital, Jalandhar. Then the complainant was admitted in the Kidney Hospital on 10.09.2015, where after conducting the scan and other diagnosis, it was hold by the doctors that the complainant is suffering from obstructive jaundice due to the binding of clips on upper end of CBD (Common Bile Duct). It was also reported by the doctors that major papilla is normal, but no bile is coming into duodeal second part. CBD is normal upto its upper end, where two clips are seen on its upper end. Due to the imputation of the two clips, no guide wire or contrast goes above the level of clips. In spite of the putting of one stent 7 fr was put into CBD upto level of clips, no bile is coming through out it. So, the doctor of Kidney Hospital clearly hold that the past cholecystectomy status with obstructive jaundice due to the clip put on the upper end of the CBD. It needs hepaticojejunostomi. This finding was given by Dr. Vijay Nanda, Endoscopic of Life Line Hospital, situated at Kidney Hospital. The complainant was discharged from the hospital on 11.09.2015. When there was no any other improvement in the health of the complainant and health of the complainant was deteriorating day by day and the doctor of Kidney Hospital recommended the complainant for treatment from PGI, Chandigarh. The complainant was admitted in PGI, Chandigarh on 15.09.2015, but there too was not any improvement in his health and hemoglobin of the complainant suddenly fall to 3.6 and then blood as well as platelets and FFP were transfused to the complainant as a restrictive measure. The complainant remained admitted in PGI, Chandigarh till 27.09.2015 and he was discharged on that day and the complainant was shifted to Jalandhar. Thereafter, the complainant remained under the treatment of PGI, but there was no any improvement and the complainant was again got medical checkup from PGI on 03.10.2015, 21.10.2015, 14.11.2015, 16.11.2015, 17.11.2015, 18.11.2015 and 21.11.2015. When the condition of the complainant became more serious, he was admitted in PGI Hospital on 25.11.2015 and remained admitted in the said hospital till 02.01.2016. During this period, a surgery was also conducted on 10.12.2015. The complete record of the hospital is attached with the present complaint. In fact, the complainant suffered all the above said medical problem due to negligence on the part of the OPs No.2 and 3, who had put clip on the wrong side of CBD of the complainant. The complainant suffered all other medical problems mentioned above. Not only this, there was risk of the life of the complainant due to above said reason, which has been caused due to negligence on the part of the OPs. Due to the above said problems, the complainant suffered mental tension, pain and also loss to his study. The complainant has suffered a financial loss of Rs.7,00,000/- on account of medical treatment and other connected expenses of traveling, staying and medicines etc., which the OPs are liable to compensate the complainant. During the entire period of medical treatment i.e. 05.06.2015 to 02.01.2016, the complainant along with his family members remained under stress, mental tension, agony and harassment for which the OPs are liable to compensate the complainant with a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and further prayed that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay sum of Rs.7,00,000/- on account of medical expenses and Rs.10,00,000/- as a compensation for mental tension and harassment and agony suffered by the OPs and further, OPs be directed to pay litigation expenses.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OPs No.1 and 2 appeared through its counsel and filed joint written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in its form and intent and further alleged that the present complaint has been filed after concealing the true and material facts from the Forum. The true facts of the case are that the complainant had approached the OPs No.1 and 2 with the complaint of pain in the upper stomach. When he was diagnosed by OPs No.1 and 2, it was found that complainant was having gallbladder stone, which were to be removed by the laparoscopic surgery. Accordingly, OPs No.1 and 2 had called Laparoscopic Surgeon Dr. Rajiv Sood to operate upon the complainant. After doing preliminary investigation, the patient was taken for laparoscopic surgery on 06.06.2015. It is further submitted that the patient was discharged on 08.06.2015 with an advice to come immediately to the hospital in case of jaundice i.e. yellow coloration of eye or pain in the stomach in view of the difficult surgery due to massive adhesions in the operative area. The patient visited on 11.06.2015 and then on 25.06.2015 and 23.07.2015 and he was found perfectly alright and was only given medication for wound healing. All the investigation at that time was normal. Had there been any problem in the condition of the patient he should have visited the hospital again for further treatment and investigation. The complainant lost to the follow up with the OPs. He also never complained to answering OP regarding any problem or pain ever after he was discharged and till he post follow up with answering OP and further submitted that he again developed some problem for which he got his treatment done from Kidney Hospital. It was after the treatment from Kidney Hospital, complainant was referred to PGI, Hospital, Chandigarh. From the documents placed on record by the complainant, it transpires that complainant was done HIDA Scan and RBS Scan, which were to disclose the truth, but said documents were never supplied nor placed on the file. It is further averred that as per investigation report submitted by the complainant given by PGI Chandigarh, there is suspicion of duodenal perforation which can occur after the treatment of ERCP conducted in Kidney Hospital in the surgery done by OPs. There was no procedure of ERCP adopted and rather laparoscopic technique was used. This injury was not seen in previous post operative MRI dated 18.10.2015. It is further submitted that even otherwise as per medical literature, the incident of CBD injury amount to 0.5 to 0.7% in most of the serious published in various journals. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant got operation from the OP Hospital, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
4. OP No.3 filed its separate reply and took almost similar preliminary objections as raised by the OPs No.1 & 2 and further, also gave same reply on merits as given by OPs No.1 & 2 and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-16 and closed the evidence.
6. Similarly, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence two affidavits Ex.OP/A and Ex.OP/B along with some documents Ex.OP/1 to Ex.OP/16 and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.
8. From the overall circumstances as came before us, itself shows that the admission as well as treatment of the complainant by the OPs is not denied, rather the OPs itself brought on the file Indoor Patient File of the complainant, which is Ex.OP/4 and other treating documents Ex.OP/5 to Ex.OP/7, it is also established on the file that the complainant was suffering from problem of stone in gallbladder and accordingly, he was admitted in the hospital of the OP No.1 from 04.06.2015 to 08.06.2015.
9. After discharge from the hospital of the OPs, the complainant found that his eyes were getting yellow and when he got check up from one Dr. Vijay of Basti Sheikh, who diagnosed that the complainant is suffering from Jaundice and accordingly, the complainant approached to Dr. M.K. Arora Hospital, Vijay Nagar, Jalandhar on 08.09.2015, who recommended MRI, which was got conducted by the complainant from Dr. Satnam Singh and whose report is Ex.C-5 and then complainant was referred by Dr. M. K. Arora to Kidney Hospital, Jalandhar, where a scan and other diagnosis were conducted by Kidney Hospital and doctor of the Kidney Hospital told that the complainant is suffering from obstructive jaundice due to the binding of clips on upper end of CBD (Common Bile Duct). It was also told by the doctors that major papilla is normal, but no bile is coming into duodeal 2nd part. CBD is normal upto the upper end, where two clips are seen on its upper end. Due to the imputation of the two clips, no guide wire or contrast goes above the level of clips. In spite of the putting of one stent 7 fr was put into CBD upto level of clips, but no bile is coming through out it. So, the doctor of Kidney Hospital clearly hold that a past cholecystectomy status with obstructive jaundice due to the clip put on the upper end of the CBD and recommended hepaticojejunostomi. The said finding was given by Dr. Vijay Nanda and the same is endorsed by treating doctor of Kidney Hospital in its report Ex.C-6 at Page No.2 as well as in detail on Page No.3 and report of the Dr. Vijay Nanda also attached with the report of Kidney Hospital Ex.C-6 at 5th page. If we go through the diagnosis report of the Kidney Hospital, wherein categorically observed that the problem of Jaundice suffered by the complainant due to obstructive clips put on the upper end of the CBD and this observation of the doctor of Kidney Hospital is further endorsed by the treating doctor of PGI, Chandigarh in its report Ex.C-9.
10. Apart from above, the problem occurred to the complainant due to the negligence of the OPs is also disclosed by Dr. Satnam Singh in its Scan Report Ex.C-4. So, from the evidence of the complainant itself established that there was some negligence on the part of the OPs and due to that the complainant suffered a lot, mentally, physically and financially.
11. The case of the complainant controverted by the OPs simply taking a plea that there was no negligence on the part of the OPs rather the OP No.3 is an expert doctor and he has done according to his knowledge and skill and further alleged in Para No.5 of Preliminary Objections of written statement that the suspicious problem may be occurred after the treatment of ERCP conducted in Kidney Hospital as a surgery done by the OPs, there was no procedure of ERCP adopted rather the operation was conducted by laparoscopic technique.
12. We analyze this aspect of the OPs and find that the clips put on upper end of CBD is not due to conducting of ERCB rather these clips put on upper end of CBD by the OPs at the time of conducting operation of the gallbladder and due to this negligence, the complainant was caught by a disease of Jaundice and moreover, ERCP is a procedure that looks at the bile ducts and it is done through an endoscope and accordingly, we find that the finding given by the doctor of the Kidney Hospital in its Discharge Report Ex.C-6 at Page No.3 that no bile is coming into duodenal 2nd part and further observed that at Page No.4 due to imputation of two clips, no guide wire or contrast goes above the level of clips, no bile is coming through out it. So, we find that the doctor of Kidney Hospital clearly hold that the problem of Jaundice occurred due to obstructive by reason of clips put on the upper end of CBD.
13. So, from the overall circumstances, we find that there is a grave negligence on the part of the treating doctor i.e. OP No.3 as well as of OPs No.1 and 2, who engaged the said doctor having not sufficient skill and knowledge of the said field and accordingly, we hold that the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed and thus, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs are directed to pay medical expenses to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- and further, OPs are directed to pay compensation to the complainant for causing mental tension and physical harassment, to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/-. The OPs are further directed to pay litigation expenses to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.20,000/-. We like to make it clear that from the entire above amount, half will be paid by the OPs No.1 and 2 and remaining half will be paid by the treating doctor i.e. OP No.3/Dr. Rajiv Sood within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
14. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jyotsna Karnail Singh
06.01.2020 Member President
