Krishan Singh V Dangi Nursing HomeKrishan Singh V Dangi Nursing HomeBEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWNI.
Complaint No. 515 of 2006.
Date of Institution: 05.10.06.
Date of Order: 23-07-2009.
Krishan Singh son of Shri Devi Singh, resident of village Nawan, Tehsil & District Mohindergarh.
….…. Complainant.
Versus
1. Dr. Anil Jangra, M. D. (General Surgeon) Dangi Nursing Home, Bhiwani, now at Raman Nursing Home, Circular Road, Bhiwani, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.
2. Dangi Nursing Home, Bhiwani through its proprietor.
3. National Insurance Company Ltd., Circular Road, Ghantaghar, Opposite State Bank of India, Bhiwani, through its Branch Manager.
…….Respondents.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Shri R. K. Khanagwal, President.
Smt. Sushila Rathee, Member.
Present: Shri U. S. Nehra, Adv. for the complainant.
Shri Sunil Jangra, Adv. for the respondent No. 1.
Shri R. K. Verma, Adv. for the respondent No. 3.
Respondent No. 2 given up.
ORDER
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he got admitted in Dangi Nursing Home, Bhiwani on 16.7.2006 for operation for removal of stones and after providing I.V.P. and taking eight X-rays, respondent operated the left side Kidney of the complainant. It is further alleged that the complainant was discharged on 20.7.2006 and instructed to take prescribed medicines regularly and to take complete bed rest. Dr. Anil Jangra, respondent also advised for operation of the right side Kidney after some time. It is further alleged that the complainant took the complete bed rest and consumed the prescribed medicines, but the disease of complainant was not cured. He then visited Dr. Anil Jangra, who advised him to get operated for right Kidney, as the operation of right Kidney is necessary. It is further alleged that the complainant could not get rid of the disease and he got admitted in R.G. Stone Urological Research Institute, New Delhi on 16.9.2006 for operation of right Kidney and operation of right Kidney was conducted on 20.9.2006 and J. J. Stent pipe was inserted from kidney to urine bladder and was discharged on 21.9.2006 and asked to report after 15 days for check up, as the inserted J. J. Stent pipe was required to be removed within 4-6 weeks. He reported to RG Stone Urological Research Institute, New Delhi on 7.10.2006 and Doctor removed the J. J. Stent pipe of right side kidney and discharged him on 9.10.2006, after giving one month medicines and the complainant got the relief from right side kidney, but the problem of left side kidney remained as it is. It is further alleged that on 20.2.2007 complainant went to Rewari for check up at Star Ultrasound, where Dr. Nupur Gupta, MD checked and did ultrasound and told that left kidney showed grade 2-3 Hydronephrosis, J.J. stent with some calcific specks were seen on left side. It is further alleged that on 26.2.2007 complainant again went to RS Stone Urological Research Institute, New Delhi and showed the USG report to concerned Doctor, who told that J.J. Stent pipe inserted in left side kidney was required to be removed after 4-6 weeks, but the same had not been removed and it proves the negligency on the part of inserting Doctor, which can be dangerous to the life of complainant. The said doctor called the complainant after 10 days and on 6.3.2007 after necessary tests the said left side J.J. stent pipe was removed by doing the operation in RG Stone Urological Research Institute, New Delhi. It is further alleged that doctor told him that Dr. Anil Jangra had inserted the inferior (Deshi) J.J. stent pipe instead of original one, which can be broken and burst and can damage the kidney and may be dangerous to life also. It is further alleged that the complainant was discharged on 8.3.2007. It is further alleged that after removal of J.J. stent pipe, the complainant went to Dr. Anil Jangra and narrated the whole story and told that due to carelessness and negligency his life was kept in danger. The respondent himself felt guilty and told him that he was forgotten to tell him about the removal of J.J. stent pipe and due to non-availability of original J.J. stent pipe he inserted the inferior (Deshi) J.J. stent pipe. Hence, the present complaint.
2. Respondent No.1 on appearance filed contested written statement and took preliminary objections qua maintainability; locus-standi; cause of action; estoppel; non-joinder of necessary party and frivolous, vexatious & baseless. On merits, it is admitted that complainant came to respondent as OPD patient with the complaint of abdomen pain on 16.7.2006 and he was advised for operation of both the kidneys. It is further alleged that respondent no. 1 conducted the operation of left kidney stones successfully and after operation the left kidney, stones were shown to the attendant and patient and delivered to them and the complainant was discharged on 20.7.2006 with a advice to take medicines for one week and then to come up for follow check up and for complete bed rest, as DJ stent put in his left ureater was to be removed within 4/6 weeks. It is further alleged that the complainant himself negligent who did not approach the respondent after his discharge and the respondent no. 1 cannot be held liable for any such alleged deterioration condition caused on account of treatment given by some other doctor, after the complainant withdrew himself from the treatment of respondent and it was the duty of the complainant to get DJ stent removed within 4/6 weeks after operation from respondent no. 1. So the complainant cannot be allowed to take benefit of his own wrong. It is further alleged that the DJ stent was purchased by the attendant outside and it was 5 mm DJ stent (Romsons) which is a reputed company. It is further alleged that complainant contacted the respondent no. 1 after 8 months not before that for pains in left lumbar region and when the respondent no. 1 questioned about the stent he told that he completely forgot about the stent and he did not respond to the respondent and contacted some other doctor and if he did not abide the advice of respondent no. 1 then how can the respondent can be made responsible for his suffering. Moreover, when stent was removed after 8 months of operation it was in good condition and did not break during removal. Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of the answering respondent and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Respondent No. 2 was given up by ld. Counsel for the complainant being unnecessary vide his statement dated 18.9.2007.
4. Respondent No. 3 on appearance filed separate contested written statement and took preliminary objections qua maintainability; estoppel; locus-standi; cause of action and clean hands. On merits, it is alleged that as per the version of respondent no. 1 he conducted successful operation for the left kidney stones and stones removed during the operation were shown to the attendant and the complainant and the same were delivered to them and after 8 months of the discharge, the complainant told that he remained under treatment at R. G. Urological Research Institute, New Delhi. It is further alleged that the treatment given to the complainant by respondent no. 1 was satisfactory and if there was any deterioration, it was caused on account of treatment given by some other doctor. It is further alleged that there was no negligence or lack of care, attention or cause on the part of the respondent no. 1 in performing the operation and in administering the treatment to the complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no. 3 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5. Both the parties have filed their duly sworn affidavits in their evidence to prove their respective versions.
6. When the case was fixed for filing of documents, both the parties requested to send the case to the Chief Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Bhiwani in view of the case 2009 CPJ 32 (SC) Martin F. D’Souza Versus Mohd. Ishfaq. In view of the above cited authority of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the case was sent to the Chief Medical Officer, Bhiwani vide letter no. 102 dated 15.5.2009 for constituting a committee of two doctors specialized in field relating to which medical negligence attributed. The Chief Medical Officer was also directed to submit his report whether the Doctor has committed any negligency or not. A committee was constituted and a detailed report was submitted by the committee before the Chief Medical Officer and they were of the opinion that there was no medical negligence on the part of the treating doctor at any stage of treatment of complainant. The Civil Surgeon, Bhiwani vide his letter no. CS/09/596 dated 11.6.2009 submitted the detailed report alongwith the opinion and found that there was no negligence on the part of treating Dr. Anil Jangra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in above said case Martin F. D’Souza Versus Mohd. Ishfaq has observed in para no. 117 as under: -
“We, therefore, direct that whenever a complaint is received against a doctor or hospital by the Consumer Fora (Whether District, State or National) or by the Criminal Court then before issuing notice to the doctor or hospital against whom the complaint was made the Consumer Forum or Criminal Court should first refer the matter to a competent doctor or committee of doctors, specialized in the field relating to which the medical negligence is attributed, and only after that doctor or committee reports that there is a prima facie case of medical negligence should notice be then issued to the concerned doctor/hospital. This is necessary to avoid harassment to doctors who may not be ultimately found to be negligent. We further warn the police officials not to arrest or harass doctors unless the facts clearly come within the parameters laid down in Jacob Mathew’s case (supra), otherwise the policemen will themselves have to face legal action”.
Hence, in view of the above report, no negligency was attributed by the respondents at any stage of treatment. So in view of these circumstances, mentioned above, the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The delay in deciding the complaint is due to non-joining of the regular President. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 23-07-2009.
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Sushila Rathee)
Member.
Tags: Dangi Nursing Home