NAROTTAM GOYAL (DR ) Vs. NAINPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the order dated 22.2.2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad whereby while accepting the complaint of the respondent No. 1 -complainant following directions have been given to the appellant -opposite party No. 1 as well as non -appellant/opposite party No. 2:

(2.) IN order to focus the controversy involved in this appeal the facts as set out in the complaint are that during the intervening night of 3/4.4.2002 Jaidev son of the complainant complained of abdominal pain. He was taken to Goyal Nursing Home for treatment. Dr. Narottam Goyal -opposite party No. 1 after examining him diagnosed Appendicitis and advised surgery. Trusting the findings of the opposite party No. 1 the complainant consented for the surgery. Thereafter, the son of the complainant was operated in the Operation Theatre of the opposite party No. 1. After few hours he was assured by the opposite party No. 1 that the operation had been performed satisfactorily. The grievance of the complainant is that despite operation done of the patient, his condition did not improve and rather deteriorated, as there was no relief to abdominal pain after operation. When the condition of the patient did not improve, he was referred to Safdarjang Hospital on 8.4.2002 where the doctors diagnosed the patient having "Adhesive Intestinal Obstruction". After coming to know that the patient had been wrongly operated for Appendicitis by the opposite party No. 1, he obtained the Discharge Summary on 12.4.2002 which according to the complainant had been fabricated as it had been wrongly mentioned that he had been discharged from the hospital on 13.4.2002, whereas in fact the patient remained admitted in Safdarjang Hospital w.e.f. 8.4.2002 to 12.4.2002. It is further case of the complainant that on 22.4.2002 the condition of his son deteriorated as he had acure abdominal pain and for that reason he was admitted in Diamond Hospital, Palwal for treatment, where he was diagnosed for post -operative complications suffered by him. He remained admitted in the said hospital upto 25.4.2002. Thereafter from 16.7.2002 till November, 2002 the patient remained under the treatment at AIIMS, New Delhi. During the intervening period he got treatment from Diamond Hospital at Palwal for continuous unabated abdominal pain and vomiting and remained under the treatment of Diamond Hospital at Palwal till March, 2003. Still there was no change in his condition. Forced by these circumstances the complainant filed the present complaint narrating the above mentioned facts. It was maintained by him that the opposite party No. 1 had failed to diagnose the disease properly and had wrongly treated his son for Appendicitis in haste with a view to extract money as he had to pay Rs. 10,000/ - as operation fee. He claimed Rs. 2,00,000/ - as expenses of treatment, conveyance charges and special diet. He further claimed Rs. 3,00,000/ - on account of damages, mental agony, pain and loss of earning. In all direction was sought against the opposite parties to pay Rs. 5, 00,000/ - along with interest from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.

(3.) IN response to the notice the opposite parties put in appearance and contested the complaint by filing their separate written statements. In the written statement filed by the opposite party No. 1 preliminary objections were taken with regard to locus standi; the complaint being not maintainable; limitation and it being bad for non -joinder of necessary parties. On merits it was averred by him that Jai Dev son of the complainant aged about 12 years was brought to his hospital on 4.4.2002 at 4.00 a.m. and was admitted in his hospital. At that time he had history of severe pain in his right lower abdomen and vomiting for one day. He noticed that there was tenderness in right lower abdomen which was maximum at Mc Burney s point. The patient was investigated and managed conservatively on I/V fluids, analgesics and antibiotics till about 4.00 p.m. He was also fully examined clinically. All the other routine investigations including blood, urine and X -rays (erect and supine) were done. He was not relieved of pain in spite of analgesic injections given to him. A diagnose of acute Appendicitis was made and surgery was advised. After explaining the risk involved and taking a proper consent from the complainant surgery was done under general anaesthesia and a qualified anaesthetist was called. The abdomen was opened by right lower paramedian incision. The operative findings were that appendix was inflamed and retrocaecal. There were a few adhesions around the ileocaecal junction. However, the ileocaecal junction was formal. There was no Meckel s diverticulum. Appendix was removed and abdomen was closed. Appendicular biopsy was advised but the complainant had refused for the same. Post -operative period was normal. Stitches were removed on 12.4.2002 and patient was discharged on 13.4.2002 with a discharge summary upto 13.4.2002. At the time of discharge the patient was perfectly well as he had no pain and vomiting and was eating orally. He denied the stand of the complainant that the condition of the patient had deteriorated during the treatment given by him. He further stated that the patient had no pain after the operation was performed by him and the condition remained stable during the hospitalization in his Nursing Home. It was further stated by him that the complainant had tried to mislead the Court by producing the false certificate at it was stated that it had been wrongly alleged by the complainant that the patient was referred to Safdarjang Hospital on 8.4.2002, whereas he was discharged from the hospital on 13.4.2002. He further stated that the discharge summary of Safdarjang Hospital (DOA 8.4.2002, DOD 12.4.2002) are fabricated documents and requested the Court to make an inquiry from the Medical Record Department of Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi for verification. It was further stated by him that the patient was again brought on 22.4.2002 as he had slight pain on 20.4.2002 for which urine of the patient was examined at Mangla Diagnostic Centre, Faridabad, which showed occasional leucocytes and RBC/HPF, which finding was not of much importance. Even the discharge summary issued by Diamond Hospital attached with the complaint clearly mentioned the diagnosis as sub acute intestinal obstruction due to fecal impaction, which condition relates to hard stools due to constipation caused temporary obstruction. It was due to these reasons alone the patient improved with enema alone. It was further submitted by him that after consulting at A.I.I.M.S. on 18.7.2002, the patient had consulted him and he was advised for repeat ultrasound to rule any other cause of pain and prescribed the medicines Tab Ciplox, TZH, Ciza and Zentel. He was advised to have the second opinion at A.I.I.M.S. which the patient had obtained. It was further maintained by him that the confirmatory test for intestinal obstruction is Barium Meal Follow Through , was done twice on 26.8.2002 at A.I.I.M.S. and then on 25.3.2003 at Diamond Hospital and both the times it was reported to be normal, which clearly indicates that there was no true intestinal obstruction and as such no operative complications. It is further stated that there is one fact that whenever there is pain in the abdomen after any abdominal operation, the physician starts thinking in terms of adhesive intestinal obstruction, as this is very frequent post -operative problem and occurs due to body s inherent mechanism, which varies from person to person, but this is not at all a surgical negligence. He further asserted that this possibility is completely ruled out by two normal Barium Meal reports. The ultrasound done on 23.7.2002 at A.I.I.M.S. was also reported to be normal. Accordingly, it was prayed that the complaint being false and fabricated deserved to be dismissed with costs.