JATINDER BANSAL Vs. USHA RANI AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by, Dr. Jatinder Bansal, appellant/OP No.1 against the order dated 1.9.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (in short "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by Usha Rani respondent No.1/complainant, was accepted and OP No.1 was directed to pay the following amounts: -

(2.) THE complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum averring therein that she was having pain in her abdomen for which she got ultra -sound test done from Shri Shyam Hospital and Utra -sound Centre, Kotkapura on 7.5.2008 and it was reported that she was having multiple stones of small size in her right kidney. She opted to undergo operation for removal of those stones for which she approached OP No.1. After necessary tests, it was assured by that party that those stones would be removed by conducting operation. She was admitted in the hospital of that party on 28.5.2008 and the operation was performed on 29.5.2008. She was discharged from the hospital on 3.6.2008 and during the intervening period she had been taking medicines as prescribed by OP No.1. Even after the discharge, she had been taking the medicines as per the advice of that party who performed the operation and treatment. OP No.1 charged Rs.15,000/ -, the details of which, are given in para no.2 of the complaint. After some days of her discharge, she again started feeling pain in the abdomen and the same increased day by day. She made a complaint to OP No.1 but was told that everything was O.K. and she should continue to take the medicines already prescribed. She continued take those medicines regularly but the pain did not subside and increased day by day. Having no other alternative, she got an ultra -sound scan done from Dr. Pirthipal Memorial Hospital, Kotkapura on 15.8.2008 and came to know that stones from abdomen had not been removed and the same were still there in her right kidney. That hospital suggested that she should undergo operation for the removal of those stones. She being a poor lady and her husband having very meagre salary were not in a position to spend more money for the second operation. For the negligence on the part of OP No.1 in not removing all the stones from the right kidney and for mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment, financial loss and pain, she is entitled to a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/ -; Rs.1,00,000/ - on account of mental tension, agony, botheration, harassment and pain; Rs.2,00,000/ - on account of loss of physical health and Rs.1,00,000/ - on account of expenses already borne by her and to be borne in respect of second operation, travelling allowance, special diet etc., from OP No.1.

(3.) THE OPs in response to the notice sent to them by the District Forum appeared before it and filed independent written versions. OP No.1 in the written reply admitted that the complainant had undergone ultra -sound test in Shri Shyam Hospital and Ultra -sound Central, Kotkapura on 7.5.2008 and that she was admitted in his hospital on 28.5.2008, the operation was conducted on 29.5.2008, was discharged on 30.6.2008 and a sum of Rs.15,000/ - was charged from her. He denied the other contentions of the complainant and averred that the complainant has made mere averments and vague insinuation of totally unspecific nature against him in a very broad and brash manner, which are not sufficient to constitute a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "the Act"). She has not made any specific allegation against him, which may amount to deficiency in service or negligence or rashness on his part. He has done nothing that any reasonable prudent doctor would not have done nor he refrained from doing anything, which a reasonable prudent doctor would do. He had taken all the care that was expected from a reasonable prudent medical practitioner. He treated the complainant by a line of treatment that is universally accepted and that treatment was in conformity with the protocols followed anywhere in the world. Her history was taken in detail followed by thorough examination. She was fully investigated and all the reports were checked. She was informed about the nature of ailment and nature of procedures involved in the treatment and administration of drugs etc. She was given an opportunity to ask all questions regarding her illness and she satisfactorily answered those questions. Other alternative methods of treatment were also discussed and he had not expressly given any warranty or guarantee with respect to the result of the treatment. There was no element of negligence in the service rendered by him. He is a qualified doctor having qualifications MBBS, MS (Gen. and Lap. Surgeon) and is duly registered with Punjab Medical Council. The complainant has deliberately not disclosed that she was taking antipsychotic drugs from Dr. Vandana, a Psychiatrist and that she was suffering from cholelithiasis (multiple gall bladder stones) and right renal calculi and that PCNL was done for right renal calculi and stone obstructing pelvis was removed and handed over to her husband for stone analysis. She also did not disclose that MRCP done one month after surgery did not show any renal stone. She never consulted him after her discharge from the hospital. During the surgery conducted by him there was only one stone consistent with IVU report, which was done at Adesh Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Barnala Road, Bathinda (in short "Adesh Hospital"). She has filed a false complaint to extract money from him and to unnecessarily harass a medical professional. The complaint is wholly baseless, groundless, false, misconceived and vexatious. In fact, it has been filed to defame and blackmail him. He prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.