AKHIL BHARATIYA GRAHAK PANCHAYAT Vs. JOG HOSPITAL PUNE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant approached the State Commission with a complaint regarding deficiency in the service of Medical Practitioner, Dr. Jog, who is running Jog Hospital, Paud Road, Pune. THE complainant stated that she is a working woman and was complaining of pain in her left leg and her waist. In the month of October 1989 she approached the opposite party at his Hospital for treatment. She alleged that Dr. Jog gave her treatment for a period of 8 days and then advised her to undergo a myelography. She had the myelography done in the Hospital of one Dr. Pathak at Dashabhuja X-ray Clinic. THEreafter she was admitted by Dr. Jog in his Hospital and was advised by him to have surgery. She further alleged that after having the necessary X-ray, the opposite party advised her that if the operation was not performed, her left leg might become useless. However, she pleaded to the O.P. to treat her by any other method possible to avoid performing surgery. According to the complainant the O.P. insisted that surgery take place and persuaded her to fix a date for the operation. She further stated that the O.P. also, told her, that if the operation was not performed, she might lose her leg and in that case, he would not be held responsible. She further alleged that she was accompanied by her elderly mother and under the circumstances prevailing, agreed to have surgery performed. THE operation was performed on 21-11-1990 at the Jog Hospital for decompression of prolapsed disc in the lumber region. THE complainant further alleged that after the operation she was not feeling normal. According to the Complainant the O.P. informed her that there was no nexus between the operation and the pain she complained of in her leg. She further alleged that she spent approximately Rs. 40,000/- for the operation. She also alleged that after her first operation which took place on 2-8-1979 at Ahmedabad, she was able to attend to her routine working habits for a period of 10 years without any difficulty whatsoever; but after the operation was performed by the Opposite Party, she felt no relief at all to her physical discomfort. In fact, she states, that since that time she has not been able to do her routine work normally. THE Complainant, therefore, alleged that she suffered pain and a defect in her left leg due to negligence in the operation performed by the O.P. She, therefore, claimed Rs. 3,00,000 as compensation for deficiency in service, Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental trouble and Rs. 1,000/- for the litigation.

(2.) THE Opposite Party appeared in person and filed his written version. THE O.P. denied the allegations of the complainant and submitted that the complainant was suffering intense pain due to sciatica. It is also stated that before the operation, she did not have full and free movement of her waist and she could not sit properly. According to the O.P. if she performed any movement whatsoever she used to get pain and numbness in her lower limbs. THE Opposite Party further submitted that the Complainant was suffering from pain in the region of the waist due to sciatica, and therefore, she was advised to have the operation. THE Doctor further stated that she was given full 7 days time to prepare herself before the operation. It was also further stated that after her examination on 29-10-1990 she was requested to bring all previous reports of her Medical History and after detailed examination, myelography was advised. THE Opposite Party further stated that on 19-11-1990 she was admitted to the Hospital and was advised to take rest till 21-11-1990 when she was operated upon for decompression of the spinal cord in the lumber region. It is also stated that the Complainant had paid to him Rs. 4,000/- voluntarily when she was admitted in the hospital. THE Opposite Party further stated that the total expenses of the hospital including operation charges were Rs. 9,110/- only. In short, according to the Opposite Party, there was no deficiency in his services and that the operation performed on 21-11-1991 was not negligently performed. THE Opposite Party therefore, denied all allegations regarding any deficiency in his services.

(3.) AS regards points 1 & 2, we find that when the Complainant approached the Opposite Party all her complaints and ailments were noted down in the hospital chart. The Xerox copy of the same is filed in this complaint. The clinical notes dated 29-10-1990 show complaint of pain in the left sciatic region and a history of laminectomy done 10 years back. Similarly, there is a letter dated 29-10-1990 from one Dr. Joshi, who referred the Complainant to the Opposite Party. In that letter it is stated that she was under his treatment for gastritis and deficiency aneamia. It is also written that she was complaining of having pain in her hip joint over a period of a few months. The Complainant thereafter came to the Hospital of the Opposite Party on 12-11-1990 and she was given Registration No. 1841 and was diagnosed as having Spinal Stenosis. There are notings of the operation performed on 21-11-1990. Perusal of these documents regarding both treatment and operation clearly show that the suffering and pain which the complainant claims is existing, were present even prior to the operation performed by the Opposite Party. In our view, therefore, there is no basis in the allegations of the Complainant that she started having more pain due to the operation performed by the Opposite Party. Similarly, the Complainant failed to establish that the Opposite Party was negligent in the performance of the operation on 21-11-1991. There is no evidence of any nature to conclude that the Opposite Party was negligent in performing the operation on the complainant. In our view, in the absence of necessary material on record we cannot accept the allegations of the complainant that the Opposite Party was negligent in his service.