SUNANDABAI Y PATIL Vs. B L PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complaint is filed by one Sunandabai Y. Patil, Asst. High School Teacher of Sindagi against Dr. B.L. Patil, consulting surgeon, of Patil Nursing Home, Hubli, praying for direction to the O.P., to pay Rs. 11,50,000.00 compensation for the damage/loss caused due to the deficiency in service to the complainant, and negligence, and Rs. 50,000.00 spent by her for consultation and surgery and medicine, and for such other relief deems fit, after allowing the complaint and passing Order/Award.

(2.) THE stand of O.P., as per his version is, complainant approaching him and he after examination, operated her for prolapsed III Piles on 25.5.1999, after admitting on 23.5.1999 are accepted. According to him, surgery was successful, as he operated with due care and caution and post operative was uneventful and smooth. Complainant s response was very good, and she was very much happy. While discharging from the Hospital on 4.6.1999, complainant was totally relieved after the operation. Complainant without any symptoms, went to her native place. Before discharging, he advised her to take care for wound healing, and proper drugs were prescribed to take within time, with due care for 15 days, and report back for next check -up. Complainant after lapse of 4 months i.e., on 17.10.1999 gave a surprise visit with the complaint of itching and slight mucoid discharge around Anus. On careful examination, O.P. told her that there were some unusual findings including slight patu luns anus related to previous operation. O.P. advised her to do the perenical muscle exercise and asked her to report back after 15 days to review the present findings, not related to operation. After more than 2 years, O.P. received a letter from complainant on 7.4.2001 alleging that she is suffering from altogether new symptoms unrelated to original symptoms of bleeding and pain during defecation unrelated to operation conducted. It clearly shows that the complainant by stating false things, and after consulting various Doctors, unnecessarily she is creating the situation by shifting the burden to O.P. Complainant has never stated in the complaint why she was not consulted O.P. after 15 days, as advised, after operation, and after 17.10.1999. The complaint is motivated and created. Complaint discloses she underwent surgical procedure in Bijapur Hospital without informing O.P. She has consulted Dr. P.L. Kariholu on 2.8.1999 in Bijapur and on 18.4.2001 Dr. P.N. Joshi at Mumbai, and several other Doctors best known to her without intimating O.P. at any point of time. It is wrong that operation by him has aggravated pain and suffering. She was discharged from his hospital within the stipulated 10 days time, and she has been relieved of symptoms for which operation was made by O.P. Question of compensation claim does not arise. Complainant was administered treatment by several other Doctors without O.Ps. knowledge. There was no occasion for it, when O.P. with due care and caution operated the complainant, consultation with other Doctors for opinion does not arise. As per medical Analysis and as per the Expert opinion, itching, irritation at the anal region are usual symptoms for some times, after surgery, because of mucoid discharge. Complainant has stated passing of gas out with loud sound at any time. If it is so there cannot be in continence of stool. The statements are unconnected and false. She is suppressiong true and material facts, and deliberately putting forward false pleas. There is no negligence or lack of due care, attention, caution on the part of O.P. in performing and administering the treatment to complainant. Para 8 of complaint is false and frivolous. Complainant has not produced any evidence to prove deficiency in service by O.P. in the surgery and post operative care. After 2 years, complainant after consulting many other Doctors has created her own story and filed the complaint to demoralize O.P. He has taken so much care and treated with due caution, at the time of operation. Even in post operative period, O.P. advised for taking so much caution and adequate care to the complainant. He is running the Nursing Home for the last 25 years, and he has not received a single complaint either from patients or from public in discharging duty in Hubli. O.P. has got good reputation in Hubli, Dharwad. He is put to great hardship by the false allegations in the complaint against him. He is ready to produce documents and material evidence to show the false complaint by the complainant, which is frivolous also. Complaint is to be dismissed with costs.

(3.) COMPLAINANT has relied on Exts. C1 to C12 and filed Affidavit of herself and Dr. Dama of Sholapur and subjected themselves as CW1 and CW2 for cross -examination by O.P. O.P. has relied on Exts. R1 to R6, and filed his affidavit and subjected to cross -examination by complainant, perused them. Heard both sides. learned Counsel for complainant has argued that complainant was operated for piles and fissure by O.P. on 24.5.1999 for which Exts. C3 Bill was issued, and she has paid it. She was discharged on 4.6.1999 with discharge mucus from Anus. She was unable to move and walk. She showed to O.P., who advised her to take some medicines, in spite of medicine taking it continued. She consulted other Doctors and learnt that external sphincter was removed, which was unnecessary in piles operation. It was to be reconstructed by Plastic Surgery by Dr. Joshi of Bombay, Pad has to be used always. CW2 Dr. Dama examined her. Exts. C8 and C10 are his certificates. Dr. Joshi also examined her, and issued certificate Ext. C9. Damage is shown in figure in page 49 of the records, complainant has explained her suffering by letter to O.P. But, did not reply, as not necessary. Both in version and affidavit, O.P. has not denied the cutting of sphincter. It was damaged. If reconstructed, success was 30 -40%. Further treatment is only in U.S.A. Cross -examination of R.W. shows incontinence of stool to complainant C.W. 2 Dr. Dama has deposed the negligence of O.P. in operation. O.P. has not at all cross -examined it. There is no denial even in the affidavit sufferance of complainants is not rebutted. According to O.P. mucus flow is usual, with the cutting of splinter. R.W. 1 admits cutting of sphincter. According to him, it does not result in inconsistence of stools. Para 5 of C.W. 2 proves the negligence. Ext. R3 is earlier to surgery, , Spring Medows Hospital and Another v. Hargol Ahuliwala, 1998 4 SCC 39 is relied on. As against this, the learned Counsel for O.P., has argued that O.P. has an experience of 27 years. Para 8 of the complaint, and Paras 2 and 3 in page 2 of version is pointed out. Affidavit of complainant, para 23 deals with 2nd surgery. Ext. C4 of Dr. Kadkol, page 1 bottom observation is sphincter control T+ve, little better of 20.12.1999 is pointed out. It is submitted that cutting of sphincter was necessary as per literature produced, which is not denied. Para 1 in page 3 of R.W. 1, last sentence is pointed out. C.W. 2 Dr. Dama is not a specialist as per the Para 5 of Affidavit. No case sheet or bill is produced for one month treatment. C.W. 1 not undergone investigation suggested by Dr. Nayakwadi, as per C.W. 2, patient was subjected to undergo advice. Report is not produced. Ultra Sound scan for damages, and literature, and R.W. 1 is evidence are pointed out. Dr. Kariholu s certificate Case Sheet - suture removed 4 months gap, seen some other Doctors before meeting O.P. No damage is caused by O.Ps. surgery. No specialist evidence produced crucial document is case sheet of Dr. Dama CW 2. O.Ps. Hospital discharge shows complainant was quite healthy -continence and undergoing 2nd surgery is doubtful. Complainant has suprressed material facts. No case of negligence or deficiency in service is made out by complainant. O.P. has produced written arguments and additional literature in support of his contentions.