ST STEPHEN HOSPITAL Vs. MANOHAR LAL THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by St Stephen's Hospital (hereinafter referred to as 'Petitioner') against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short 'the State Commission'), whereby the State Commission had allowed an appeal preferred by one Manohar Lal (hereinafter referred to as 'Respondent') in this case.

(2.) The facts of the case as per the Respondent's version is that he went to Petitioner's Hospital on 26.01.1998 with a complaint of experiencing difficulty in passing urine. He was taken to the emergency room, where a catheter was inserted, after which he was sent home with advice to come next day for consultations in the OPD of the Urology department. Accordingly, he came back and was examined by one Dr R K Choudhary who recommended certain tests and after that he was again sent home. In this manner upto 14.04.1998, the Respondent was called/ visited the Hospital 15 times and on each occasion he went to the OPD by paying fees and was prescribed medicines but got no relief from his urinary problem. The catheter which was inserted was also not changed or removed, for about 2 1/2 months and finally after suffering extreme discomfort during this period he requested that the catheter be removed. After removal of the catheter he could not pass urine so he went back to the hospital where the catheter was again inserted in the emergency room. The Respondent unable to bear the pain and harassment any longer, decided to seek medical treatment at another hospital - Sunder Lal Jain Hospital, where an urologist diagnosed him with enlarged prostrate. After Ultrasound, he was advised to undergo surgery. All the medical tests were completed in one day and he was operated on the next day and was discharged from the hospital after four days, fully cured. On the other hand, even after spending so much time and money for his treatment in St Stephen's Hospital for 2 1/2 months, the doctor never told him what his medical problem was and in fact his physical condition worsened during this period. Alleging gross medical negligence and deficiency in service, Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking Rs.4.00 lakh as compensation.

(3.) Petitioner Hospital has denied the charges of medical negligence and deficiency of service. According to them, it is a fact that the Respondent was treated in their hospital after being diagnosed with enlargement of prostrate. Since he was only 45 years of age at that time and prostrate enlargement normally occurs in the age group of 60 plus, the Medical specialist after considering all aspects of his case decided that at his age surgery is best avoided, since it can lead to complications like sexual dysfunction, cardiac problems etc. It was therefore, decided to treat the patient conservatively. Surgery was also ruled out, because the Respondent had recurrent infections for which he was given courses of antibiotics from 03.02.1998, 10.03.1998 and 27.03.1998. Petitioner has denied that the catheter was not changed for 2 1/2 months. In fact, the catheter was changed from time to time and after it was removed on 14.04.1998 on the patient's insistence, within an hour urine retention occurred and the catheter had to be reinserted on the same day.