VIDYA DEVI Vs. P N MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complaint was filed, inter alia, alleging that the complainant is aged of 32 years and her third child was born about 2 years ago. In November 1997, she suffered from excess bleeding from her vagina. Therefore, she visited opposite party No. 1, an obstetrician and gynecologist at her clinic on 27.11.1997. After examining her the opposite party No. 1 opined that she is having fibroid uterus and advised to undergo various tests and prescribed some medicines. Complainant again visited opposite party No. 1 on 1.1.1998 with reports and on seeing them the complainant was advised to get herself admitted in Sudha Nursing Home run by opposite party No. 2. On 3.1.1998, opposite parties removed her fallopian tube, ovary of both the sides and the uterus. She was discharged from the nursing home on 9.1.1998. After a few days of operation, the complainant started having abdominal pain. So, she against visited opposite party No. 1 at her clinic on 17.1.1998. Thereafter, she visited opposite party No. 1 on 31.1.1998, 13.4.1998, 22.4.1998 and 15.5.1998. She did not get any relief. On suspecting that she may have been wrongly treated by opposite party No. 1, she consulted Dr. Manu Patnaik, another gynecologist at Rourkela on 27.7.1998. Even from the treatment given by this doctor she did not get any relief. It is further alleged that as the complainant started motion through her vagina, she was taken to Appollo Hospital at Chennai. There it was detected that the opposite parties had left a pad inside her abdomen which was responsible for her problems. It was also pleaded that there was no necessity to remove fallopian tube and the ovaries by the opposite parties. Attributing medical negligence, a total amount of Rs. 42,55,000/- , the break up whereof has been given in para No. 15 as under, had been claimed:- <FRM>NP_31_NCDRC_2010.htm</FRM>

(2.) Both the opposite parties contested the complaint by filing separate written versions. In the written version, opposite party No. 1 alleged that after leaving job as a senior Obstetrician and Gynecologist from Ispat General Hospital, Rourkela, she started rendering free medical service as a gesture of goodwill. It was admitted that the complainant visited the answering opposite party on 27.11.1997 for her uncontrolled bleeding over a prolonged period of time. There was growth in her uterus. She advised her to have an ultra sound and to bring treatment papers of the last delivery. On 1.1.1998, the complainant came only with ultra sound report. She was diagnosed to have enlarged uterus with fibromyoma with bleeding large cervical erosion. The complainant alongwith her husband discussed at length the advantages and disadvantages of surgery vis-"-vis the medical treatment for the above gynecological disorder. Complainant and her husband were not in favour of D&C and CX biopsy. They opted for a radical surgery. It was decided to have total abdominal hysterectomy and bi-lateral salpingo-oophoreetomy. Complainant and her husband opted for Sudha Nusing Home run by opposite party No. 2. Complainant was admitted in that Nursing Home on 1.1.1998 at 2.30 p.m. Since the complainant was bleeding profusely, the answering opposite party prescribed her one unit of asstymin-3 infusion alongwith one unit of 10% dextrose solution. She received the infusion well on 2.1.1998. She was kept under examination. Informed consent for operation was obtained. Replying opposite party performed TAH+BSO on 3.1.1998 under spinal anesthesia delivered by Mrs. Dr. Preeti Patra. Opposite party No. 2 assisted her in conducting operation. Complainant recovered well and was discharged on 9.1.1998. Thereafter, complainant visited the answering opposite party four times between 17.1.1998 to 22.4.1998. It was denied that the complainant complained of unbearable abdominal pain, bleeding and smell in urine as alleged. She claimed that the finding of abdominal pad inside the lumen of the sigmoid colon can never be related to the surgery done seven and half months back. Abdominal pad might be got inside the lumen of the large gut which is a fibro muscular hollow organ, by any other way excepting during the course of total abdominal hysterectomy. Claimed amount of Rs. 42,55,000/- was stated to be exaggerated and liability to pay it was denied.

(3.) In the written statement, opposite party No. 2 alleged that he had only let out the operation theatre to opposite party No. 1 for conducting operation of the complainant. Complainant is not a consumer qua him. It was admitted that complainant was admitted in nursing home on 1.1.1998 and was operated by opposite party No. 1 for total abdominal mysterilomy bilateral salpigostomy on 3.9.1998. Opposite party never assisted opposite party No.1 in conducting the operation. Fee for the operation was collected through opposite party No.1. Denying medical negligence liability to pay the amount claimed was refuted.