SUSHMA Vs. G D GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This complaint has been filed by the wife of the deceased Narender Kumar Rai and their children. By order dated 30.10.2001, Opposite Party Nos. 4 and 5 were deleted from array of parties.

(2.) After noticing hard swelling in the tongue. Narender Kumar Rai (herein after referred as deceased) consulted 2-3 doctors and ultimately approached Dr. G.D. Goel, Opposite Party No. 1 who advised him to get biopsy done. The deceased was admitted in Maharaja Agar Sain Hospital, New Delhi, Opposite Party No. 2 on 18.3.1999. He was operated upon on 19.3.1999 and was discharged on 26.3.1999 with advice to follow up. On 31.3.1999 the deceased visited Dr. G.D. Goel who informed him that there was nothing to worry as he had removed whole of the nodule. According to the Complainant biopsy report was not given in spite of repeatedly asking for the same. The deceased went for regular follow up and in August, 1999, the deceased developed hardness again in the tongue and the Doctor advised him to get C.T. Scan done. The C.T. Scan disclosed malignancy (Cancer) of the tongue. However, doctor had not informed the said fact to the deceased or his spouse. On 19.8.1999 the deceased was taken to Tata Memorial Hospital, Bombay and later followed up in cancer department of AIIMS Centre. Radiotherapy and Chemotherapy was tried. As the disease (Cancer) was at advance stage, the effect was partial and due to malignant CACHEXIA, he developed pressure over food pipe and wind pipe. Ultimately the deceased expired on 4.4.2000.

(3.) According to the complainant, if Dr.G.D. Goel had informed of the fact that the deceased was suffering from cancer and the biopsy report was handed over to him, he could have consulted cancer surgeon, radiotherapists and oncologist in time. !t is further submitted that Dr. G.D. Goel did not either give medicine for cancer nor advised the deceased to see cancer specialist. It is further pointed out that the biopsy report was ready on 23.3.1999 but in the discharge slip dated 26.3.1999, it was stated that biopsy report was awaited. In prescription dated 31.3.1999 it was mentioned ulcerated nodule and not cancer. In the discharge slip it was written that the patient was operated for Partial Glossectomy. However, the patient was referred to C.T. Scan in August, 1999. The term used by Doctor was Hemiglossectomy which means cutting half cf tongue. However, the material received in Lab for test was 3 x 2.5 cm mass and not half of tongue. The payments for the treatment were made to Hospital, Opposite Party No. 2. The biopsy report dated 26.3.1999 which was not given to the deceased shows that diagnosis was "KERATINIZING SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA OF TONGUE". According to the complainant, Dr. G.D. Goel was deficient in service and negligent in not disclosing the disease to the deceased and his spouse and not referring the deceased to specialist since Dr.G.D. Goel himself was not cancer specialist. Due to non-disclosure of vital information to the deceased by Dr. G.D. Goel, the cancer, for which proper treatment was not given by Dr.G.D. Goel, had reached at advanced stage when it came to knowledge of deceased after C.T.Scan and efforts made for treatment at Tata Cancer Hospital and AIIMS did not produce effective results.