H R MEGH Vs. JASJIT CHHACHHI NURSING HOME

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal challenges the order dated 21.01.1999 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (hereafter, 'the State Commission') in Complaint Case No. 58 of 1997. The original complainants (appellants before us; hereafter referred to as 'the complainants') filed a complaint before the State Commission, alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the original opposite parties (respondents here and referred to as 'the OPs') in treating Kamalesh Kumari (hereafter, "Kamalesh") the deceased wife of complainant no. 1 and mother of the other complainants. After hearing the parties and considering the material on record, the State commission dismissed the complaint, which has led to this appeal.

(2.) 1 (i) Kamalesh suffered from excessive vaginal bleeding with pain at the time of menstruation (menorrhagia) and was under the treatment of OP 2 at OP 1 since October 1990. OP 2 performed a dilatation and curetting (D&C) procedure on Kamalesh on 20.10.1990 and sent the curettings (tissues) to the Government Medical College (GMC), Amritsar for histopathological examination (HPE). The HPE report dated 27.10.1990 of the D&C curettings showed chronic endometriosis with metaplasia and changes in the squamous epithelium, and advised cervical biopsy. However, the medical record of OP 1 for this D&C did not refer to the findings of this HPE report though it contained entries of 06.11.1990, i. e. , well after the date of the HPE report. Further, while this record did not mention the need for cervical biopsy recommended in the HPE report, it did note the advice of OP 2 about abdominal hysterectomy.

(3.) We have heard at length Mr. B. J. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants/complainants and Mr. U. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents/opposite parties and have gone carefully through the voluminous record as well the medical literature cited by the two learned counsel. We note with appreciation that both of them have worked very hard at their respective cases and have marshalled extensive medical literature in support of their contentions at times, interestingly enough, from the same author(s)/source(s). Before the State Commission, both parties examined their own witnesses, mostly the doctors who were the persona dramatis and the witnesses were cross-examined. During the appeal proceedings, Mr. B. J. Singh filed an application to address interrogatories to one Dr. Rajesh Gupta who was a Senior Resident in Surgery at the PGI at the relevant time and had continued there as an Assistant Professor in the Surgery Department. This Commission allowed the application and, in turn, permitted Mr. U. Singh to address his own interrogatories to Dr. Gupta. The latter replied to both sets of interrogatories, which were taken on record. Mr. B. J. Singh's further application to seek clarification on Dr. Gupta's replies to his interrogatories was, however, not allowed by this Commission.