VIRENDRA SINGH Vs. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Virendra Singh, an agriculturist from Haryana, has filed this appeal against dismissal of his complaint by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in consumer complaint No. 26/2003. In the complaint before the State Commission, a compensation of Rs. 25 lacs was claimed on account of alleged medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties namely, National Institute of Medical Sciences, Dr. Balveer Singh Tomer and Mrs. Shobha Tomer, in the treatment of Mrs. Nirmala Devi, wife of the complainant.

(2.) The State Commission, going by the respective pleas, evidence and material brought on record came to a conclusion that the complainant had failed to establish any medical negligence or deficiency in the treatment of the patient. During the course of the hearing on 20.2.2010, it was argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the finding of the State Commission is not based on correct and proper appreciation of the evidence and material on record. This being a case of alleged medical negligence and deficiency in the treatment of the patient, the Commission should have referred the question to medical experts in order to reach a definite finding as to whether the treatment given to the patient was, or was not, in accordance with the prescribed medical protocol or was there any deficiency in service in giving the treatment. Therefore, with the consent of the two Counsel, the matter Was referred to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi (AIIMS), with a request to constitute a Medical Board comprising senior doctors from the disciplines of orthopaedics, neurosurgery and radiology to give its opinion based on the record submitted to it. After this report was received, on 21.5.2010, Ms. Meenakshi Midha was appointed as amicus curiae to assist the complainant. On the request of 30.11.2010 from the Amicus a fresh reference was made to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences with reference to the records of treatment of the wife of the complainant at SMS Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur, where she was treated subsequent to the treatment received by her at the respondent Institute.

(3.) Before the State Commission, the case of the complainant was that his wife, Mrs.Nirmala Devi was suffering from some problem in her spinal cord. She was examined in the AIIMS, New Delhi and was advised surgery. It was performed in the National Institute of Medical Sciences, Jaipur (Respondent-1). According to the complainant, he was assured that the surgery will be performed by a neuro surgeon (Dr. Hemant Bharti) but was actually performed by an orthopaedic surgeon, (Dr. Anand Sharma). This, it is alleged, was an act of unfair trade practice, on the part of the respondents. After this surgery, the condition of his wife deteriorated. She lost sensation in the lower part of her body and became nearly totally bed ridden. He therefore, shifted her to SMS Hospital, Jaipur.