B H PARMAR Vs. DODIYA MANHARBHAI ALIAS MANUBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition has been filed by Dr. B. H. Parmar (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioner') being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in favour of Dodiya Manaharbhari @ Manubhai (hereinafter referred to as the 'Respondent').

(2.) The facts of the case according to the Respondent who was the original complainant before the District Forum, are that he was being treated for his stomach ailments by one Dr. P. N. Kharod, a renowned doctor of Surendranagar, who advised that Respondent required gall bladder surgery. Respondent was, thereafter, referred to the Petitioner/Doctor who admitted him as an indoor patient in Dr. Kharod's clinic. Petitioner informed the elder brothers of the Respondent that he would do the surgery by laser technique and it would take about an hour. No pre-operative tests were conducted by the Petitioner. On 19.03.1998 when the surgery was conducted, Respondent's relatives enquired from the Petitioner whether the surgery was successful but the Petitioner gave a vague reply and also did not show them the gall stones which were removed during the surgery. Further, even after the surgery, Respondent continued to experience pain and he contacted the Petitioner who informed that the pain will reduce in due course. Dr. Kharod who was consulted, prescribed medicines and gave a similar assurance. However, despite this there was no relief and therefore, a sonography was done on 17.04.1998 which indicated that the stones which were to be removed from the gall bladder, as well as part of the gall bladder were still there, hence the entire surgery was a failure. Respondent thereafter took treatment from another doctor, Dr. Parikh, who again conducted a sonography and prescribed medicines. Later, Dr. Parikh also performed surgery and removed the stones successfully. Since, Respondent suffered both physical and mental agony and incurred heavy expenditure as a result of the surgeries, he contacted the Petitioner who volunteered to pay Rs. 1 lakh. Respondent, however, demanded Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation, which the Petitioner first stated that he would pay in instalments and thereafter refused. Respondent, therefore, filed a complaint before the District Forum accusing the Petitioner of medical negligence and deficiency in service because he did not take due care and precaution either prior to the surgery or during the procedure and requested that the Petitioner be directed to pay the Respondent Rs. 4,75,000/- with 12% interest as well as any other reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.

(3.) Petitioner has challenged the above contentions and stated that he was a reputed surgeon who had successfully conducted several similar surgeries and there were no complaints against him. In the instant case, during the course of surgery, Petitioner found that the gall bladder of the Respondent was very much enlarged and thick and was firmly stuck to the internal part of the body. Had he tried to pull this out to remove the gall bladder/stones, there was possibility of damage to the main blood vessels and the bile duct which could have endangered the life of the patient. He, therefore, decided to remove only three-fourth of the gall bladder (instead of the entire gall bladder) along with stones in the best interest of the Respondent's health. All these facts were explained to the relatives who were present in the hospital during the operation by displaying the same on TV screen. Further, the operated parts were put in a bottle and shown to the relatives of the Respondent by the staff of the hospital. Petitioner also denied that he had ever offered any money to the Respondent. Regarding the second successful surgery, he contended that it was possible that the enlargement could have subsided following medicines since the second surgery took place about 11 months after the first surgery. There was no medical negligence and due care was taken both before the surgery and thereafter, in respect of the Respondent.