MANOJ SHARMA Vs. KULDEEP MAHAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by Dr. Manoj Sharma and United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. (herein after referred to as the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 respectively) being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (herein after referred to as the "State Commission") wherein Kuldeep Mahajan and others were Respondents.

(2.) The Respondent/complainant had contended before the District Forum that in April, 2003 he was having pain in his abdomen and difficulty in passing urine and the ultra sound and CT Scan indicated some complications. He, therefore, approached the Petitioner's hospital where the Petitioner/doctor diagnosed his ailment as "Left Upper Ureteric Calculus" and found upper ureteric stone with HDB on the left side of his kidney and he was advised removal of the stone through laser treatment without open surgery. Respondent was assured by the Petitioner that this procedure was hundred percent safe and successful and he would be completely fit thereafter. Respondent, therefore, got himself admitted into the Petitioner's hospital on 1.5.2003 where a URS (outside) was done on 2.5.2003 which was later converted into an open Nephrostomy. According to the Respondent because of the gross negligence and carelessness and deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner during the open Nephrostomy, as a consequence the ureteric stone could not be removed. An outer pipe was fixed in the bladder which caused further pain and injury. Petitioner, however, kept assuring the relatives that the operation was successful and the Respondent's condition would improve and he should continue to take medication as advised. However, Respondent's condition instead of improving, further deteriorated and he had to be re-admitted in the hospital on 18.5.2003 but was again discharged on 23.5.2003 in a critical condition. According to the Respondent, because of the negligence of the Petitioner, his kidney and urinary pipe were damaged and injured due to which he suffered pain all the time, Although, Respondent had spent more than Rs. 1 lakh, his medical problem continued and in fact he became bed-ridden because of which he suffered huge financial losses as well as emotional trauma. He, therefore, had to be treated subsequently in PGI Hospital, Chandigarh where he was finally operated on 18.9.2003 and further damage to his vital body parts was prevented to some extent. Alleging gross deficiency in his treatment and surgery by the Petitioner due to his medical negligence, Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum requesting that the Petitioner be directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 10 lakh as well as any other relief to which Respondent would be entitled in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.

(3.) Petitioner denied that there was any medical negligence, carelessness or deficiency in service on his part. According to the Petitioner, the surgery was conducted in a well-equipped operation theatre under spinal anesthesia. Unfortunately, during the surgery, the ureteroscope went beyond the site of the stone impaction. The site of impaction of stone which was at the uppermost end of the uterer, got dislodged from the upper end and while removing the ureteroscope, the ureter became intersussepted causing the injury and the entire ureter dislodged from its upper attachment and entered inside the bladder. The Petitioner immediately tried to put back the uterer to its normal anatomical position but unfortunately as the ureteric injury was severe and since it could not be repaired, nephrostomy had to be performed in the interest of the health of the Respondent. According to the Petitioner, this type of ureteric injury occurs occasionally despite the best medical treatment and care and not because of any negligence or deficiency in service.