RANI DEVI Vs. S R AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the complainant against the order of the State Commission dismissing the appeal filed by the complainant against the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the deceased husband of the complainant approached the respondent. Dr. Aggarwal on 19.9.1993 with swelling on the neck, fever and certain other complaints. The Consulting Physician advised him for gland biopsy and FNAC. The patient got done FNAC test from respondent No. 4 and was diagnosed with "Cytologically consistent with features of tuberculosis, lymphadentitis associated with secondary pyogenic infection". When the report was shown to respondent No. 1, he started treatment for tuberculosis on 24.9.1993. The deceased never got back to respondent No. 1 instead he approached respondent No. 3 on 27.9.1993 who on seeing the report and examination also prescribed medicines for treatment of tuberculosis for a period of two months. Same was repeated by respondent No. 3 on 22.12.1993. In the meantime, the deceased contacted respondent No. 2 on 30.10.1993. He also advised and suggested treatment for tuberculosis. Upon not getting any relief, the deceased went to Bhopal and got a biopsy done at Tandon Pathology Lab. On 12.1.1994 who diagnosed the deceased as having cancer. Confirmation of this came from the Cancer Hospital, Gwalior on 2.2.1994. The husband of the complainant died on 2.5.1994. A complaint was filed by the son of the deceased which was withdrawn as not pressed. Then another complaint was filed before the District Forum by the wife of the deceased Smt. Rani Devi @ Ram Shri. When after hearing both the parties, the District Forum dismissed the complaint, an appeal was filed before the State Commission, the same was also dismissed as no negligence could be found to be proved against the respondent. Hence this revision petition.

(3.) It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that it is a clear case of negligence on the part of the respondents. Complainant No. 1 could not diagnose the deceased with having cancer. It is the report of the respondent No. 4 which is at the base of it all. It is a question of wrong diagnosis on the part of all the respondents. Had they diagnosed the deceased having cancer in time, he would have been treated and saved. According to him, it is the incorrect diagnose of the deceased which epitomizes the negligence on the part of the respondent. On the other hand, it was argued by the learned Counsels for the respondent that if there is any one at fault it is the deceased. He was advised gland biopsy and F.N.A.C. He only got one test done. Had he got his biopsy done initially, that would have determined the status of the patient. Doctors can only treat based on diagnostic report. There has been no negligence on their part.