SANJEEV MANKTALA Vs. AJIT SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DR.Sanjeev Manktala, Appellant herein who was the complainant before the State Commission, has filed this First Appeal being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') which had dismissed his complaint against Dr.Ajit Sood and others, Respondents herein. FACTS:

(2.) IN August, 2008 following complaints of weakness and breathlessness, Appellant got his blood tested from Vishal Diagnostic Centre, Ferozepur City wherein he was found to be anemic and with Occult Blood positive. He was prescribed medicines for the same but when there was no improvement and he developed unusual pain in his abdomen, he was admitted as an indoor patient in Amar Hospital, Ferozepur for conservative treatment. He was thereafter advised to contact Dr.Ajit Sood, Gastroenterologist (hereinafter referred to as the 'Respondent No.1') of Daya Nand Medical College and Hospital (Respondent No.3 herein). After payment of requisite fees, Respondent No.1 advised the Appellant to undergo Upper GI Endoscopy which was conducted by one Dr.Varun Mehta (hereinafter referred to as 'Respondent No.2') and which revealed that he had Esophageal Ulcer with Celiac Disease. Since the Appellant did not respond to the treatment prescribed in Respondent No.3/Hospital, he again consulted Respondent No.1 in that Hospital wherein the treatment was changed and he was advised to visit the Hospital after one month. On 27.09.2008, the Appellant accordingly visited the Hospital since the abdominal pain had increased and a CT -Scan; blood test and colonoscopy was conducted. Although the colonoscopy (which is a test that allows the doctor to examine the inner lining of the large intestine and to some extent part of the terminal ileum with the help of a thin, flexible tube) was to be conducted by Respondent No.1, it was in fact conducted by Dr.Varun Mehta, Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.1 was not even present to supervise this complex procedure. As per the Colonoscopy Report and the biopsy samples taken from two different sites as also a Barium Meal Test, Appellant was diagnosed with Tuberculosis for which he was put on Anti Tuberculosis Treatment (ATT) for six months. Two biopsy samples taken during the course of the colonoscopy did not indicate any malignancy. However, Appellant contended that Respondents failed to take biopsy sample from the actual site of the disease. Appellant did not get any relief and he thereafter consulted two other Gastroenterologists who advised a repeat colonoscopy/laparoscopy. Appellant therefore requested the Respondents to conduct a repeat colonoscopy based on the medical opinion of two doctors but Respondent No.1 insisted on continuing with the treatment for Tuberculosis and also Crohn's disease and categorically stated that there was no need for another colonoscopy. When the pain persisted, Appellant decided to consult doctors at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi wherein on the basis of a colonoscopy and tests from the biopsy samples including one from the stricture i.e. the affected (diseased) area, Appellant was informed that he was suffering from Cancer for which he was advised immediate surgery. Post -surgical specimen report as also a report from the Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre also confirmed that Appellant had a cancerous growth which had extended to outside the ileal wall. Appellant's contention was that if the repeat colonoscopy had been done by the Respondents when the Tuberculosis medicine did not work, the Cancer would have been detected at an early stage instead of which it had advanced to a late T -3 stage. Therefore, alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service, Appellant filed a complaint before the State Commission and requested that Respondents be directed to pay him Rs.3,48,180/ - towards reimbursement of amount spent on treatment along with interest @ 12% per annum till the date of actual payment, Rs.30 lakhs for harassment and mental agony, Rs.10 lakhs towards future medical expenses as also the litigation costs.

(3.) THE State Commission during the course of the proceedings, requested to the Director, Post -Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (PGI Hospital), Chandigarh to refer the case for expert opinion to a Medical Board of experts in terms of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Martin F.D'Souze Vs. Mohd. Ishfaq - 2009 (2) RCR Criminal Page 64. This 3 Member Medical Board reached the opinion that "the patient was treated appropriately". The State Commission relying on the evidence filed before it and particularly, the report of the Medical Board of expert doctors at PGI, Chandigarh concluded that there was no medical negligence on the part of the Respondents and dismissed the complaint. Hence, the present First Appeal.