PREM BALA Vs. SATINDER SALUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT.Prem Bai, Appellant herein, has filed this First Appeal being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh(hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') which had dismissed her Appeal of medical negligence against Dr.(Mrs.)Satinder Saluja (Respondent No.1), Dr.Paras Shrimal (Respondent No.2) and others, Respondents herein.

(2.) THE facts of the case according to the Appellant are that on 15.07.1998 she had consulted the Respondent No.1 at her Nursing Home in Ujjain with complaints of abdominal pain for which she was prescribed medicines and in case there was no relief, she was asked to contact the Respondent No.1 again. Since the pain in the abdomen persisted, Appellant again visited the Respondent No.1 on 28.07.1998 and after undergoing ultra -sonography, she was diagnosed with bilateral T.P.Masses in the uterus and Pelvic Inflammatory Disease (PID) for which she underwent a hysterectomy on 08.09.1998 for removal of her uterus. Appellant was discharged on 16.09.1998. But since the abdominal pain continued and after a few weeks, Appellant also experienced leakage of urine, she again consulted Respondent No.1 who referred her to Respondent No.2, Dr.Paras Shrimal, a Urologist who after diagnosis and examination advised that another another surgery was required to repair a small Vasico Vaginal Fistula (VVF). According to the Appellant, this occurred because the hysterectomy was not performed with due care. The Appellant was discharged on 14.09.1999 and during this period, the doctor also inserted a catheter in her vagina. However, when this was removed, leakage of urine restarted. It is only when Appellant went to Indore for further treatment under one Dr.Rajendra Lahoti to repair the VVF that she could get relief. Since the Appellant had to undergo unnecessary physical and mental agony and three surgeries because of the negligence in treatment by Respondents No.1 and 2 and had also to incur a heavy expenditure on her treatment/medicines, she approached the State Commission with allegations of medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents and requested that the Respondents be directed to pay her Rs.12 lakhs for the expenditure incurred and the mental and physical sufferings caused to her.

(3.) THE allegations of medical negligence were denied by the Respondents who stated that all necessary care and precautions were taken in the treatment of the patient and there was no medical negligence in this case. Respondent No.1 contended that on the basis of clinical diagnosis including ultrasound, patient was detected with bilateral T.P. Masses in the uterus and Pelvic Inflammatory Disease (PID) for which she was initially prescribed medicines but when this did not clear the infections, she underwent a hysterectomy and was discharged from the hospital in a satisfactory condition. Since, it takes about 6 weeks to recover from hysterectomy, she was given post -operative advice not to lift heavy items and also to abstain from sexual intercourse. During her subsequent visits on 13.10.1998 and 16.11.1998, Appellant did not have any complaints except general complaint of abdominal pain for which she was given medicines and tonics. It was only on 28.01.1999 i.e. after a period of 41/2 months of the hysterectomy that Appellant approached Respondent No.1 with a complaint of leakage of urine. As this was a urological problem, she was referred to Dr.Paras Shrimal, a Urologist, who after examination and ultra -sonography diagnosed that this was a case of small Vasico Vaginal Fistula(VVF) and surgery was advised to repair the VVF. The Appellant was again discharged in a satisfactory condition with post -operative advice and it was only 6 months later i.e. on 06.09.1999 that she approached the Respondent No.2 with a complaint of leakage of the urine for which a Cystoscopy was performed on 21.09.1999 and she was discharged from the hospital in a satisfactory condition. Respondents stated that the problem of urine leakage was not linked to hysterectomy because if this was so, this would have occurred within 7 to 10 days of this surgery and not after 41/2 months. Medical literature on the subject was also cited in support of this contention. According to the Respondents, the problem of leakage of urine occurred on both occasions i.e. after the hysterectomy and the repair of VVF because the Appellant did not take due care to heed medical advice given to her i.e. not to have sexual intercourse.