UTTARANCHAL FOREST HOSPITAL TRUST Vs. RAISAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 16.10.2001 passed by the District Forum, Nainital whereby the appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs.63,500/- along with the cost of litigation to the complainant on the ground of medical negligence.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Smt. Raisan Chand has developed some problem in her left breast. She got it medically examined from Dr. Rajeev Kumar Setiya, opposite party No.2 of the complaint. Dr. Setiya referred the complainant to Major R. C. Pande of Raghav Pathology, opposite party No.1 to the complaint for pathological test and biopsy. The complainant got her pathological test from Dr. R. C. Pande of Raghav Pathology. Dr. R. C. Pande reported that there was cancer in the breast of the complainant. On the basis of this report Dr. Setiya operated the breast and removed. The complainant and her husband had requested Dr. Setiya after the receipt of the report of Dr. Pande that if necessary again there may be pathological test. Dr. Setiya did not hear and said that the report of Dr. Pande is 100% correct. After the operation of the breast a piece was sent to Mehrotra Pathology, Lucknow for further examination, from where it was reported that there is no cancer at all. The complainant suffered physical and mental pain and financial loss due to this unwanted operation. It has been done because of the negligence of opposite party Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, the complaint was filed.

(3.) The opposite party No.1 in his written statement has said that the complainant was never sent for pathological investigation and biopsy but she was sent by Dr. Setiya for F. N. A. C. (Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology) for which he himself aspirated fluid from the growth in the breast. He was not instructed to do any biopsy. It is alleged that biopsy and F. N. A. C. are totally different terms and totally different procedures. The F. N. A. C. report given by the opposite party No.1 only gave impression of the microscopic finding of the aspirated fluid and had only suggested that "duct Carcinoma should be considered". The opposite party did not give any confirmatory diagnosis, therefore, opposite party No.2 Dr. Setiya should have advised for further laboratory investigation, he only gave impression and not any confirmatory diagnosis. It is alleged that only a small portion of the breast was sent to Dr. Mehrotra for test. It is possible that the affected portion might not have been sent. There was no negligence on the part of the opposite party No.1. He never gave any incorrect report, Dr. Setiya should have made the complete investigation. The report of Dr. Mehrotra is different test on the basis of biopsy while his test is on the basis of F. N. A. C. Opposite party No.1 has never suggested for any Mastectomy. He is not liable to pay any compensation.