SANTOSH KAUR SODHI Vs. VIJAY MUJOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and have perused the order under appeal dated 2.12.2002 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum] in Complaint Case No.909 of 1999, Mrs. Santosh Kaur Sodhi V/s. Dr. Vijay Mujoo. The District Forum held that the appellants had failed to prove medical negligence or deficiency in service in giving the report about carcinoma of uterus of Mrs. Santosh Kaur Sodhi, appellant No.1. The District Forum, thus, dismissed the complaint.

(2.) The facts of the complaint case, briefly stated are that Dr. Neeraj Chawala of Gynae Endoscopy Centre, Chandigarh advised the appellant No.1, Smt. Santosh Kaur Sodhi to get herself tested for cancer and suggested the name of the respondent Dr. Vijay Mujoo, MD, Pathologist of Medi-Path Diagnostic Laboratory located in Sector 15-D, Chandigarh. After the test, the respondent Dr. Vijay Mujoo prepared his report on 26.6.1999 and diagnosis "endometrium; small cell carcinoma (Oat cell type)" which in the common parlance meant cancer. After getting this report, the appellant No.1 was taken to Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai for treatment which has been described to be the best available Hospital for treatment of cancer. It is alleged that the uterus of the appellant No.1 Smt. Santosh Kaur Sodhi was removed relying on the report of respondent Dr. Vijay Mujoo and thereafter a part of Uterus was sent for Hitsopathological test for presence of cancer. It is alleged that in the Histopathological test which was conducted in the said Tata Memorial Hospital, cancer was not found in the uterus.

(3.) The grievance of the appellants was that the wrong report of the respondent led the appellants to rush to Tata Memorial Hospital at Mumbai where the uterus of Smt. Santosh Kaur Sodhi was removed. Thereafter, the report of Histopathological examination showed that there was no carcinoma of uterus. The appellants were considerably worried and rather shocked on account of the wrong report regarding cancer in the uterus as reported by the respondent Dr. Vijay Mujoo. The appellants filed the complaint claiming a sum of Rs.3,39,690/- as compensation, expenses in treatment, etc. Besides the claim of compensation, the appellants also prayed that O. P. be restrained from endangering the precious life of the citizens by his negligence and careless conduct and prayed for any other relief which the Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.