KERSI F.DALAL Vs. JANAK K.MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by Kersi F. Dalal(hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellant') being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat(hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') which had dismissed his complaint of medical negligence filed against Dr.Janak K.Mehta and Dr.Jayesh J.Shah, Respondents No.1 and 2 herein. The National Insurance Co.Ltd. is Respondent No.3 in this case.

(2.) In his complaint before the State Commission, Appellant, a practicing Advocate, who had also earlier been treated by Respondent No.1, consulted him on 07.01.1997 with complaints of feeling feverish with abdominal pain. He was given a course of antibiotic injections for 4 days but instead of getting relief, his fever rose to 104 FH and his stomach became very distended and he also started vomiting. In spite of this, Respondent No.1 without trying to find out the cause of his multiple medical complaints, did not advise any pathological or other examination e.g. X-ray, stool examination etc. and instead he referred the Appellant to Respondent No.2 who conducted a sonography twice but could not get a good image. During this procedure, two big straps were tightly tied across appellant's stomach which caused him extreme distress. As a result of the defective sonography, Appellant's ailments could not be properly diagnosed and the infection spread into the stomach. Respondent No.1 instead of treating him for this condition, asked him to go to Patwa Nursing Home to an unknown doctor. It was only another senior surgeon whom the Appellant consulted in the late evening, who advised him to immediately get admitted into the hospital and be put on a saline drip prior to an emergency operation for appendicitis. The saline drip which was fixed by Respondent No.1 was done so carelessly that Appellant's biceps and forearm became swollen upto three times. It was with difficulty that the Appellant managed to get a ticket to Pune and got admission in Jehangir Nursing Home where he underwent a 31/2 hours surgery and had to stay there for 4 months undergoing extreme mental agony as also substantial expenditure on boarding, lodging as also on medical treatment. Besides, Appellant's profession also suffered due to his inability to regularly attend to his clients. Being aggrieved by the treatment and medical negligence on the part of Respondents No.1 and 2, Appellant filed a complaint before the State Commission and requested that they be directed to jointly and severally pay him compensation of Rs.10 lakhs with interest @ 18% per annum, Rs.30,000/- as costs and any other damages as considered appropriate.

(3.) Learned Counsel for both parties made oral submissions. Learned Counsel for Appellant reiterated the medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of both Respondents No.1 and 2 and stated that the main complaint against Respondent No.1 was that without conducting any diagnostic tests including a stool examination, he gave him medical treatment which actually worsened his condition. He also reiterated that the sonography conducted by Respondent No.2 was not clear and undue agony and pain was caused to him by putting straps on his distended abdomen during the procedure which the State Commission failed to take note of. It was also reiterated that the patient actually suffered from appendicitis which could have been easily diagnosed if he was given proper medical attention including a proper sonography. Instead, a wrong diagnosis was made and it was only at Pune when the Appellant's condition deteriorated that he was immediately detected with appendicitis and a surgery had to be performed. It was prayed that because of the mental agony and harassment as also the financial hardship and loss caused to the Appellant, compensation of Rs.10 lakhs was reasonable and justified.