SATISH KUMAR Vs. DR. SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Appeal has been filed against the order dtd. 19/2/2018 in complaint no. 11/2003 of the Appellant whereby his complaint was dismissed on merit. The complainant has submitted that the findings of the State Commission are perverse and contrary to the records available before the State Commission. It is submitted that there are enough documents to prove on record that right kidney of the complainant had been removed at the time when he was operated upon by the respondents on 13/9/2000 for the disease Chyluria Hamaturia. It was submitted that he was given general anesthesia and he did not know as to what had happened to him. Even after his operation, his condition did not improve and he was continuously having abdominal pain and other problems and, therefore, in the year 2003 he consulted the doctor. He was suffering with fluctuating blood sugar and weakness of right leg with mild paralyses. He consulted Dr.Ajay Kumar Sinha who suggested USG of the whole abdomen and complainant was shocked to see the report of the doctor dtd. 20/7/2003 wherein it is indicated that his right kidney was absent. This fact was again confirmed by Mahavir Cancer Sansthan vide their report dtd. 27/7/2003. It was contended that after the operation which the complainant had underwent on 13/9/2000, he had not underwent any other operation and he had never donated or sold his kidney to anyone. He has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the respondent on this count and filed the complaint claiming compensation. He has also filed a complaint against Dr. Ranjan Chaudhuri who had conducted ultra sound of his abdomen after the operation on 30/9/2000 and in his report he had not only noted that the right kidney of complainant was very much visible but had also given its dimensions. It has been contended that said report has been given by Dr. Ranjan Chaudhuri in connivance with the respondents.

(2.) The claim was contested by the respondents. The preliminary objection taken was that the complaint was barred by limitation since it has been filed 3 years of the date of discharge which was on 2/10/2000. It was also contended that complainant had filed the complaint on the basis of false allegations and right kidney of the complainant was not taken out by the respondents during the operation on 13/9/2000. It was further contended that complainant had not produced the ultrasound film report dtd. 30/9/2000 which would have established that right kidney of the complainant was intact after the operation. It was further contended that after his discharge the complainant had never contacted the respondents for any discomfort at any time till the filing of the complaint.

(3.) Parties led their evidences before the State Commission. An application had been filed by the respondents before the State Commission for constitution of the Medical Board seeking expert opinion on issue. Vide order dtd. 31/10/2013 the State Commission while allowing the application of the opposite party, ordered the constitution of Medical Board to ascertain the existence / non existence of the right kidney. AIIMS as well as PGI Chandigarh were requested to constitute the medical board to ascertain the said fact. Subsequently, AIIMS showed its inability to constitute the Medical Board and the Commission vide its letter dtd. 21/3/2014 requested Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow (SGIMS) to constitute the Board. The complainant had appeared before the PGI Chandigarh Medical Board on various dates and underwent several tests. A report from the PGI chandigarh had been submitted before the State Commission. As regards Medical Board of SGIMS Lucknow is concerned, it has been reported by SGIMS, Lucknow that they could not examine the complainant since he did not appear on the scheduled date of 17/4/2017 for his examination before the Board.