SABITARI AGARWAL Vs. TATA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Appeal is directed against the order dtd. 26/6/2012 passed by Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, the 'State Commission') at Mumbai in Complaint Case No. CC/09/54, whereby the State Commission dismissed the complaint filed by the Appellant.

(2.) The Complainant (for short patient) was initially consulted Dr. R. K. Purohit at Purohit General Hospital and Research Centre for her abdominal pain. The Ultrasonography and endoscopy was carried out on 16/3/2007. It was reported as ulcerated growth in cardio oesophageal junction also the biopsy was taken from the ulcer margin. On 21/3/2007, she was referred to the Tata Memorial Hospital (TMC), Mumbai OP-1 for further management. She gave the biopsy for histopathology study in TMC, but the report was not ready till 2324/03/2007. Dr. Sudeep Gupta (OP-2), without examining the reports, verbally informed the relatives of the Complainant that she was suffering from Cancer Stage-IV and advised to take four cycles of chemotherapy at their hometown in Chhattisgarh. Due to shortage of money she purchased drugs for two cycles of chemo. The Complainant took first two cycles at Maharana Bhupal Government Hospital at Udaipur on 27/3/2007 and 18/4/2007. In between, the blood transfusion was given, but her condition further deteriorated, therefore, the patient came back to TMC on 11/6/2007. The OP-2 examined her and investigated including pleural fluid cytology. It revealed no malignancy. Therefore, the Complainant lost the confidence in OP-1 and 2 and took discharge on 16/6/2007. She went back to the Udaipur and admitted in Rajasthan Hospital. She was investigated for TB and also endoscopy done on 28/6/2007. It was reported as features of 'chroic atrophic gastritis with focal area of neutropilic exudates and there was no evidence of dysplastic/malignant changes'. Thereafter she made enquiry with few doctors who told that OP-1 Hospital was wrongly treated the patient. In fact histopathology report dtd. 29/3/2007 had opined that there was no malignancy in the biopsy sample but the Complainant received the report only on 12/6/2007 from the OP No. 1, Hospital. She suffered from Tuberculosis, but taken two chemo cycles unnecessarily. Being aggrieved due to alleged medical negligence and deficiency in services, the Consumer Complaint was filed before the State Commission against the OP claiming Rs.72,58,000.00.

(3.) The OPs in their reply denied any negligence or deficiency from their end. The OP No.2 clarified that best possible professional care and skill was taken to start the patient on appropriate management in the then existing circumstances, when the overall picture of the Complainant strongly supported gastric carcinoma. Even now there was suspicion of carcinoma stomach/pulmonary koch's exists as per the Complainant's own report from a hospital at Udaipur. It was the fault of the Complainant who didn't wait to collect the HPE report and he didn't stay in the hospital but insisted to go to his home town. It was further submitted that she took only one cycle of chemotherapy.