K JEGANATHAN Vs. DEVANATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant's case is that the complainant approached the 1st opposite party, who was running an infertility clinic, along with his wife since they had no child. The first opposite party after examining the complainant said that the defect was in the complainant's reproductive system. The first opposite party in the course of medical treatment stated that there was cyst present in the complainant's seminal vesicle and that it must be removed to improve his fertility. The complainant believing that the first opposite party had the necessary skill, submitted himself to the treatment and the opposite party adopted the surgical procedure in December, 1991. The opposite party while doing the procedure acted negligently as a result, he punctured the passage leading to bladder and a hole was opened in the bridge of the bladder neck as a result of which the complainant sustained loss of power of ejaculation. The first opposite party assured that the ejaculatory power would be restored in course of time. The first opposite party referred the complainant to the JIPMER Hospital, Pondicherry where the underwent treatment from 4.5.1995 to 24.11.1995. Still the complainant had not recovered to his original health. The doctors at JIPMER Hospital referred the complainant to Dr. A. Rajasekaran of Dr. M. G. R. Medical University for expert medical advice and the doctor opined the disability of complainant was permanent and the damage was irreparable. The complainant also consulted doctors at C. M. C. Hospital, Vellore. They also found that there was no ejaculatory duct obstruction and the seminal volume was adequate and that the bladder neck was resected to deroof a cyst which was negligent act of the first opposite party. On account of the same, the complainant's life has become doomed. He has lost sexual potency and his happy married life has been weighed down. Therefore, the complainant has laid the complaint seeking a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses and transport charges and Rs.4,50,000/- towards general damages for the disability.

(2.) The first opposite party contended as follows: There was no deficiency in medical service. There was no negligence on the part of the opposite party. The complainant has not suffered any damage. The claim that the complainant's wife became pregnant and that she suffered abortion is wrong and cannot be true on the medical history of the complainant. This opposite party did not medically examine the complainant's wife. The 1st opposite party is not sure whether the complainant's wife came along with the complainant for consultation. The claim that the complainant had normal sexual life with his wife and that the complainant and his wife were happy and satisfied with their sexual life cannot be true. This opposite party conducted the necessary and relevant physical examination which revealed a small volume of testis on both sides and distended epididemis and vas deference on both sides and also rectal examination which revealed palpable cyst in the prostate and seminal vesicle. On the basis of the clinical diagnosis of obstruction, azoosperimia was made and ultrasound scan was performed and confirmed the presence of prostatic cyst and distended seminal vesicle. A cystoscopy test confirmed cyst in the prostatic urethra. This opposite party explained the nature of the surgery to the complainant and after-effects thereof and discussed the relief aspect before the surgery and then the surgery was performed and the cyst was incised. The first opposite party did cystourethroscopy and found that the cyst was an open cavity and clear indicating that a cyst existed earlier. Therefore, the first opposite party advised the complainant to undergo bladder neck study and referred him to the General Hospital, Madras. Later on, he was referred to CMC, Vellore and to JIMPER. To the notice issued by the complainant, the first opposite party has sent necessary reply. The 1st opposite party is M. S. (Post Graduate) and M. Ch. (Super Graduate ). He had vast and wide experience as Assistant Professor, Urology Department, Medical College, Manipal. After that he settled at Tiruchirapalli and set up the clinic where he was treating thousands of patients. There was no negligence in the performance of the operation. It is not true to allege that the first opposite party negligently punctured the passage leading to the bladder of the complainant. The allegation that the complainant was shocked to know that he has lost the power of ejaculation is wrong and misleading. The allegation that the expert in CMC Hospital, Vellore found that he did not have ejaculatory duct obstruction as his seminal was adequate and that the bladder neck was resected to deroof a cyst and that the non-ejaculation could not be rectified are all false. There was no damage to the organ as alleged. Operation was done with due diligence, skill and medical care. The other allegations are denied. The allegation that the complainant's sexual life and happy married life have been doomed is absolutely false. The compensation claimed is imaginary and exaggerated. Therefore, the opposite party prays that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

(3.) The lower Forum dismissed the complaint and aggrieved by the same, the complainant has preferred this appeal.