IMRAN KHAN Vs. KAMAL ASHRAF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This complaint has been filed with a prayer for directing the O. P. to pay a sum of Rs.7,50,000 only to the complainant by way of medical reimbursement and compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant due to medical and professional negligence of the O. P.

(2.) The brief fact of the case is that complainant is a businessman having his business in the name and style of AL-Tabinda Enterprises, Bombay. He along with his brother is original inhabitant of Aurangabad, Bihar. The complainant with his family was in Patna on 8.7.1999. He felt pain in his abdomen and consulted O. P.-Dr. Kamal Ashraf, Senior Surgeon of Patna who runs his clinic at S. P. Verma Road, Patna. The doctor prescribed several tests and thereafter suggested to undergo an operation. Accordingly, he was operated in the clinic of O. P. for cholecystectomy and appendicectomy on 12.7.1999 and paid Rs.10,000 besides other necessary expenditure on medicine, etc. It is alleged that after the operation, the complainant developed some complication, stool, and pus st ed coming through the root of operation. The complainant came to know that the facility of leaucopy is not available in the clinic of the complainant; therefore, he negligently cut the colostral intestine. The O. P. deliberately kept the complainant in dark and never communicated this negligence on his part while performing his operation. It is alleged that O. P. advised the complainant for another operation by open surgery, which was done, on 24.7.1999 but the condition of the complainant further deteriorated and two days thereafter the pus and stool started coming out again from the root of operation. Due to spread of stool in the body, several complications developed and he was in acute pain. The doctor was apprised of the condition of the complainant by his family members on several occasions but he took little interest and only provided some sedative. The complainant's brother requested the O. P. to refer his brother to some other clinic or before some more qualified doctors but he avoided and did not refer him to any other clinic. On the other hand, he advised him for third operation. The complainant thereafter consulted another Senior Surgeon, Dr. A. P. Singh of Patna who advised him not to go for third operation and rush to Appollo Hospital, New Delhi. On several requests and when the condition of the complainant further deteriorated the O. P. referred to him to Appollo Hospital, Delhi. The complainant has produced the relevant papers including prescription of O. P. , which have been marked Annexure-1 series. The complainant alleged that he incurred expenditure of about Rs.70,000 in his treatment. The complainant went to Apollo Hospital, Delhi on 3.8.1999 by flight. The tickets are Annexure 2 series. On 4.8.1999 Dr. Pradeep Kumar operated the complainant under emergency condition and about two liters of pus from his body and intestine were removed. A colostomy bag was attached for passing out stool. He remained admitted in the Appollo Hospital for about 15 days and after discharge, he remained at New Delhi for long period and regularly attended the Appollo Hospital for check up and dressing (Annexure-3 series ). At Appollo Hospital, he has to incur an expenditure of more than Rs.1,25,000. The allegation of the complainant is that he suffered loss in business besides mental, physical and economic harassment and all these happened due to negligence and deficiency on the part of the O. P. who wrongly performed his operation and accordingly he filed the complaint with the claim as detailed in the complaint petition.

(3.) O. P. appeared and filed written statement. His main contention is that he is qualified and eminent surgeon of the State and in the field of surgery since several years. The entire allegation of the complainant against O. P. are imaginary and to malign him to extract money. The prescription of O. P. mentions and discusses every detail of the ailment and the line of treatment/manner of operation but the complainant has withheld the prescription with ulterior motive and not enclosed with the complaint petition. From the complaint petition, it is clear that there is no specific allegation of professional negligence against the O. P. All the allegations are vague and without any material in its support. The O. P. has no knowledge about the details of the operation performed by him to the complainant nor he can verify whether he referred him to Apollo Hospital, New Delhi because there is no paper on record in support of these allegations. The O. P. has no knowledge about the treatment of the complainant at Delhi and also of his ailment. From the Annexure enclosed by the complainant it is not clear that doctors at Appollo Hopsital had mentioned anywhere that complainant was performed operation earlier and there was any defect or negligence in his earlier operation. The report of the Appollo Hospital does not mention that there was any error committed by the O. P. in the alleged operation of the complainant. Therefore, the allegation of the complainant against the O. P. is only imaginary and not supported by any medical evidence or any paper.