CONSUMER EDUCATION RESEARCH SOCIETY Vs. ROTILAL B PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This complaint has been filed by Consumer Education and Research Society, complainant No.1 and Gunvantsingh Ratansingh Chauhan, complainant No.2 against General Practitioner, Surgeon and Anaesthetist, [for the sake of convenience, we will mention as complainant only]. The case was decided on a preliminary issue and thereafter the complainant made a revision and the case having been remanded is heard again and both the parties have tendered oral evidence also and that is why it has taken little long time. The grievance of the complainant as it appears from the complaint is that he went to the opponent No.1- General Practitioner Dr. Ratilal B. Patel on 18.7.87 since he was suffering from fever etc. His relative Kishoresinh took him to the dispensary of opponent No.1 since he was not his regular patient. After examining the complainant, opponent No.1 suggested a course of injection since Jaundice epidemic was prevailing in the city. That the complainant requested to use disposable syringe and needle. According to the complainant the opponent No.1 administered the injections through intramuscular route in the gluteal region on 18.7.87 and prescribed some medicines and course of three injections. A copy of the prescription given has been produced at Ann. A. Thereafter two injections were given on 20th and 21st July 87 and the last one was given on 27.7.87 and according to the allegation of the complainant the glass syringe and metal needle was hardly boiled. The complainant alleged that he complained of pain in the right upper arm on 23.7.87 where mild swelling developed at the site of injection. Therefore Kishoresinh, his relative took the complainant to the opponent No.1 on 24.7.87 in the evening and informed of pain and swelling to the opponent No.1 who examined the site of swelling and dispensed some tablets for oral use and asked him to report next day morning. The complainant was taken to the opponent No.1 on 25.7.87 and some ointment tube for local use was prescribed. However, the swelling in right upper arm increased in the evening of 25th and the complainant therefore was taken to the dispensary of the opponent No.1 again in the evening on 25.7.87 with alleged hyperpyrexia and severe pain in the right upper arm with huge swelling. The opponent No.1 examined the swollen right upper arm and confirmed that an abscess had developed at the site of injection and advised that an incision and drainage (minor operation) was required to be done which was the line of treatment of abscess of such a degree. Mr. Kishoresinh wanted the opponent No.1 to do the incision and drainage as early as possible and requested the opponent to do the needful. However, the opponent No.1 told complainant to go to his dispensary on 27.7.87 in the morning so that he can make necessary arrangements with his relative one Dr. A. R. Desai in Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. The complainant was taken to the opponent No.1 in the morning of 27.7.87at 8.30 a. m. and the opponent No.1 talked to Dr. Desai but he was busy with his examination and was unable to do the incision and drainage and the opponent No.1 proposed to the complainant the name of the opponent No.2 Surgeon Dr. Pavinbhai Togadia and was taken to him at 9 a. m. on 27.7.87. It is alleged that Dr. Togadia informed the complainant that there was nothing to be worried about. Incision and drainage was a routine operation and everything will be alright and that there was no need of laboratory investigation or testing blood group etc. and advised him not to take anything through mouth from 10 p. m. (must be 10 a. m.) onwards and was admitted in the hospital. Operation was to start at 3 p. m. The complainant was taken to the operation theatre at 3 p. m. and the opponent No.3 Dr. D. K. Bhuva gave anaesthesia and the complainant became unconscious. The opponent No.2 informed the relatives that the operation was successful and the complainant will gain consciousness within half an hour and it is further alleged that he left the hospital without waiting to see that the complainant regained consciousness and according to the complainant he was left to the mercy of the nurse for the post operative care.

(2.) It is further alleged that the complainant all of a sudden started developing chill and rigours with pyrexia at 4 p. m. He was still unconscious. The nurse on duty administered an injection and told Kishoresinh that chill, rigours and pyrexia would be brought under control within 15 minutes. Chill and rigours were reduced but the body temperature of the complainant went on increasing. Therefore one more injection was administered at 4.15 p. m. whereas the relative of the complainant insited that the said nurse should inform and call a Dr. Togadia and Anaesthetist immediately since the complainant had not regained consciousness and his body temperature was raising. The nurse telephoned the opponent No.2 Surgeon who arrived at the hospital at about 5 p. m. examined the complainant, checked his blood pressure which was alleged to be too low and, therefore, he started drip of 5% dextrose. The opponent No.2 informed the relatives in attendance that it was necessary to remove the complainant to a bigger hospital. The opponent No.1-General Practitioner was also immediately called. The complainant was transferred to the Civil Hospital at about 6.30 p. m. on July 27,87 who was accompanied by the opponents No.1 and 2. He was admitted as an indoor patient in the emergency Ward of Civil Hospital. Drip of dextrose and supply of oxygen was immediately started. Having stated above facts, the complainant has alleged that the opponent No.2 has mislead the complainant and his relatives that the complainant has regained consciousness at 3.30 p. m. and thereafter all of a sudden he had become unconscious. The opponent No.2 also furnished wrong statements to the Civil Hospital Doctors that he had left his hospital only after the complainant regained consciousness. The Doctors of the Civil Hospital informed the relatives of the complainant that the condition of the complainant was very serious and Doctors started further treatment and after extensive treatment by Doctors of the Civil Hospital the complainant regained consciousness on 29.7.87 at about 9 p. m. and he was kept in the hospital upto 8.8.87 and was discharged on 8.8.87. According to the diagnosis of the Civil Hospital the complainant had developed septicemia + peripheral circulatory failure + ceribral annoxia + U. T. I. There is another allegation that after consulting the orthopaedic surgeon it was found that the complainant had mild Spasticity of all the four limbs and he is orthopaedically and physically handicapped following a pyrexial convulsion.

(3.) In para 22 of the complaint the complainant has alleged that he has paid Rs.45/-as fees to the opponent No.1 on 25.7.87 for hiring his services. He has also promised opponent No.2 that fees charges would be given later on and has paid Rs.50/- to the opponent No.3 Anaesthetist in cash. However, opponent Nos.1 and 3 have not issued any receipt thereof. In short, his allegation is that he had paid Rs.45/- to opponent No.1 and Rs.50/- to opponent No.3 in cash and had promised to pay the fees to the opponent No.2 though he has not been able to produce any receipt of the payment made by him. He has further alleged that it was the duty of the opponent No.1 to take proper care and to use disposable syringe and needle for administering injection. Mr. Kishoresinh has insisted the opponent No.1 to properly boil the glass syringe and metal needles for prescribed period of 15 minutes to ensure proper sterilisation as a prophylactic to infection. However, the opponent No.1 did not use disposable syringe and needle on 22.7.87 or did not care to sterilise the glass syringe and metal needle properly etc. This is alleged to be an act of negligence. Again, he has alleged that though the opponent No.1 diagnosed abscess on 25.7.87 he advised for incision and drainage after 1 days after the diagnosis which also amounts to negligence. Similarly the opponent No.2 being a highly qualified and experienced surgeon of long standing, a great responsibility developed on the part of opponent No.2 in this type of case. The opponent No.2 failed to exercise standard of care which a well qualified surgeon should have taken. The opponent No.2 was callous and careless and had not taken adequate precaution in doing incision and drainage on the complainant. Opponent No.2 had not taken proper and sufficient care during the operation as a result of which infection spread through the blood stream and he had left before the complainant had regained consciousness. So far as opponent No.3 is concerned, he has also failed to exercise the standard care which a well qualified Anaesthetist like opponent No.3 should have taken which is also a case of callousness and carelessness which has caused serious complications to the complainant. He has given a list of the amount spent by him totalling to Rs.1178/- and also has given a list of loss of earning, medical expenses incurred etc. and has claimed Rs.190,625/- as total damages as mentioned in para 36 of the complaint with interest and cost.