LAWS(NCD)-2005-3-30

SURENDRA NATH SINGH Vs. S C TANDON

Decided On March 16, 2005
SURENDRA NATH SINGH Appellant
V/S
S C Tandon Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act has been filed by Surendra Nath Singh son of late Jaideo Singh arraying Dr. S.C. Tandon, M.B.B.S., Fracture Clinic, Mahmoorganj, Varanasi as opposite party.

(2.) AFTER filing this complaint the complainant expired and he was substituted by his wife and sons.

(3.) DR . Tandon in his written statement denied the allegations made against him and further pleaded that the Fractures clinic is professional nursing home of Dr. K.P. Agarwal and when required he provides his services to the clinic. The period about the pain in the waist has been concealed by the complainant. His disease was so much aggravated that he was at the stage of disablement and below his waist the condition of serious disablement involved. The disease is called compressive Myelopathy which is clear from spinal cord tumer (D -9, D -10). Before consulting the opposite party the complainant consulted Dr. Katiyar a Neuro Surgeon of repute and he got the information on 10.8.1996 from Dr. Katiyar about the gravity of the disease and requirement of surgery, when the complainant met Dr. Tandon. The examination report clearly gave indication that his thorosic cord was heavy and under abnormal pressure which was a clear indication of spinal tumer which is clear from the test report. It was also clear from Myelogram plus L.T. test on 10.8.1996 that the spine of the complainant was under absolute pressure and in this circumstance the only alternative was operation in 24/48 hours. He also alleged that when the complainant came to him on 11.8.1996 for medical consultation he was not capable of walking without any support and his brother Kripa Shankar Singh and others were supporting him in walking. Due to thickening in the spinal cord and pressure the nervous system makes a person incapable of sensitivity and due to the long period the organ below the waist was incapacitated. The only alternative was surgery but the surgery is not a sure treatment to remove the disease. Only the risk of surgery can be taken and after giving thoughtful consideration of those problems which were disclosed to the complainant he himself came on 15.8.1996 and requested for surgery. Further risk was disclosed to him and after giving thoughtful consideration the complainant and his brother had given consent for operation and signed the consent letter. In his written statement Dr. Tandon mentioned his qualification that from K.G.M., Lucknow he got M.B.B.S M.S. Surgery and M.S. Neuro Surgery Degree and practised in K.G.M.C. From 1979 to 1985 he was Lecturer in Kashi Hindu Vishwa Vidyalaya, from 1985 to 1991 in Akhil Bhartiya Ayurvigyan Sansthan he was Reader in the Department of Neuro Surgery and from 1991 he is providing services to Fracture Clinic, Varanasi. For 24 years he is established Neuro Surgeon of repute and his papers have been published at National and international level. He is also invited for talks in foreign countries and under his guidance research work of spinal injury is being conducted. He pleaded that this is a baseless contention that without M.R.I. No operation of spinal cord should be conducted. The test reports before operation, cords of the spinal cord under pressure due to spinal tumer were identified and successfully the operation was conducted. After operation there was no spinal infection nor the pre -operational pressure was enhanced. He never gave any guarantee for complete cure. The risk of loosing the strength in the legs were already disclosed to him. The complainant had already lost the strength in the legs and he was disabled. It was also disclosed to him that the operation is only alternative but it was not necessary that he will be completely cured. He has also pleaded that Dr. Motiyani and Dr. Poddar are Urologist and Neuro Physician. Urology, Uro surgery, Neurology and Neuro surgery are two different fields of the medical science. He has asserted that he operated successfully. He denied the allegations of greed and criminal negligence had fraud.