R M GAUTAM Vs. MASTER NAV KHSHITIJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case of alleged medical negligence, First Appeal No. 408/2012 has been filed by the opposite party (OP) doctor, challenging the order dated 23.04.2012 passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'State Commission') in consumer complaint No. 03/2006, vide which, the said complaint was allowed, and the appellant doctor was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 13,26,286/- with interest @9% p.a. from the date of the complaint to the complainant; out of which a sum of Rs. 3,30,572/- alongwith proportionate interest was to be the joint and several responsibility of the OP Doctor and respondent No. 2, the National Insurance Company. A sum of Rs. _20,000/- was also allowed as cost of litigation.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the appellant Dr. R.M. Gautam runs his own clinic at Bhunter in District Kullu in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The consumer complaint, in question, was filed by Ms. Jyoti Dogra (since deceased) who stated her to be a practising Advocate at Kullu since 1994. She has one son, Master Nav Kshitij who is stated to be her sole class I heir and he is now respondent no. 1, representing his late mother. At the time of the death of his mother, he was still a minor and is represented in the present proceedings by his guardian and foster father Yaduvender. Ms. Jyoti Dogra died during the pendency of the complaint before the State Commission and her son filed the amended complaint before the State Commission as sole legal heir, seeking damages claimed by his deceased mother. The said amended complaint has been decided by the State Commission vide impugned order.

(3.) Ms. Jyoti Dogra filed the consumer complaint in question saying that she suffered from continuous bleeding in her vagina for a number of days and she got herself examined from Dr. Sumedh Kaul, a gynaecologist at Regional Civil Hospital, Kullu. Dr. Kaul gave the opinion that the complainant may be suffering from cancer of the cervix and referred her for biopsy vide OPD slip dated 23.03.2004 and advised her to visit Indira Gandhi Medical College (IGMC) Shimla for further treatment. However, the complainant sought second opinion from Dr. Mrs. Anjana Naru at Kullu who got the CT scan done and concurred with Dr. Kaul vide her prescription slip dated 24.03.2004 and advised her biopsy in order to confirm the diagnosis. Dr. Naru referred her to P.G. Institute of Medical Education and Research (hereinafter referred as PGI, Chandigarh). On the very next date, i.e., 25.03.2004, the complainant in the company of Dr. Sarita Sood, who was her friend, visited the clinic of OP Dr. R.M. Gautam, and showed the prescription slips of Dr. Kaul and Dr. Naru and CT scan to Dr. Gautam. As per the complainant, Dr. Gautam advised her that surgery was required to be conducted immediately as any delay could threaten her life. Feeling scared and disturbed on getting such advice, she got herself admitted to the clinic of OP the same day and she was operated upon at 9:00 PM on 25.03.2004 itself. She remained in the clinic of the OP till 3rd April 2004. During the operation, the OP Doctor removed her uterus and also ovaries, fallopian tubes and ureters. Since there remained no passage for draining out urine after the removal of ureters, the OP made holes in abdomen for draining out urine. However, since her condition deteriorated from day to day, she went to PGI Chandigarh on 07.04.2004 where she was admitted and remained as indoor patient till 16.04.2004. She was attended upon by Dr. A.K. Mandal, Professor and Head, Department of Urology. Dr. Mandal was of the opinion that surgery should not have been conducted by the OP Doctor at Bhunter without first ascertaining the stage of the cancer. The complainant was operated upon twice at the PGI and was finally discharged on 16.04.2004. However, she was asked to report at the OPD of the Radiotherapy Department of PGI on 21.04.2004 for further management of cancer. The radiation exposure was started from 23.04.2004 and continued till 22.05.2004. She came back to Kullu on 23.05.2004, but returned to the PGI following some complications in the form of blockage of B/L PCN. She was discharged from the PGI on 30.05.2004 after correction of the blockage, but directed to report for further radiation shots at PGI which were given from 16.06.2004 to 01.07.2004. She again had to report back to PGI on 12.07.2004 and remained there till 23.07.2004. She was told to report back on 30.11.2004 for substitution of ureters and finally, she was operated upon on 24.12.2004 for substitution of ureters and part of bladder and she was discharged on 22.01.2015. The complainant had to visit the PGI again from time to time and had to incur heavy expenditure on her treatment. She filed the consumer complaint in question, on 16.10.2006, alleging that due to negligence in conducting the surgical operation by the OP Doctor, her life expectancy had been reduced and she had to incur heavy expenditure on treatment, travelling expenses, servant charges, etc. The complainant has been stated to be admitted at PGI again on 31.01.08, where she died on 07.02.08.