LAWS(NCD)-2006-7-61

HARJIT SINGH Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

Decided On July 13, 2006
MD. ABBAS ANSARI Appellant
V/S
RAMESHWAR PD. AGARWAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is filed by petitioner/complainant, Md. Abbas Ansari against the order dated 11.5.2000 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar at Patna in Appeal No. 542/95 by which the order of the District Forum, Battiah has been set aside and the complaint was dismissed. The brief facts of the case are : The petitioner's wife, Mrs. Khushbun Nisha visited the respondent/Dr. Rameshwar Pd. Agarwal for the first time on 22.1.1994 complaining that ever since her abortion in 1988, she has been having persisting pain in the abdomen and that she was suffering from pain during periods. According to the opposite party, these were the symptoms of Endometriosis. Endometriosis is a condition when a part of the uterus gets implanted somewhere else. The doctor advised x-ray of abdomen, ultrasonography, blood and urine tests. The patient underwent these tests. The ultrascan report suggested problem in uterus and adjoining areas. The opposite party who is a surgeon, has suggested Hysterectomy, i.e., removal of uterus on 25.1.1994. The operation was done on 30.1.1994 and during the operation, a lump was observed in the outer wall of the Urinary Bladder, which according to the opposite party could be one of the reasons for the pain in the abdomen and, hence, the same was removed. The wound on the wall of the Urinary Bladder was closed in layers.

(2.) In order to keep the Urinary Bladder dry and for the purposes of healing of the wound, an indwelling catheter was placed and the urine used to accumulate in a sack. The catheter from the Urinary Bladder was removed after 10 days and the patient was discharged. It is the case of the petitioner that the patient had the problem of frequent urination which kept continuing and the opposite party doctor was being consulted. The petitioner alleged that the opposite party doctor prescribed medicines and yet there was no improvement and the patient was firstly referred to Dr. Mira Choudhary, a Gynaecologist. After doing an I.V.P. Test on the patient, Dr. Mira Choudhary opined that it was a case of V.V.F. (Vesico Vaginal Fistula). She referred the patient to Patna for repair of the Urinary Bladder. The respondent doctor also referred the patient to IGIMS, Patna.

(3.) The petitioner alleged that after his wife had a problem of incontinence (urine coming through vagina) after removal of the catheter of the patient, the opposite party did not take adequate care in referring her to an expert immediately. It is further alleged that the catheter tube from the Urinary Bladder should be removed after 20 days and not after 10 days only. Because the catheter tube was removed prematurely, the patient had to suffer the problem of incontinence. Whether V.V.F. occurred during removal of the uterus or it was pre-existing, is not known but since uterus and the Urinary Bladder are very close to each other in proximity, the petitioner contended that the hole in the Urinary Bladder must have occurred during the surgery of Hysterectomy.