RAJESH TANEJA Vs. KAISER HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant, Rajesh Taneja, a known case of Ankylosing Spondylitis, had undergone Total Hip Replacement (THR) of the right side at Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research (in short, PGIMER, Chandigarh) in 1992. Again, left side THR was performed in 1996. Thereafter, he suffered pain in the right hip and difficulty in walking, therefore, he consulted Dr. O. N. Nagi, Head of Orthopaedics Department at PGI. He recommended for replacement of acetabular cups on 26 -08 -2002, but due to non -availability of early date at PGI, the complainant consulted Dr. M.S. Gupta (OP3). The OP3 fixed the surgery at M/s. Kaiser Hospital, Panchkula (OP1) on 26 -12 -2002. Since the anaesthetist of OP1 could not administer anaesthesia the surgery was postponed. Therefore, the revision surgery was performed on 04 -01 -2003. Surgery lasted for almost eight hours. The complainant alleged that OP3 has no knowledge or experience in the joint surgeries. Therefore, acetabular cap could not be replaced. The complainant suffered shortening of leg. It was further alleged that OP3 did not conduct necessary tests, including x -ray. The complainant visited the OP3 on 03 -04 -2003, but found no improvement, he could barely walk a few steps. Therefore, on 09 -04 -2003, the complainant approached PGI wherein fresh surgery for THR was advised at the cost of Rs.1,50,000/ -. Therefore, complainant contacted OP3. He admitted about failure of previous surgery and gave fresh estimates of surgery on 06 -06 -2004. The Doctors at PGI expressed before complainant that due to infection the complainant would need extensive treatment for removal of wire. He underwent surgery in PGI during period 04 -04 -2004 to 15 -04 -2004. Therefore, the complainant alleged that the OP3 were indulged into unfair trade practice. The hospital had no necessary instruments, skill. It was not well equipped to perform such operations. Therefore, the complainant sought compensation of Rs.90,00,000/ - along with interest by filing a complaint before the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, the State Commission).

(2.) The State Commission dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the complainant filed this first appeal.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. There is delay of 10 days in filing this first appeal. We condone this short delay after perusal of application for condonation of delay. On merit, the counsel for complainant argued that, OP 3 lacked expertise to handle revision surgery. OP 1 hospital did not have the required special equipment for cement removal and complete inventory of implant. They have no special components for removing the implant. The hospital had no complete inventory of implant. Therefore, in absence of proper instrument the OP3 tried to remove well set femoral component and damaged the bones into pieces leading to severe infection. The final procedure i.e. girdle stone arthroplasty was performed which actually needs hardly 45 mins, but it took 9 hours. OP 3 kept the incised hip joint open for about 9 hours on the operation table without any productive outcome, therefore, it developed further infection. Then, OP3 abandoned the revisions surgery, which led to complications and further osteomyelitis, thus it was negligence of OP -3. The counsel for complainant relied upon affidavit of Dr. Sameer Aggarwal's evidence and medical literature on Hip Replacement, Current trends and controversies; Revision Surgery in Total Hip Arthroplasty by B.M. Wroblewski, medical literatures.