A.K. GUPTA (DR.) AND ANR. Vs. MAHIPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 19.7.2004 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttrakhand, Dehradun dismissing appeal against the order dated 6.10.2003 of a District Forum whereby petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 1 lakh as compensation, Rs. 10,000 towards expenses of treatment and cost, to the respondent.

(2.) In nutshell, the facts giving rise to this revision are these. Smt. Suman Lata, wife of the respondent/complainant was admitted in Jawahar Lal Nehru District Hospital, Rudrapur for treatment of abdominal pain from 23.10.2002 to 24.10.2002 and again from 25.10.2002 to 26.10.2002. She left the hospital against medical advice and was admitted in Charvi Surgical Hospital run by the petitioners/opposite parties sometime in the forenoon on 26.10.2002. After examining Smt. Suman Lata the petitioners advised for immediate operation. Respondent alleged that the operation for which Rs. 15,000 were charged was performed on 26.10.2002 itself by the petitioners without getting the necessary blood tests done. Since the abdominal pain still persisted the necessary blood tests including for urea were got done on 27.10.2002 and on basis of those test reports the petitioners referred Smt. Suman Lata to K.K. Hospital, Bareilly for further treatment. She was admitted in that hospital on 27.10.2002 and she died on 29.10.2002. Alleging medical negligence the respondent filed complaint seeking refund of the amount paid as also award of compensation which was contested by the petitioners by filing written version. It was alleged that after examination of Smt. Suman Lata on 26.10.2002 it was found necessary to have her urine and blood tests done. For that purpose Dr. Smrita Srivastava was called. She took the samples of blood and urine. After examining the test reports it was suspected that Smt. Suman Lata was having pus in her abdomen. About 20 ml. substance was taken out from her abdomen and sent for pus-culture-sensitivity test to Shreya Pathology run by said Dr. Srivastava. It was further alleged that it was made known to the father-in-law of the respondent that pus from abdomen could be taken out by performing surgery. Surgery was performed on 26.10.2002 itself with the help of Dr. Manoranjan Pant, anaesthetist. On opening abdomen it was found that it was full of pus which was removed. After surgery blood tests were again got done on 26.10.2002. On complaint of palpitation and pain in abdomen by Smt. Suman Lata her blood was again got tested from the said Pathologist. Serum creatinine was found to be 6 ml%. Since no Nephrologist was available in Rudrapur, she was referred to K.K. Hospital, Bareilly. It was denied that there was any negligence on the part of petitioners in treating the deceased.

(3.) The District Forum held the petitioners deficient in service holding that from the first test report dated 26.10.2002 the petitioners must have known that the kidney of Smt. Suman Lata was damaged and they did not have any arrangement for treatment thereof still they did the operation. The District Forum found that the first blood test report dated 26.10.2002 seems to have been changed as the urea and serum creatinine could not have increased to the extent noticed in the test report dated 27.10.2002 within 8 to 10 hours of the first test report.