K VARA PRASADA VARMA Vs. B N PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant approached Dr. Jayaram Pingle who is a consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon on 11.5.1999 for taking treatment in his left hip since he was suffering with heavy pain. After examining the complainant, the doctor advised him to undergo necessary tests like MRI, scanning etc. Accordingly on 14.5.1999 MRI scan test was conducted on the complainant and in the said test it was found that complainant had been suffering from 'avascular Necrosis' to both Femoral heads-Stage-I on right side and stage III to IV on the left side. Based on the said report Dr. Pingle advised the complainant to take immediate surgery to the hip joint of the left leg and he further advised the complainant that there is no necessity to conduct surgery to the right leg immediately and fixed the date for the surgery of the left hip of joint leg on 19.5.1999. The complainant instead of undergoing surgery on 19.5.1999 with Dr. Jaya Ramachander Pingle approached opposite party No.1 at Hyderabad Nursing Home for second opinion on 18.5.1999 and opposite party No.1 after verifying the entire report advised the complainant that muscle pedicle graft for right hip should be done and core decompression should be done on right hip and he directed the complainant to admit himself in opposite party No.2 hospital for treatment. Accordingly the complainant admitted himself on 18.5.1999 in opposite party No.2 hospital. Opposite party No.1 conducted surgery in opposite party No.2 hospital on 19.5.1999 to the right hip of the complainant and the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.10,000 as advance at the time of admission and paid an amount of Rs.17,703 towards operation expenses and other charges at the time of discharge. Opposite party No.1 informed the complainant to come on 29.5.1999 for removal of sutures. Accordingly the complainant approached opposite party No.1 and he removed the sutures. At that time the complainant informed opposite party No.1 that he was suffering with pain in the right hip since the surgery whereas prior to that he suffered in the left hip only. He was informed that pain will continue only for a few days and he was asked to come for review on 22.6.1999. Even after 22.6.1999 the pain continued. On 9.8.1999 the complainant once again visited opposite party No.1 and complained about severe pain in the right hip and opposite party No.1 advised the complainant to take X-ray for right hip. After examining the X-ray opposite party No.1 informed the complainant that Total Hip Replacement (THR) is to be conducted for the right hip. The complainant submits that there is no such severe problem for the right hip and only because of opposite party No.1's negligence in conducting the surgery on 19.5.1999 to the right hip without proper diagnoses, that he is suffering now with pain.

(2.) The complainant approached Dr. Pingle on 12.8.1999 and he informed the complainant that the surgery and core decompression was not conducted in time i. e. , in the month of May 1999 itself and he further advised the complainant to undergo THR test for the left hip and accordingly Dr. Pingle conducted operation on the complainant on 18.8.1999 and replaced the right hip totally. He conducted the THR test for the left hip on 24.9.1999 for which the complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,58,135 towards operation and hospital charges. It is the complainant's case that the opposite party without properly studying the problem conducted wrong surgery to the left hip though there was no requirement at all for the right hip surgery and it is only due to negligence of opposite party No.1 that he is suffering with heavy pain and sustained permanent physical disability for which he seeks directions to the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 to pay an amount of Rs.7,35,838 ( i. e. , Rs.1,58,135 towards expenses for surgery, Rs.30,000 towards medicines, Rs.27,703 and Rs.20,000 towards expenditure incurred in Hyderabad Nursing Home, Rs.4 lakh for permanent physical disability and Rs.1 lakh for mental agony with interest @ 24% p. a. till realization together with compensation and costs.

(3.) Opposite party No.1 filed counter stating that he is the Head of Department of Orthopaedic Surgery in NIMS and submits that the complainant himself stated in his notice that Dr. Pingle had conducted Total Hip Replacement of right hip on 18.8.1999 and Total Hip Replacement of left hip on 24.9.1999. According to the complainant he has sustained permanent physical disability due to loss of both the hips. The physical disability will arise only in case of failure of Total Hip Replacement Operation. Opposite party No.1 submitted that he is not the doctor who has conducted both the operations and that the complainant was suffering from Avascular Necrosis when he first visited him and the stage of the disease of right side of femoral heads. Hence the question of Total Hip Replacement is not imminent. By conducting muscle pedicle graft and core decompression Total Hip Replacement can be postponed for 5 to 6 years or can be avoided. According to Orthopaedic literature, hip replacement can be effected only for 15 years. Therefore under the circumstances he has resorted to muscle pedicle graft and core decompression only to postpone Total Hip Replacement. He further submits that notice was issued to him on 15.4.2000 and operation of muscle pedicle graft was conducted on the patient on 19.5.1999 that is after almost one year. He denies that the complainant approached him on 22.6.1999 and also complained of pain in the right hip and once again he approached him on 9.8.1999 and complained of pain. He denies for want of knowledge the expenses incurred by the complainant and submits that there is no negligence on his behalf and that he has acted according to the standard medical practice and seeks dismissal of the complaint with costs.