SAWAN KUMAR AND FIVE Vs. SURINDER KATYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant Sawan Kumar alongwith others has come up in appeal against the order dated 5.3.1998 passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Karnal, whereby their complaint, alleging deficiency in rendering medical service against Dr. Surinder Katyal and Dr. (Mrs.) Veena Seth, Medical Officers in the Civil Hospital, Karnal, as also the State of Haryana through Secretary, Health Department, has been dismissed as the complainants had failed to establish any deficiency in service against the opposite parties.

(2.) According to the complainants, late Shri Gurditta Mal, a tailor by profession, approached the opposite parties in the Civil Hospital, Karnal, with a complaint of hernia and was admitted in the said Hospital on 13.6.1995. The Doctors attending on him advised that the patient had to be operated upon for hernia and made the necessary pre-operation tests, including E. C. G. , urine tests etc. On the following day, i. e.14.6.1995, he was operated upon by Dr. Surinder Katyal, M. S. , under spinal anaesthesia. Though the operation was successful and after the completion of the operation the patient was transferred from the operation theatre to the general ward, the patient expired.

(3.) The complainants, who are the widow, sons and daughters of late Sh. Gurditta Mal, approached the District Consumer Forum, Karnal, by filing the instant complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the concerned Doctors of the Civil Hospital, Karnal, precisely with the grievance that the post-mortem examination of the dead-body was not conducted and the operation was conducted by the Surgeon without the assistance of an Anaesthetist who was not present at the time of operation. In their written statement, the respondents pleaded that due care was taken in rendering the medical treatment to the deceased and the operation was conducted by a very competent and experienced Surgeon who was possessing the Master's Degree in Surgery and was having considerable experience of operating a number of patients over the years. It was further stated that Dr. Seth had carried out pre-anaesthesis check up in the morning and it was only after recording a note on the bed-head that the patient was fit for operation that anaesthesia was administered and the operation was conducted. It was further pleaded that during the operation the fluctuation of blood pressure of the patient was kept under control by administering vespressor drug (Maphantine) and that when the patient suffered cardiac respiratory arrest he was duly revived by artificial respiration. Therefore, all what was required to be done for rendering best medical treatment to the patient was wholly done and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Doctors. Thereafter, the parties produced their respective evidence and the complainants crossexamined the concerned Doctors and the other para-medical staff of the Civil Hospital at length. Despite all this, the complainants failed to establish any deficiency in service which could be attributed to the Doctors in rendering medical treatment to the deceased. On the other hand, the Surgeon, who operated upon the patient, was a qualified one, being Master of Surgery, and, apart from being a Post-Graduate. Even as Medical Graduate he was quite competent to administer spinal anaesthesia to the patient. It was also brought on record by the respondents that the Health Department, Haryana, had already issued instruction to all the Hospitals in the State that at the time of operation in the absence of an Anaesthetist the Surgeon operating can also administer anaesthesia. Otherwise also, the Anaesthetist had already checked up the patient and had declared him fit to be operated upon. In view of this position, the learned District Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint by holding, that the complainants had failed to establish any deficiency in service against the respondents.