RAJ BHALLA Vs. VIMHANS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJYALAKSHMI Rao, Member -This complaint is filed by Smt. Raj Bhalla, aged about 70 years praying for direction to the opposite party -VIMHANS, a unit of Dr. Vidya Sagar Kaushalya Devi Memorial Health Centre, New Delhi to pay compensation of Rs. 64,50,102, to her for the medical negligence on its part and the unfair trade practice adopted by it while giving treatment to her. The break up of the claim is given hereunder:

(2.) FACTUAL matrix giving rise to the complaint is that Smt. Bhalla developed some abdominal waist pain and numbness in her foot in August 2000 and got herself examined at M/s. Electro Neuro Diagnostic Centre, New Delhi. Report of electromyography test conducted on her for nerve conduction study showed an impression of peripheral neuropathy with bilateral rediculopathy or lumbar canal stenosis. It was also indicated in the report that suffering of the complainant was due to her advanced age. She consulted her family doctor, Dr. Ashok Khurana, on 25.8.2000 who advised her to visit the opposite party hospital for medical advice from Dr. A.K. Banerjee. Dr. Banerjee advised and recommended her to get advance surgery for which she was not inclined to. She explained her status of diabetes and hypertension to Dr. Banerjee and requested him to suggest any alternative remedy such as some medicines.

(3.) THEREAFTER , she again visited Dr. Banerjee on 22.9.2000 with development of same waist pain and increase in numbness in foot. She was referred to Dr. Ajay Sinha, a Physician for getting his clearance to undergo surgery and after he permitted, she got herself admitted in the opposite party -hospital on 25.9.2000. She was not inclined to go for surgery but she was not given any option. On 1.10.2000, doctors of the opposite party -hospital carried out operation for L -4 -5 -lumbar canal stenosis with L -4 -5 disc prolapse on 3.10.2000. She was discharged on 10.10.2000 with assurance that she will not suffer again with the same waist pain and numbness again. For removal of suture, she was advised to visit the opposite party again on 14.10.2000 which was also carried out accordingly. However, in spite of the operation, she was suffering as the operated portion of the body got infected. It is alleged that she was taking the prescribed medicines and was staying in a hygienic atmosphere in a posh locality in Delhi. Despite assurance given by O.P. the pain did not disappear and instead it started increasing with numbness spreading from foot to entire leg. Her health started deteriorating and she again visited the opposite party -hospital on 21.10.2000. She was advised to get herself admitted in the opposite party -hospital again. It is alleged that she was continued to say in the hospital for a prolonged period because the opposite party -hospital wanted to fill up the occupancy of the hospital accommodation and charged unnecessary medical bills from her. During her stay from 21.10.2000, doctors of opposite party hospital did not attend to her and did not bother to treat her properly. She developed vomitting, lost her appetite and became virtually paralised confining herself to bed. She alleged that opposite party failed to heal the operated portion with medicines. It is alleged that opposite party -hospital did not render services as promised to the complainant and instead started experimenting treatments on her at their whims. Her life has been reduced to getting only physiotherapy done which is what she is doing presently. She is spending Rs. 250 towards charges of physiotherapist; Rs. 350 towards conveyance to visit him and Rs. 250 to the personal attendant. Complainant served a legal notice dated 9.11.2001 on opposite party -hospital demanding the amount that has already been paid by her along with cost and compensation which was replied by the opposite party -hospital by their letter dated 8.12.2001 denying the allegations made therein and declining the complainant's requisition. Hence, the present complaint was filed by the complainant.