SYED ZAHID ALI Vs. JAIPRAKASH PALIWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for deficiency in medical service claiming a compensation of Rs.6 lacs for expenses incurred by him in medical treatment at Bhopal and Bombay etc. and Rs.4 lacs for mental agony.

(2.) The complainant has stated in his complaint that two operations were performed by opposite parties leaving behind a gauge inside the body amounting to deficiency in service. According to the complainant, the first operation was performed by opposite party on 20.6.1992. But, the complainant instead of giving the details of operation, has stated that second operation was performed on such subsequent date when the opposite party examined the complainant. The complainant has stated further that he paid Rs.20,000/- for two operations to the opposite party on different occasions. According to the complainant, the operation performed is known as "ureterolysis". The complainant remained admitted in the hospital from 20.6.1992 to 26.6.1992. Instead of giving the date of the second operation he went on narrating in the complaint the details of treatment taken by him from time-to-time. According to him when the pain in the stomach did not subside he went for review to opposite party in July, 1992. In para 8 of his complaint, the complainant has stated that he was asked by opposite party to get himself operated and he was again admitted in Suresh Nursing Home, Bhopal and the second operation was performed by opposite party. But, he has not mentioned the date on which he was admitted in the hospital, on which date he was operated and on which date he was discharged. He further stated that he was not given discharge summary stating that there is no such procedure in the Nursing Home for giving discharge summary. When he did not get relief even after the second operation, further investigation was done on 4.3.1994 and in May, 1995 he went to Dr. B. M. Loya who performed a major operation upon him for post operative pain and detected that there were gauge pieces in the scar and the same were removed. The operation was performed in L. B. I. Hospital and Research Centre, Motia Lake, Tazul Masajid, Bhopal. The complainant has alleged that non-removal of gauge from inside the body clearly shows that the opposite party did not exercise reasonable and proper care at the time of performance of operation and the complainant suffered terrible consequences for many years.

(3.) The opposite party has replied that two operations were not performed by Dr. Paliwal. It was only one surgery which was performed by opposite party on 20.6.1992. The medical bills furnished by the complainant do not relate to two surgeries. The subsequent investigations and USG reports show normal status. Had there been a piece of gauge it would have carried some infection. That the certificate filed at page 30 is a forged certificate which amounts to criminal offence. There are two more certificates filed at pages 31 and 32 signed by Dr. B. M. Loya, which do not tally with medical certificate issued by the LBS Hospital, New Delhi filed at page 30.