BHAGWAN DASS ARORA Vs. ASHOK SINGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant Bhagwan Dass Arora claims Rs.8 lacs as compensation against the opposite party Dr. Ashok Singal alongwith Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation on account of negligent act of the opposite party in the matter of diagnosis and performing operation on Shanta Rani wife of the complainant, who ultimately died. The operation was conducted by Dr. Ashok Singal on March 19, 1997 after receiving his fee and charges as demanded. Indoor ticket issued by the opposite party being Annexures C1 and C1/a. Shanta Rani was complaining of pain towards the right hand side of her abdomen. She consulted Dr. (Mrs.) B. K. Dhaliwal of Moga, who after conducting certain preliminary tests/ investigations referred her to Dr. P. N. Mahajan vide reference slip Annexure C2. Dr. Mahajan advised certain tests including X-ray and ultrasound, which was got done from Dr. Raghu Raj Chathley, reports being Annexures, C3 and C4/1. On the basis of such reports, Dr. Mahajan referred the patient to Dr. Kim of C. M. C. , Ludhiana vide his reference slip Annexure C5. Instead of going to C. M. C. , Ludhiana, Dr. Ashok Singal of Singla Nursing Home was consulted for second opinion. He got a X-ray test done at his clinic i. e. Shivalla Ultrascan Diagnostic Centre, Moga. Annexure C6 is the report. Other reports being Annexures C7 to C9. Prescription slips of Dr. Ashok Singla advising X-ray being Annexure C1/a. After getting such investigation, X-ray and ultrasound, Dr. Singla diagnosed a case of Tumour (Rasoli) and he advised its removal. It was stated that if operation was not performed, the other kidney would be involved. To him all the earlier reports of investigation conducted were shown. Inspite of earlier investigation, he got done the tests referred to above again in order to extort money. The complainant agreed for the operation as suggested by Dr. Singal and got his wife admitted in his Nursing Home on March 19,1997 at about 11 a. m. in Room No.8 (private ward ). At that stage no indication was given by the opposite party that it was a case of malignant renal tumour calcules rather it was stated that it was a simple "rasoli" and would be removed without any danger to life. On that very day, operation was performed at about 6.30 p. m. which was not proper time for such an operation as in case of emergency no proper medical help of any expert could be made available. After the operation, the complainant was informed that the Rasoli had been removed. However the life of the patient was in danger since there was profuse bleeding, which was not being stopped. The opposite party at that time knew about his negligent act in the matter of performing operation that he had closed the abdomen without stitching (with packing) and advised the complainant to remove the patient to C. M. C. , Ludhiana immediately. He did not co-operate and make any arrangement. It was at about 10.15 p. m. a vehicle was arranged to take the patient to C. M. C. On way to C. M. C. the patient died. On March 21, 1997 she was cremated. Ex. C10 is the death certificate. On March 22, 1997 her ashes and remains were collected. A scissor type object was found. It was suspected that the same was left in the abdomen negligently by the opposite party. An F. I. R. was lodged with the police which was subsequently cancelled by the Judicial Magistrate stating that such object was a clamp and not scissors. The report of the tumor removed was concealed by the opposite party from the complainant knowingly that the report indicated malignancy of the tumor found in the kidney. Thus alleging negligence as stated above, the complaint was filed. It was mentioned that deceased left behind 5 children, Charanjiv aged 18 years, Raman Kumar aged 14 years, both of them are students, Naresh Kumari daughter, married, Indu aged 22 years, unmarried and Sonia aged 21 years unmarried. On account of death Sonia had to leave her studies. Shanta Rani was a working lady and employed with M/s. Sham Sunder and Company. Her annual income was about Rs.40,000/-. The family was put to financial constraints on account of her death. The details of Rs.8 lacs claimed were given in the complaint. Dr. Ashok Singla, the opposite party contested the complaint while submitting its written version. Preliminary objections were taken. The complaint was not maintainable as it was filed with the ulterior motive of extracting money. It was filed on the basis of compulsion and coercion. The complaint was filed in order to harass and torture the opposite party. Reference was made to the First Information Report lodged with the police and opinion of various medical experts, which were considered by the Court. It was found by the Court that the opposite party was not negligent in performing his duties as General Surgeon. The complainant did not approach the Commission with clean hand. He concealed material information regarding qualification and experience of the opposite party and that regarding expert opinion already taken and the judgment of the Court dropping the case on the F. I. R. The operation notes Annexure R6, opinion of the District Attorney Annexure R7, opinion of Superintendent of Police Annexure R8 and copy of the judgment of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moga Annexure R9 were submitted. There was no deficiency in rendering service on the part of the opposite party. Reference was made to several cases. As per indoor ticket Annexures R10/a to R10/z giving details of admission and discharge of patients on whom the opposite party had performed operation from May, 1998 to October, 1993 (26 instances ). The entire diagnosis made, and the treatment suggested was disclosed to the complainant and after getting consent in writing the operation was performed after taking every possible care. On merits, in detail the investigations conducted and the operations performed were mentioned.

(2.) The complainant produced his own affidavit and affidavits of Baldev Raj cousin, Avtar Singh, Sanjiv Kumar and Parshotam Singh. Reliance was placed on the investigating reports, operation notes and reference chits. On the other hand Dr. Ashok Singla produced his own affidavit and affidavits of Ranjit Singh, Amarjit Singh and Prem Kumari were produced.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the complainant has argued that it was an obvious case of negligence on the part of the opposite party that without pre-operational precautions or investigations having been conducted, straightaway on the day of the admission Dr. Singla performed the surgery. No proper arrangements were made for the requisite blood supply before starting the operation. Whatever quantity of the blood was asked for was arranged by the complainant. There were no proper facilities available at the clinic of the opposite party. The staff employed by the opposite party was inexperienced and unqualified. In case bleeding was not being stopped, the opposite party should have called for help of other doctors available in the town. Even while referring the patient to C. M. C. the opposite party did not accompany nor deputed any qualified person. On the other hand learned Counsel for the opposite party has argued that the complainant concealed material facts from the Commission. Before the patient was examined by the opposite party she had taken opinion of other medical experts, who had suggested surgery. The material was enough available at the time of admission to opine the nature of the tumor found in the kidney, which necessitated surgery which was accordingly performed. It was unfortunate that the bleeding was not being controlled that the patient had to be ultimately referred to the C. M. C. after closing the wound as stated above. There was no negligence on the part of the opposite party. The criminal case having failed, the present complaint was an effort to extract money from the opposite party. Even otherwise it is argued that in the absence of any medical expert opinion, no finding of negligence can be recorded against the opposite party.