TARACHAND JAINCOMPLAINA Vs. GANGA RAM HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Complainant's claim is on the ground of medical negligence on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite party No. 1 is Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and the opposite party No. 2 is Dr. B.K. Vohra, Senior Consultant in Urology, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. The facts leading to the controversy may be briefly stated as under :

(2.) The complainant is a resident of Muzaffarnagar who visited respondent No. 1 with the complaint of having urinary trouble. The opposite party No. 2 with his team examined the complainant and advised him the prostate operation. The complainant was admitted in the hospital on 10.9.1990 and was operated by the opposite party No. 2 on 11.9.1990. He was discharged from the hospital on 15.9.1990. At the time of discharge from the hospital, the complainant was directed to take some medicines and was told that he would be perfectly normal within one or two months. The complainant returned to Muzaffarnagar and followed all the directions and treatment prescribed by the opposite parties. But instead of having relief, he started feeling acute pain in thigh muscles and backbone. The tendency of continuous and regular flow of urine which had started immediately after the operation continued. The complainant started having fever and increase in blood urea. His condition became very serious. He was admitted in the hospital of opposite party No. 1 on 17.11.1990 in the Nephrology Department. The complainant was discharged on 13.12.1990.

(3.) Despite the medicine prescribed by the opposite parties, the problem of continuous urine flow could not be cured. The opposite parties advised the injection 'Taflon' to the complainant which was not available in India but was available in America. The complainant wrote a letter to his relative who lived in America for sending the injection but the complainant was advised not to take the 'Taflon' injection because it had a bad side effect and also was not of much use in such cases. The complainant visited the opposite party hospital a number of times. But his problem of continuous urine flow continued. It was due to the negligent act on the part of the opposite party No. 2. The complainant was advised to use clamp all the time so that urine may not flow. But it is very painful to use the clamp. Even with the use of the clamp the complainant has to use sanitary pads all the time due to this trouble. Under these premises, the complainant claims compensation to the tune of Rs. 40 lakhs on account of deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.