DIGVIJAYSINH A. ZALA vs NARENDRA T. VANI

COMPLAINANT No.1 is husband of deceased Truptiben who was alleged to be under the treatment of Dr. Vani, the opponent No.1, during her pregnancy. COMPLAINANTs No. 2 and 3 are parents of deceased Trupti. That the deceased Trupti was carrying and had a consultation at Dr. Vani for her pregnancy. It appears that on or about May 24,1992 Trupti developed fever and, therefore, she tried to contact Dr. Vani on phone but as Dr. Vani was busy with University examinations, he could not be contacted.

AS per the averment in the complaint, the wife of Dr. Vani suggested Tab. Metacin for relief and fever appears to have been subsided. On May 25, 1992 in the afternoon temperature of deceased Truptiben had gone to 103f. She was taken to the nursing home of Dr. Vani but Dr. Vani was not available as he was busy in the University examinations and could not see him in the Nursing Home in the evening but they could see him in his consulting room and the Opposite Party prescribed Teb. Resochin and Digene.

It is further alleged that in the night of 25/26 May 1992 Truptiben became restless and started having breathing trouble and on 26.5.92 at about 5.30 p.m. the temperature shot to 106f. Ultimately, the physician was called who asked the patient''s blood and urine to be examined. On contacting Dr. Vani on phone and asking more treatment and giving report of urine and blood, Dr. Vani advised Cap. Mox three times a day. It appears that on 26/27 May 1992 at night the patient became worst and, therefore, Dr. Vani was contacted on phone at about 6 a.m. on 27.5.92 who advised the deceased to be taken to a physician as it was not a case falling within his speciality. He has recommended Dr. R.K. Patel.

AT about 2.30 p.m. she was taken to Dr. R.K. Patel who asked them to be admitted by in a Nursing Home immediately where she was promptly attended Dr. R.K. Patel but Truptiben died before anything could be done to her. The complainant has, therefore, alleged that Dr. Vani was negligent in performing his duties and the services rendered by him was not only unsatisfactory but also deficient and that the Opposite Party adopted casual approach to a serious problem and played with the life of the deceased. The deficiencies alleged by the complainant are as under: (1) That the opposite party had never taken blood/urine test during the 8 months of pregnancy when he was treating said Truptiben. (2) The opposite party prescribed simple medicines like Metacin tablet on 24/ 25 May. (3) The opposite party did not care to examine the patient on 25.5.92 and prescribed Tab. Resochin and Digene. (4) The opposite party ignored the laboratory report of blood and urine conveyed to him at about 19.30 on that day i.e. 26.5.1992. (5) The opposite party did not think it fit to get blood and urine tested further to know the type of jaundice which was noticed in the urine. (6) In such a critical condition he prescribed Mox 500 and Mox 250 without examining the patient.

The complainant has, therefore, prayed for Rs. 3 lakhs by way of compensation on account of death of Truptiben which according to the complainant is due to negligence, indifference and wrong treatment of the opposite party.

IN support of the averments, the complainant has filed the affidavit. It may be noted that the burden to prove that the opposite party was negligent in his treatment and that the treatment given was not the proper treatment is on the complainant. The burden to prove that there was a contract between the deceased and the doctor and that the deceased has paid consideration for the treatment which has been given to her is on the complainant. In the instant case, except the affidavits, no other evidence has been produced. The complainant has not produced any medical evidence so as to understand whether the treatment which was given was proper or that there was any negligence on the part of the opposite party or that there was a contract to provide service for consideration. The opposite party No.1 himself has stepped into the witness box who has been crossexamined by the learned Advocate of the complainant. The opposite party is a surgeon (M.D) and is practicing since 1965. and is Asst. Professor in B.J. Medical College since 1968. He has admitted that the deceased Trupti was her patient since 1989 and, therefore, he knew her. In September 1991 the complainant''s wife was pregnant. That he did not know whether the patient had a talk with his wife on 24.5.92 when her pregnancy was 8 months. He also has not admitted that the complainant''s wife has asked for advice and his wife has prescribed Metacin. He has admitted that his wife is Paediatrician. He did not remember whether his wife had told regarding this case since the case was of 1992. The complainant has not been able to extract anything from the cross-examination of Dr. Vani. On the contrary, it appears from the cross-examination of Dr. Vani that he had suggested to go to a physician since he was not an expert in that line. He was a surgeon. But it also appears that the wife of the complainant had consulted a general practitioner also and must have taken medicines of general practitioner. Ultimately, she was taken to Dr. R.K. Patel. There is no evidence to show as to how the complainant''s wife died. No post-mortem has been made and, therefore, it is not possible to know the real cause of her death. It appears to us that because deceased was a patient for delivery, only casual enquiry appears to have been made. It was of no use to consult Dr. Vani when he was a Gynaecologic Surgeon. That it appears from the reply of Dr. Vani that urine report was read over to him and it contained bile salt and bile pigments and therefore, he had suggested to consult some physician on 26.5.92. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is very difficult to hold that the treatment given by the opposite party was not proper or that the opposite party has acted negligently. There is no evidence even to suggest that any fees was paid for the treatment for fever. But, any how, it cannot be said that the complainant was not prepared to pay the fees if demanded by the doctor. There was casual talk on phone and ultimately the complainant''s wife was taken to Dr. Vani''s consulting room only for the purpose of advice and she was never admitted in the hospital and thereafter there was no meeting with the doctor except telephonic contacts. In these circumstances, no responsibility can be pinned on the opposite party.

TO our opinion, the complainant has miserably failed to establish his case and the complaint deserves to be dismissed. Complaint dismissed.