DR. HARSH SHARMA vs SHAKUNTLA & ANR.

There is a delay of 23 days in filing the revision petition. For the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay, the delay of 23 days is condoned.

The instant revision petition is filed against the order dated 22.7.2011 passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (hereinafter referred as ''the State Commission'') in first appeal No. 347 of 2007, by which the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the opposite party-Dr. Harsh Sharma, Vishal Hospital.

The brief facts relevant to dispose of this revision petition are that the complainant, Smt. Shakuntla, (herein after referred as ''patient''), who was suffering from abdominal pain, consulted Dr. Harsh Sharma, OP, at Vishal Hospital on 7.11.2003. In order to confirm diagnosis, the doctor/OP has suggested ultrasound and some laboratory tests. On the basis of reports, OP told that due to swelling in her gall bladder, she needs operation. The patient got admitted in the hospital for 8 days and spent Rs. 12,000/- towards hospitalization and medicines. When the patient became stable, there was no pain, therefore, OP decided for operation and demanded additional Rs. 10,000/- but on 13.2.2004, complainant visited Civil Hospital, Jagadhri wherein the doctors on examination stated that there is no stone in the gall bladder. For another opinion, the complainant visited Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, New Delhi on 26.2.2004 wherein no stone was found in the gall bladder of the complainant. After that, the complainant got examined herself from Mehta X-ray and Ultrasound Centre. There also, no stone was found in the gall bladder. Therefore, it was alleged by the complainant that in order to make money, the OP falsely represented the complainant that there is stone in the gall bladder. Thus, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on behalf of OP/doctor, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana.

The District Forum after hearing the parties, allowed the complaint and directed the OP/doctor as under: "...to return the amount of Rs.12,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of payment till realization and pay Rs.50,000/- compensation towards mental agony and financial loss due to the negligent and deficiency in service on his part and pay Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, the OP/doctor preferred first appeal before Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission), Panchkula. That appeal was also dismissed being devoid of merits. Hence, this revision petition.

We have heard learned counsel for both the parties, the parties are also present in person. Mr. Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the patient was hospitalized only for the acute abdominal pain. The ultrasound clearly revealed that there was evidence of multiple small stones and the gall bladder was thickened. The diagnosis made was Acute Cholecystitis with Cholelithiasis. The patient was discharged on 15.11.2003 with an advice of cholecystectomy after 1? month. Therefore, treatment was properly given by OP 1. Learned counsel submitted that OP had charged only Rs.1700/- towards the hospitalization charges whereas other expenses for medicines were done by the patient/complainant.

The rival contentions by Mr. B. S. Sharma, learned Amicus Curiae for the complainant are that the OP/doctor falsely stated that there were stones in the gall bladder and to make unlawful gain, he advised gall bladder removal surgery. There were no stones found in any report done in different centres.

We have perused medical record and given thoughtful consideration. As per USG report done on 8.11.2003 and 9.11.2003 the findings revealed cholecystitis with multiple gall stones. As per discharge card the diagnosis was acute cholecystitis with cholelithiasis. The patient was advised for cholecystectomy and the OP prescribed few medicines. It is pertinent to note that the patient approached Government Hospital on 13.2.2004 wherein the diagnosis made was also collalithiasis i.e. gall stones and the doctors advised number of laboratory investigations like hemogram, bleeding time, clotting time, LFT, RFT ECG. The patient was advised anti-biotics and supportive treatment. We have perused the affidavit evidence of Dr. Sumesh Garg, a medical officer, General Hospital, Jagadhri. He submitted that the patient was diagnosed as Cholecystitis and advised surgery for removal of it. Thus, it is pertinent to note that number of investigations conducted at government hospital are relevant to the pre-operative test for cholecystectomy, thus, the complainant''s version that there were no gall stones is wrong. On perusal of OPD slip of government hospital and notings of Dr. Garg, it clearly shows that the patient was diagnosed as a "Cholelithiasis (gall stones).

We have perused the medical literature and the extract from Harrison''s principles of Internal Medicine. According to the literature for the acute Cholecystectomy, the non-operative treatment is best upon four principles: (i) Rest to the inflamed gall-bladder

(ii) Analgesics

(iii) An anticholinergic

(iv) Use of antibiotics and subsequent management. and thereafter, eight to ten weeks, when the acute symptoms have subsided, cholecystectomy is carried out.

In the instant case, it was the case of acute Cholelithiasis, therefore, the OP treated the patient conservatively and the on the basis of ultrasound report, he diagnosed it as a case of Cholecystitis with Cholelithiasis (stone), hence, advised Cholecystectomy. In our view, it appears that the complainant filed this complaint without knowledge of medicine. It was his ignorance to initiate such unnecessary complaint to harass the doctor; wherein the doctor unfortunately suffered.

On the basis of foregoing discussion, we do not find any deficiency in service or any lapses on the part of OP during treatment of acute episode of the complainant/patient. Therefore, we set aside the orders of fora below and allow the instant revision petition. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.