Hemlata vs VIPIN PREMI

THIS is an appeal against the order dated 29.9.2003 passed by the District Forum, Hardwar whereby the complaint of the complainant was dismissed.

THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant lodged a complaint with the allegations that she is 20 years old and from some time she was suffering from stomach pain. On 5.9.2000, she got herself checked up and treated by Dr. Tarun Gupta, but even then she got no relief. Dr. Tarun Gupta on 11.9.2000 advised her to get the ultrasound of her stomach, on which the complainant got her ultrasound on the Diagnostic Centre of the opposite party the next day and paid a sum of Rs. 300/- (Rupees three hundred). THE opposite party alleged that her report is absolutely perfect and there is no defect in her report. THE complainant showed her ultrasound report to Dr. Tarun Gupta, who after examining the report gave medicines. After that also the complainant was not feeling well and her pain was consistently increasing. On 18.9.2000, she went to Dr. Vipin Mehra of Hardwar, who after examining the ultrasound report advised her to undergo ultrasound from another doctor. THEn the complainant got ultrasound of her stomach from Dhanwantri Diagnostic Centre, Ranipur Road, Hardwar, who in his report alleged that there is cyst in the right side of the abdomen. On 20.9.2000, Dr. J.P. Sharma, Kankhal also approved the above report and for satisfaction got the ultrasound conducted in Sai Ultrasound Centre, Hardwar, in which also the cyst was found. She went to Dr. N.K. Aggarwal (Surgeon) along with all the three reports, who advised her for operation. She got herself operated in Prem Nursing Home, Jwalapur, Hardwar, where the cyst of her stomach was removed. THE complainant had to get other ultrasound due to the wrong report of the opposite party and also operation, due to which she suffered mental agony and financial loss. THE complainant sent a notice to the opposite party for compensation but the opposite party did not give her any compensation. THErefore, the complainant filed a complaint. The opposite party filed written statement and admitted that the ultrasound was conducted at its Ultrasound Centre. It is however alleged that there was no cyst in the abdomen of the complainant and if there was some swelling in her stomach, that cannot be detected in ultrasound. It is said that at the time of ultrasound, the complainant was not having any problem of cyst. She did not contact the opposite party on increase of her pain, otherwise he would have conducted ultrasound free of cost. He has further alleged that cyst can be of different kinds and its growth depends on the time of pain. There can be pain before inclamatory cyst, whereas in case of non-inclamatory cyst, the pain develops afterwards. According to him, if on 18.9.2000 any such cyst has been found, then definitely it would have developed between 12.9.2000 and 18.9.2000, for which he is not responsible. He said that Dr. J.P. Sharma is not recognized by the Medical Council and the advice given by him to the complainant to get the ultrasound was uncalled for. According to him, the complainant has not suffered any mental agony and financial loss because if there is any disease in the body, it is to be treated somewhere and some expenses are to be incurred in that also. It is alleged the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

Both the parties filed their affidavits and various other documents in support of their allegations.

THE learned Forum after taking the evidence of the parties and hearing them dismissed the complaint. Against which order the present appeal has been filed. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and gone through the records. The opposite party filed the photocopy of book of Diagnostic Ultrasound Page 546, Author Dr. C.M. Samel and also filed the affidavit of Sh. Atul Krishan, Chairman, Subharti Medical College, Meerut.

IT is an admitted fact on 12.9.2000, the complainant got her ultrasound test in the Diagnostic Centre of the opposite party and paid a sum of Rs. 300/- (Rupees three hundred). IT is said that doctor gave a wrong report. On 18.9.2000, on undergoing ultrasound from Dhanwantri Diagnostic Centre, a cyst was found in the right side of her abdomen. On that basis, the complainant has alleged deficiency on the part of the opposite party. In that connection, the complainant has alleged that she was having pain in her stomach. That''s why Dr. N.K. Aggarwal and Dr. Tarun Gupta advised her for ultrasound because she was not getting any relief from the medicines. Therefore, ultrasound was conducted in the Diagnostic Centre of the opposite party. According to the report of the opposite party she found nothing wrong in the abdomen of the complainant but Dr. Vipin Mehra and Dr. J.P. Sharma found cyst in her right abdomen. After that she met Dr. N.K. Aggarwal, Surgeon who advised her for operation and cyst was removed by operation. He has also said that the opposite party prepared the report negligently due to which she suffered mental and financial loss. The report of the ultrasound is on record. The opposite party Dr. Vipin Premi filed his radiologist diploma of 1987 and letter of the U.P. Government dated 27.7.2001. According to his affidavit, he has a radiologist with experience of 16 years. He also worked in Government Hospital in the past and has got enough experience. He has alleged that in the report of New Dhanwantri Centre and Sai Diagnostic Centre, the size of the cyst has been shown as 2 inch. According to page 653 of renowned Medical Practitioner Dr. Wilfred Shah, for twisting of any ovarian cyst, it is to be 6 inches long and in polivas, it rotates itself. According to him, in the certificate of Dr. N.K. Aggarwal, the type of ovarian cyst was written as Twisted Ovarian Cyst, which according to the above opinion is incorrect. He also alleged that it looks that the complainant has not got herself operated from Dr. Aggarwal and also no biopsy and other examination was done, which was essential to know the correct position. Dr. N.K. Aggarwal has also not reported that the cyst is implamatory or non-implamatory. He further alleged that Dr. J.P. Sharma is not recognized by the Medical Council and due to professional rivalry for wrong gains he has filed this complaint. Dr. Vipin Premi in his affidavit has also alleged that report of New Dhanwantri Diagnostic Centre and Sai Diagnostic Centre is different from each other. In the report of New Dhanwantri Diagnostic Centre, some portion has been shown as cystic and some as solid. Whereas in the report of Sai Diagnostic Centre only cystic has been shown. This type of cystic solid mass may be Foliphulur Cyst, which develops every monthly in ovary and then finishes. It means that the concerned Surgeon operated the complainant only for financial gain. In this connection, he has referred page No. 546 of book of Dr. C.M. Samel, which also proves the contention of the doctor in which he has said the operation of the complainant as not justified. In support of his allegations, he has filed the affidavit of Sh. Atul Krishan, Subharti Medical College, Meerut in which Dr. Atul Krishan has written that he is Chairman of Medical College. He has prepared the report after discussion with the Board of Directors. According to which, the cyst of 05 m.m. size developes very quickly and fastly and can develop within a week, which is usually found in young girls, due to which the symptoms of pain in stomach are found. 10-05 m.m. cyst can develop in 7-10 days. This report was challenged by the complainant and the report of Senior Medical Superintendent (H.M.G.H.) was filed but this report was not supported by any affidavit. Therefore, it cannot be read as evidence. The opposite party, doctor has filed the medical certificate and fitness certificate challenging the report of C.M.S., to show that the C.M.S. is a person who issues certificate of illness and fitness certificate the same day. Even the name and signature of the said doctor is not clear and known.

IN view of what has been said above, the learned Forum was perfectly justified in dismissing the complaint. This appeal has got no force and is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is hereby dismissed. Cost of this appeal shall be easy. Appeal dismissed.