JAGIR SINGH vs DHINGRA GENERAL HOSPITAL

-BRIEFLY stated the facts are that Sh. Jagir Singh complainant had developed a problem of passing urine some time in 1992. He consulted Dr. G. S. Dhingra of Dhingra General Hospital, Amritsar who had given him some medicines. As per ultrasound report dated 21. 1. 1998, he was having Grade-II prostatic enlargement. He was subjected to open Prostectomy on 26. 1. 1998. It is specifically alleged in the complaint that the surgery was performed by OP No. 3 Dr. Charanjit Singh while case of OPs is that the operation was not performed by Dr. Charanjit Singh but was performed by OP No. 4 Dr. Gurjit Singh in Dhingra General Hospital, Amritsar (OP No. 1 ). Catheter was put after operation and ultimately he was discharged on 7. 2. 1998. The copy of the discharge card is Annexure C-3. However, operation was not successful as he was unable to hold urine which was passing continuously. He had consulted both Dr. Gurjit Singh as well as operating surgeon Dr. Charanjit Singh who told him not to worry and prescribed certain medicines but the medicines had got no effect and the problem continued. He got treatment from various institutions and incurred a lot of expenses. Further allegation of the complainant is that due to negligence of OPs, permanent damage had been caused to his urinary system because of utter negligence on the part of OP No. 3 namely Dr. Charanjit Singh and further he was not competent to perform surgery.

ALLEGING deficiency in service, complaint was filed on 24. 1. 2000. Ops contested the complaint and stated that the operation was conducted by a team of doctors under the supervision of Dr. Gurjit Singh OP No. 4 with due care and caution and there was no negligence on their part. They denied that the operation was conducted by Dr. Charanjit Singh.

The complainant had moved an application for rebuttal evidence along with affidavit and it was fixed for reply of OPs on this application. However, instead of filing reply, Counsel for OPs moved an application for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that it involved disputed question of facts which could not be decided by this Commission in a summary manner and as such the complaint should be dismissed. Reply to this application was filed by the complainant.

WE have heard Counsel for complainant Dr. Balram Gupta, Counsel for OPs Sh. Updip Singh on the application and carefully gone through the file. It is a specific case of the complainant in the complaint that open surgery by way of Prostectomy was performed upon him by Dr. Charanjit Singh OP No. 3 on 26. 1. 1998 negligently which led to permanent damage to his urinary system. On the other hand, case of OPs is that operation was not performed by Dr. Charanjit Singh and it was performed by a team of doctors under the supervision of Dr. Gurjit Singh at Dhingra General Hospital, Amritsar.

IT is true that cross-examination of Dr. Charanjit Singh S/o Attar Singh as well as Dr. Gurjit Singh had been recorded. Both the witnesses were cross-examined by the Counsel for complainant at length. No question was put to Dr. Charanjit Singh that the operation upon the complainant was performed by him. Even the prescription slips which now complainant intended to produce by way of rebuttal evidence were not put to Dr. Charanjit Singh. It was not suggested to him that in fact open prostectomy was performed by him and that too negligently which caused permanent damage to the urinary system of the complainant. Of course, a suggestion was put to Dr. Gurjit Singh that while performing surgery he had removed certain portion which was not required to be removed for the treatment of retention of urine and as a result damaged the external sphincter. In the end it was put to him that he (Dr. Gurjit Singh) did not receive any fee as he never performed the surgery which was alleged to have been performed by him on the complainant. Anyhow we are not going into the question at this stage whether operation was performed by Dr. Gurjit Singh or Dr. Charanjit Singh because this question is to be decided on merits. Moreover, it hardly matters that the operation was performed by one doctor or the other because it is an admitted fact that the operation was performed in Dhingra General Hospital, Amritsar by its doctors. If negligence is proved on behalf of doctors of Dhingra General Hospital, then certainly Dhingra General Hospital would be liable to pay compensation. The disputed question of fact whether operation performed by Dr. Gurjit Singh or Dr. Charanjit Singh in that sense is not material because ultimately Dhingra General Hospital would be liable if negligence on behalf of its doctors is proved. Counsel for OPs contended that where disputed question of fact is involved in the case, then State Commission should keep its hands off to deal with the matter and the parties should be referred to the civil Court. For this contention, he placed reliance upon an authority of Hon''ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Munimahesh Patel, IV (2006) CPJ 1 (SC)=vi (2006) SLT 436=2006 (2) CPC 668, where Hon''ble Apex Court observed in para-10 that the proceedings before the Commission were essentially summary in nature and adjudication of issues which involved disputed factual questions should not be adjudicated. It was to be noted that Commission accepted that insured was not a teacher. Complainant raised dispute about genuineness of the documents i. e. proposal forms produced by the appellant. In the above mentioned case material fact was whether Munimahesh Patel''s wife (respondent''s wife) was a housewife or a school teacher. The insurance was done on the plea that she was a school teacher and not housewife. Copy of the proposal form had been produced on file in which it was mentioned that she was a teacher. However, this was at variance with actual copy of another form produced which showed that Munimahesh Patel accepted that his wife was a housewife. The Commission had accepted that she was not a teacher and on this score held that the respondent was not entitled to any relief because the matter was of complex nature and proper remedy was available by approaching appropriate Court of law. Therefore, there was dispute about material fact as to whether respondent''s wife was a teacher or housewife because if it had been mentioned that respondent''s wife was a housewife, then probably Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (appellant) would not have insured her and she was insured on the presumption that she was a teacher which fact later on proved to be wrong or untrue.

THUS, there was dispute regarding genuineness of document i. e. proposal form. In such circumstances that case was decided but in the present case it is not material fact as to whether operation was performed by Dr. Gurjit Singh or by Dr. Charanjit Singh. If it is proved that the operation was performed negligently on the person of complainant by the doctors at Dhingra General Hospital, then certainly Dhingra General Hospital would be liable for damages. The case is ripe for arguments. In such circumstances there is no force in the application and, therefore, it is dismissed. Copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. Application dismissed.