JAYANTILAL GOVINDLAL PARMR vs MANAGING TRUSTEE

COMPLAINANT, Head Clerk in a school, has filed this complaint for recovery of total compensation of Rs. 6 lakhs from the opponents on the ground that there was negligence in giving him surgical treatment.

THE complainant had pain in abdomen in June, 1993 and, therefore, he went to opponent No. 1 Mehsana District Central Co-operative Bank Limited General Hospital at Mehsana (hospital for short) to consult Medical Officer of the hospital. Medical Officer Dr. Modi advised for radiological examination. He, therefore, consulted Dr. Y.T. Patel who did ultrasound of abdomen. THE conclusion reached by Dr. Patel was that there were multiple stones in gall bladder and he made report to that effect. Dr. Modi, therefore, advised the complainant to consult Dr. R.K. Patel, opponent No. 2 herein (opponent for short). THE opponent, after examining the complainant and the report of Dr. Y.T. Patel, advised the complainant to undergo operation. THE complainant was admitted to hospital on July 28,1992 and he was operated by opponent on July 30,1992. THE complainant was discharged from the hospital on August 7,1992. According to the complainant, he had complaint of pain when he was discharged from hospital; but he was told that the pain would subside after some time and he would become normal. However, he continued to suffer from pain till he underwent second operation as stated hereafter. THE complainant had paid more than Rs.3,500/- to the hospital. It is the case of the complainant that when he again Went to the hospital on February 21,1993, Dr. Modi who examined him ignored the pain from which he was suffering. It is submitted by the complainant that since the pain continued unabated, he consulted Dr. Rajguru, who is a Urologist practising in Mehsana. Dr. Rajguru advised radiological examination. Dr. S.K. Patel of Vikas X-ray and Sonography Clinic who did X-ray examination and Urethrogram opined, "there is narrowing seen in the bulbous part of the urethra suggest small stricture formations near the bulbous urethra". According to the complainant. Dr. Rajguru, after examining the report of Dr. S.K. Patel, stated to the effect that there was something wrong with the operation performed by the opponent. The complainant paid Rs. 700/- as fees to Dr. Rajguru. The complainant was thereafter examined by Kidney Centre of Ahmedabad Civil Hospital where he paid fees of Rs. 800/-.

It is submitted that the complainant was advised to approach the Urological Hospital at Nadiad. He, therefore, went to the Urological hospital on March 23,1993. Doctor who examined there advised him to undergo operation. He was admitted to the Urological Hospital on April 21,1993 and he was operated on April 22,1993. He was discharged from the hospital on April 27, 1993. He spent about Rs. 10,000/-at the Urological Hospital. According to the complainant, the Urological Hospital had issued certificate to the effect that as the earlier operation was not performed properly, there was stricture formations near bulbous urethra. It is submitted that the opponent had damaged urethra during performance of the first operation and it was on account of such damage that the complainant suffered intense pain. It is submitted that the complainant could not enjoy sex and could not pass urine easily for about one year. He also could not take cold drinks or water in large quantity and he had to pass urine frequently.

ON the above grounds, it is the case of the complainant that the hospital and the opponent were negligent in giving him medical and surgical treatment. He is therefore entitled to claim compensation of Rs. 6 lakhs which included compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs for pain, suffering and mental torture and Rs. 50,000/- for expenses. The opponents have filed written statement denying the allegations of negligence made by the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant was examined by Dr. Rajesh Pandya, a General Physical working in the hospital on March 16,1992. Dr. Pandya advised ultra sonography. Report of ultra sonography showed that the complainant had multiple gall stones. He was referred to the opponent who advised operation. When the complainant consulted the opponent, he had with him ultra sonography report of Dr. Y.T. Patel, Radiologist to whom the complainant was referred by Dr. C.N. Patel, General Practitioner of Mehsana. The opponent found that there were multiple gall stones. He, therefore, advised the complainant to undergo operation. It is not disputed that the complainant was admitted to the hospital and operated on July 30,1992. It is however, denied that the complainant paid more than Rs. 3,500/- to the opponent. It is submitted that the bill of the hospital was Rs. 1,220/- only. The opponents have also denied that the complainant suffered pain from the date he was discharged from the hospital till he underwent second operation. According to the opponents, there was no complaint of pain at the time when the complainant was discharged from hospital. It is further submitted that the fact that the complainant consulted Dr. Rajguru seven months after the first operation itself suggests that the allegation about the complainant suffering from intense pain from the date of his discharge from the hospital was false. It is further submitted that the complainant had visited the hospital for followup treatment and at that time there was no complaint of pain. He had also approached doctor of the hospital to obtain certificate for remaining on leave for taking rest. The opponents have also denied the allegation that on the basis of the X- ray report Dr. Rajguru opined that there was something wrong with the operation performed by the opponent. It is submitted that the first operation had nothing to do with bulbous stricture. The opponent who was an experienced surgeon had performed the first operation carefully and there was no negligence on his part. The opponents have also denied the allegation that the certificate issued by doctor of Urological hospital at Nadiad showed that the operation performed by opponent was not properly performed or that the urethra was damaged during this operation. It is submitted that the complainant is not entitled to claim any compensation and his complaint deserved to be dismissed.

IT may be mentioned here that at a later stage National Insurance Company Limited with whom the opponent was insured under doctors'' indemnity policy was joined as opponent No. 3. The Insurance Company has also denied any liability to pay compensation to the complainant as there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opponent. The only evidence in support of the allegations made by the complainant is his own testimony, case papers of the hospital, the reports of Dr. Y.T. Patel and Dr. S.K. Patel and case papers of Urological hospital. Admittedly, the complainant does not possess any medical knowledge. He has stated about the pain suffered by him and the two operations performed on him, one at the hospital and other at the Urological hospital at Nadiad. There is absolutely no evidence to establish that there was any negligence on the part of the opponent in performing the operation on July 30,1992 and that it was as a result of such negligence that second operation became necessary. First operation was on account of multiple gall stones whereas the second operation became necessary on account of small strictures near bulbous urethra. Connection between the two operations has not been established. In other words, it is not proved that the second operation became necessary on account of negligence in performance of first operation. The complainant has not examined Dr. Rajguru to prove the opinion alleged to have been expressed by him. The complainant has admittecd that Dr. Rajguru has not given any written opinion. There is also no certificate of the doctor of Urological hospital at Nadiad wherein it is alleged to have been stated that second operation became necessary on account of first operation on record. In absence of any expert evidence, we cannot hold the opponent guilty of negligence in performance of the first operation. We also do not see any reason to disbelieve the statement made on oath by the opponent who has not been cross-examined. As already stated above, the opponent has stated that he had performed the operation on the complainant carefully and that the complainant had not complained of pain when he was discharged from the hospital and thereafter. There is also some force in the opponent''s submissions that if the complainant was suffering from intense pain as alleged by him, he would not have waited for seven months to consult Dr. Rajguru. There is nothing in the documentary evidence placed on record which would support the allegations made by the complainant. In our opinion, therefore, the complainant has failed to establish the charge of negligence made by him against the opponent and the hospital. He is, therefore, not entitled to claim any compensation from the opponents. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.