KAMALJIT KAUR vs LUDHIANA KIDNEY HOSPITAL LTD

-BRIEFLY stated the facts are that complainant Smt. Kamaljit Kaur is a young married lady of 30 years of age. She had got her kidneys checked from Dr. Amarvir Singh, M. D. , Jeevan Jot Nursing Home, Khanna and had found both the kidneys normal in size and working but found stone in her left kidney.

IT was next averred that on 5. 2. 2000 she got herself admitted in Ludhiana Kidney Hospital Ltd.-OP No. 1 and she was treated there by OPs upto 7. 2. 2000 and then she was discharged. In the discharge slip, OP No. 2 found in diagnosis that her left uretric with renal calculi (i. e. stones were found in left uretric) and the treatment mentioned was Endo-ureterlithotomy which was done under S. A. (uretero-renoscopy) with ESWL for renal stones on 5. 2. 2000. She went for checkup on 10. 2. 2000 in OPD as advised and certain medicines were prescribed by effecting a change in medicines as she was having severe pain. OP No. 2 assured her that she would be normal within a few days. However, her condition worsened. She visited the OPs on 25. 2. 2000, 11. 3. 2000, 25. 3. 2000 and 22. 5. 2000 for checkup and every time she was assured that everything would be normal. She even got herself x-rayed from Star Diagnostic on 24. 3. 2000. However, her pain did not subside and she got the original papers Ex. C. 1 to Ex. C-3 from OPs and got checked from various other doctors. It was further averred that on 6. 8. 2000 she approached Gurpreet Nursing Home, Mandi Gobindgarh and the said nursing home got conducted test and scan and as per opinion of Dr. Gurpreet Kaur regarding kidneys, both kidneys were normal in size and shape but Cortex Medulla diffemitable in right kidney. There was marked hydronephrosis in left kidney but no stone was seen. She again approached the doctor on 20. 5. 2002 and got conducted test and scan from the said nursing home on 25. 5. 2002 and no hydronephrotic change was seen. However, a single calculas of the size of 5. 8 mm was seen in the middle zone. Left kidney showed marked hydronephrotic changes and right renal calculas with hydronephrotic changes in left kidney. IVP was advised and she was referred to Dr. Kansal. The documents are annexures C-4 to C-9. She approached Dr. Kansal''s x-ray ultrasound centre, G. T. Road, Khanna for test and as per test report dated 22. 5. 2002 regarding left kidney showed gross hydronephrotic changes with dilated upper part left ureter. Renal cortical thickness detected on life side. On 19. 8. 2002, Dr. Vipan Kansal gave report and opinion that left kidney not seen in film presented. The documents are Annexures C-10 and C-11. Again on 29. 5. 2002, radio-isotope scan was conducted by Dr. K. S. Soin and as per his opinion left kidney was not visualized in this study upto 3 hours and found non-functioning of left kidney. The documents are Annexure C-12 and C-13.

It was further averred that thereafter she visited PGI and started treatment there on 24. 7. 2002 and then she approached PGI on 10. 8. 2004 and got treatment.

IT was further averred that OP No. 2 had committed grave negligence in her treatment and that Endoureterlithotmy was done under SA (Uretero-renoscopy) with ESWL for removal of renal stones. Due to his negligence, she has suffered physically, mentally and financially and due to their rash and negligent act her left kidney had been totally damaged and had disappeared. It was due to the fact that OP No. 2 had given higher quantity of lazar rays which damaged her left kidney. With these allegations, she filed complaint on 2. 12. 2004 and claimed compensation of Rs. 20 lakh along with interest @ 18% p. a. and further claimed refund of Rs. 80,000 paid in cash for treatment and operation, etc. She also claimed rupees one lakh as additional compensation for causing her physical harassment for visiting various doctors and conducting various tests besides Rs. 25,000 as litigation expenses.

OPPOSITE parties contested the complaint and filed written reply. They took certain preliminary objections; that the complaint was time barred as it had not been filed within two years from the date of cause of action; that it involved complicated questions of law and facts, so, same could only be decided by the civil Court and that it was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, that denied allegations and stated that there was no negligence on their part. They next stated that complainant was admitted in the clinic of OP No. 2 on 5. 2. 2000 with the complaint of acute abdomen pain. After diagnosis it was found that she was suffering from left uretric calculus with renal calculi and Endoureterolithotomy was done under SA (uretero-renoscopy) with ESWL. Acute abdominal pain subsided and she was having no pain for two days and was discharged on 7. 2. 2000 at her own request. She further visited OPD twice or thrice for follow-up and she was quite fine and conveyed her satisfaction and there was no negligence or deficiency in service on their part. The aim of treatment was to relieve the obstruction in kidney and this could have been done either by putting tube into the kidney (PCN) or relieving obstruction from below i. e. through ureteroscopy. The ureteroscopy was the best option. If obstruction was removed through kidney that would have required maintenance of a tube through skin requiring prolonged hospitalization which was difficult to be maintained by home and further she was not having any other indication and as such by treatment she was relieved from acute problem and was feeling fine and was discharged at her own request on 7. 2. 2000. They further stated that if it was found by other doctors that there was hydronephrotic in left kidney, Endoureterolithotomy or ESWL could not be the cause of hydronephrosis as hydronephrotic kidneys could remain hydronephrotic even after relieving of obstruction and post operative x-rays and scans, they remain non-visualized. The treatment given to the complainant was proper treatment and there was no negligence or deficiency on their part. They next stated that after 7. 2. 2000 she did not complain of severe pain but she had come up for followup action and certain medicines were prescribed. They denied other allegations and stated that the complaint should be dismissed. Parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavits. The opinion of Dr. A. K. Mandal, Professor and Head of Department of Urology, PGI, Chandigarh was sought by submitting documents as well as copy of complaint to him but he stated that he was unable to give any opinion as to whether kidney function had deteriorated following operation or it was not functional to begin with as there was no documents of status of function at the time of treatment during Febaruary, 2000. We have heard Counsel for complainant Mr. A. K. Ahluwalia, Counsel for opposite parties Mr. H. R. Bansal and carefully gone through the file.

THE present complaint had been filed on 2. 12. 2004 in the Punjab State Commission. The complainant got treatment from OP No. 2 on 5. 2. 2000. She further followed OPD on 25. 2. 2000, 11. 3. 2000, 25. 3. 3000 and 22. 5. 2000 for checkup. It is next alleged that on 6. 8. 2000 she approached Gurpreet Nursing Home, Mandi Gobindgarh and said nursing home got test and scan and as per opinion dated 6. 8. 2000 of Dr. Gurpreet Kaur Ex. C. 6 dated 6. 8. 2000, she had found that there was hydronephrosis in left kidney but no stones were seen. Thus, defect was noticed in the left kidney on 6. 8. 2000. The present complaint has been filed on 2. 12. 2004 which is certainly time-barred under Section 24a of the Consumer Protection Act as it has been filed beyond a period of two years.

THE complainant has not produced any expert evidence to prove that left kidney was damaged due to treatment for the removal of stone in the left kidney given by respondent No. 2 during the period 5. 2. 2000 to 7. 2. 2000. There is no dispute about it that OP No. 2 had found on diagnosis that there was left ureteric with renal calculi of the complainant (it means that stone was found in left uretric) The treatment as mentioned in the discharged slip was given i. e. Endoureterolithotomy was done under SA (uretero-renoscopy) with ESWL for renal stones on 5. 2. 2000. It is alleged by complainant in para -2 of the complaint that she had approached Dr. Amarvir Singh, MD, Jeevan Jot Nursing Home, Khanna, District Ludhiana and after complete checkup and further going through reports he opined that stones were found in the left kidney and recommended to the OPs for her treatment for removing stones from the left kidney. It further stated that Dr. Amarvir Singh had conducted all tests and gave opinion that both kidneys were normal in size and working normal and stones were in the left kidney. The reports of Dr. Amarvir Singh and the test conducted by him proving that both kidneys were normal in size and working normal and stones were in the left kidney had not been placed on file i. e. no evidence has been led that prior to treatment by OPs, both kidneys were working normal and there was no hydronephrotic changes in left kidney. If subsequently complainant had developed hydronephrotic change in the left kidney or left kidney was damaged then it cannot be said that it was due to treatment allegedly given by OP No. 2. Op Nos. 1 and 2 in their written reply which had been filed by Op No. 2 by way of affidavit had specifically stated that no doctor had given the opinion as mentioned in Ex. C. 4 to C-21 that the laser rays were given by Op No. 2 which led to damage to the left kidney and it disappeared. None of the doctors had given opinion that left kidney was not visualized due to wrong treatment given by Op No 2. It is further stated in the written reply that Endoureterolithotomy or ESWL could not be cause of hydronephrotic as hydronephrotic kidneys could remain hydronephrotic even after relieving of obstruction and in postoperative x-rays and scans they could remain non-visualized. The treatment given to the complainant was proper treatment and there was no negligence or deficiency on their part.

At the cost of repetition we may sate that there is no evidence that the left kidney of complainant was sound before treatment which was given by OP No. 2 from 5. 2. 2000 to 7. 2. 2000 and it was damaged after treatment. In the absence of this evidence, OPs cannot be fastened with negligence and no compensation can be awarded.

WE may further state that Dr. A. K. Mandal, Professor and Head, Department of Urology, PGI, Chandigarh had categorically stated that it was not possible to give an opinion in the absence of status of function of left kidney function at the time of treatment during February, 2000. So, according to him it was not possible whether left kidney had deteriorated following operation or it was not functional to begin with. Hence, in view of the discussion above, we hold that there is no merit in the complaint and consequently it is dismissed.

COPIES of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. Complaint dismissed.