KIDNEY STONE CENTRE vs KHEM SINGH @ KHEM CHAND

THE complainant Shri Khem Singh @ Khem Chand resident of Ropar was suffering from a stone in the initial part of the prostatic urethra and was so advised to undergo surgery by the doctors of General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh. THE complainant was not in favour of surgery and hence approached the Kidney Stone Centre, Chandigarh based on 12.2.1996 on the advertisement in the newspaper that the stones are removed without surgery. However, the Kidney Stone Centre failed to remove the stone from his prostatic urethra which resulted in filing of a complaint against the Centre in District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh on 10.7.1998. THE District Forum, U.T., Chandigarh in its judgment dated 11.2.2000 ordered that the opposite party should refund a fee of Rs. 10,000/- charged by it along with interest @ 12% w.e.f. 14.2.1996 till payment and costs Rs. 2,500/- for unfair trade practices.

AGGRIEVED against the order passed by the District Forum, the present appeal has been preferred. Briefly the respondent-complainant was diagnosed to have stone in the initial part of prostatic urethra by General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh, where he was advised to undergo surgery. The complainant/appellant was not in favour of undergoing surgery, therefore, on the opinion given by Dr. A.K. Gupta, a private medical practitioner, of Village Maloya, and also based on the advertisement in the newspaper that stones are removed without surgery, he went to the clinic of Kidney Stone Centre, Chandigarh on 12.2.1996. He paid fee of Rs. 100/ - and was assured that the stone will be removed by modern technique, i.e. E.S.W.L. - Electric Shock Wave Lithotripsy. It was stated to be a painless process without anesthesia and sedations. It was also explained to him that the whole process will take . to 1 hour. He was explained that the cost of the E.S.W.L. will be Rs. 10,000/-. The complainant believed the said assurance and paid Rs. 10,000/- on 14.2.1996 for E.S.W.L. He was subjected to E.S.W.L. process for about 5 hours on that day by Dr. Rajinder Kumar and Dr. D.P. Singh in the premises of the respondent. But all was in vain. He visited the clinic again on 15.2.1996 and remained there till 5.00 p.m. but the stone remained where it was, i.e. prostatic urethra. The doctors used metallic catheters to push the stone to urinary bladder. It was a painful process that caused bleeding per-penis during the night. The complainant was shifted to a private clinic by the family members. He was told there that he was not physically fit to undergo more shock waves for removal of stone. The respondent-complainant informed the appellant that they have failed to remove the stone through painless process, hence his money be refunded to him. But the appellant refused to do so. On a subsequent day, i.e. on 26.2.1996, X-Ray film showed that the stone was still present in the initial part of the prostatic urethra measuring 15 mm. in size. The respondent complainant averred that he has been unduly put through mental tension, harassment and suffered acute pain due to insertion of metallic catheter in the urethra to push through the stone in the bladder. The appellant has admitted introductory facts but informed that the stone had to be pushed back into the bladder for which he has to be administered local anesthesia/sedations and that would be followed by E.S.W.L. In case of a failure of this treatment, the facilities of open surgery were available in the clinic. Efforts were made to push the stone from the prostatic urethra to the bladder by following E.S.W.L. 1000 shocks. The appellant was scared to undergo further shocks and was not prepared for open surgery. It is relevant to mention that at appellant Centre the diagnosis was as under "Bladder Stone" The advertisement (Annexure P-8) also undertakes that the surgery is carried out through E.S.W.L. Lithotripsy which is a painless surgery for removing stones. The learned Counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments stated that the order of the Forum be dismissed, because this clinic only removes stones from kidney and not from any other part of the body like prostatic urethra in this case.

It is pertinent to refer to the affidavit of Dr. D.P. Singh who had been working at appellant''s clinic during the period of occurrence under reference. He has deposed in para 2 line 5 of his affidavit as under : "It was not possible to focus this stone for ESWL as assessed by Dr. Rajendra Kumar and the team. So in order to relieve his pain retention urine, the stone was pushed back into bladder with urethral dilators under local anesthesia and sedation a standard procedure."

The factum of wrong assessment by the appellant-hospital is corroborated by the abovementioned statement of Dr. D.P. Singh, who is none else but the treating doctor of the appellant.

ON thorough perusal of the entire record and evidence adduced by both the parties and hearing the learned Counsel of both the sides, we are of the considered view that this appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.