MANPREET KAUR vs LAXMI DEVI

BRIEF facts of the case: Smt. Laxmi Devi alias Gudiya, during her pregnancy, slipped and suffered miscarriage on 28.07.2006. Dr. Sudhir Kumar who runs, ''''JACHCHA BACHCHA KENDRA '''' checked her and prescribed some medicines for 3 days and referred her to Harmilap Hospital for further treatment but she did not get any relief. On 31.07.2006 the Complainant visited the City Hospital and consulted Dr. N. K. Agarwal who advised Ultrasound and other tests and administered some injections. The husband of the Complainant thereafter took her to Ramakrishna Mission Sevashrama, Kankhal, (in short RMS) as he was not in a condition to afford the costly treatment at the City Hospital. Dr. Madhu Shah attended the Complainant at RMS and after investigation started the treatment. Dr. Madhu Shah, advised the Complainant to consult a lady surgeon. Hence, on 14.08.2006, the patient ''s husband took her to Dr. (Smt.) Manjeet Kaur -the OP where, she remained under treatment under 19.08.2006. The Complainant ''s allegation was the OP kept her for first 3 days only on medication which resulted in pus formation in the abdomen. On 16.08.2006 the OP operated her and charged her Rs.10,000/ - without issuing any receipt. During the course of stay in the hospital on 18.08.2006, the OP instead of providing bed pan, directed the nurse to take the Complainant to toilet, when, while getting up from the bed with the help of a nurse ''s support the stiches from the operation got opened and the intestine bulged out. Thereafter, the pus went on increasing and also there was a faecal matter. Thereafter, the OP discharged the Complainant from the nursing home on 19.08.2008; then she was taken to Combined Medical Institute (CMI), Dehradun and was treated by Dr. Mukesh Kumar Gupta and his team by performing 2 operations and discharged her on 28.09.2006. She incurred a cost of about Rs.70,000/ - for the treatment. Hence, alleging negligence in the operation and that the wound was not stitched properly, the Complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Forum in Haridwar and prayed for compensation, of Rs.4,70,000/ - with interest @ 12% p.a., and Rs.10,000 towards litigation.

THE District Forum, allowed the Complainant and directed the OP to pay a sum of Rs.1,52,000/ - against the medical expenses, fees, physical & mental agony and cost of litigation. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the OP filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission partly allowed the appeal and modified the order passed by the District Forum by reducing the amount of medical expenses and compensation from Rs.1,52,000/ - to Rs.62,000/ -.

AGGRIEVED by the order of Sate Commission the OP preferred this revision. We have heard the counsel for the parties. The counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the OP was negligent in treating the patient, after operation the stitches were not properly placed, therefore the patient suffered for a long period. The OP has not taken reasonable care of the patient. The counsel for OP/petitioner contended that on 16.08.2006, during operation Dr. N. K. Agarwal also assisted the OP Dr. Manjeet Kaur. However, on 18.08.2006, the stitches of operation got broken and patient ''s condition deteriorated. After ultrasound test, the OP has referred the patient to a higher medical centre. In CMI Dehradun, the patient was treated by Dr. Mukesh Kumar Gupta.

ON perusal of records we are convinced that, Dr. Sudhir Kumar, the so called Gynecologist and a B.E.M.S. degree holder, and Smt. Munni Devi, a midwife, were working in Dr. Sudhir Kumar ''s ''''Jachcha -Bachcha Kendra ''''. Complications developed during the treatment and the said Dr. Sudhir Kumar, appears to be a quack and not qualified to treat such patients. Then she took treatment from Dr. Madhu Shah, a doctor in Ramakrishna Mission Sevashrama wherein she has prescribed Injection Voveron. We find no mention of the medical qualification of Dr. Madhu Shah on record. Though Dr. Madhu Shah had kept the patient under her treatment for 14 days, but no medical records are availing pertaining to the treatment given by her. On 14.08.2006, when Dr. Madhu Shah observed the ultrasound she reported of some complications in lower abdomen, hence she discontinued the treatment of the Complainant. She also had advised the complainant to consult a surgeon. Thereafter, the complainant was under the treatment of Dr. (Smt.) Manpreet Kaur from 14.08.2006 to 19.08.2006, who was qualified, as MBBS, MS (Gynecology and Obstetric). It is very pertinent to note that, the complainant approached the OP after 17 days of the incident of miscarriage and during this period, she had remained under the treatment of Dr. Sudhir Kumar, a midwife Smt. Munni Devi and Dr. Madhu Shah. The patient developed the complications of peritonitis and progressed to formation of pus in lower abdomen. The Patient was a case of pyo -peritoneum due to some gynecological procedure, most of the time it is due to post MTP/Post delivery for which she was operated by Dr. Manpreet Kaur. Abdominal exploration was a right decision and did proper lavage in the presence of senior surgeon Dr. N. K. Aggarwal. Obviously, the surgical margins the tissue show necrotic changes and takes much time to heal. On post -operative period she developed wound dehiscence. Wound dehiscence usually occurs in the presence of severe infection (Pus) in the abdomen and poor General condition of the patient. It is not related to ambulation of the patient. The patient was referred at right time on the day when she developed a wound dehiscence.

THEREFORE , we do not find any element of negligent treatment rendered by the OP. Her approach was reasonable and as per standard of medical practice. We put reliance upon various judgments of Hon ''ble Supreme Court and of this Commission on the subject of medical negligence. The OP succeeds the Bolam ''sTest. Hence, both the fora below erred to appreciate the treatment given by OP to the complainant. The earlier doctors, Dr. Sudhir Kumar and Dr. Madhu Gupta who appear to be negligent from beginning of treatment, had ventured in unnecessary and improper treatment of the complainant. But, it is unfortunate that those doctors have not been arrayed as parties, to the complaint, hence we are helpless to fix liability upon them.

THEREFORE , on the basis of foregoing discussion, we set aside the orders passed by the fora below and allow this revision petition. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.