AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE complainants are (1) Shri Meghdut Thakkar, husband of late Smt. Nayanaben and (2) minor son Snehansh and they seek to recover Rs. 1,84,000/- (Rs. one lac eighty four thousand) from opponents (1) Dr. Anupama V. Desai, (2) Dr. Vidyut Desai, (3) Dr. Kirit Shah, and (4) New India Assurance Company for alleged negligence in operation and medical treatment of late Smt. Nayanaben. Complainants have stated in complaint that: (1) Nayanaben consulted opponent Doctors 1 and 2 for problems related to uterus on 23.6.91. (2) Patient underwent laboratory investigations and X-rays as suggested by opponents 1 and 2 on 24.6.91. (3) All reports were reported to be normal and patient was advised operation of hysterectomy. (4) Patient was admitted on 25.6.91 in hospital of opponents 1 and 2. (5) Patient was operated around 10.30 a.m. on 26.6.91. (6) Complainant alleges that from 26.6.91 afternoon to 27.6.91 morning, no doctor remained in hospital and patient did not receive proper post operative care, patient was left in care of hospital staff.
(7) Nayanaben''s health deteriorated in early morning of 27.6.91. She had vomitings and pain in abdomen. Complainant alleges that he informed opponent Nos. 1 and 2, who apparently saw her but could not understand what wrong was going on with Nayanaben. Complainant requested opponent Nos. 1 and 2 to call opponent No. 3 (THEre is nothing to suggest complainant knew opponent No. 3 and also that opponent No. 3 was invited by opponent Nos. 1 and 2 around 9 p.m. and not in the morning).
(8) Complainant says opponent No. 3 saw Nayanaben on 27.6.91 at about 7.00 a.m. in morning on invitation of opponent Nos. 1 and 2 at their hospital. Patient already had undergone operation previous day morning vide supra.
(9) Opponent No. 3 suggested certain changes in medical management and advised a bottle of blood transfusion which was obtained from Indian Red Cross Society and given. Complainant mentions that it did not improve Nayanaben''s condition from morning of 28.6.91. Nayanaben developed difficulty in breathing and had swelling over body and eyes. She was conscious but was unable to speak; father-in-law of Nayanaben who is a medical practitioner was present by her bed-side (No statement or witness, evidence of said father-in-law a medical practitioner is on record).
(10) It is pertinent to note that since the time problems started in Nayanaben, the complainant has referred to all the alleged acts by any or all doctors as "opponents" only without identifying them - as done in former part of complaint.
(11) Nayanaben was examined by "opponent" in morning of 28.6.91 and opponent did not come again to see her. Nayanaben had difficulty in passing stool, had ''black'' coloured urine and her health deteriorated. Further Nayanaben was given "40 injections of Lasix".
(12) Nayanaben underwent portable sonography test; blood report etc. on 28.6.91 and Dr. Kirit Shah advised the patient to be shifted to Civil Hospital for dialysis. Complainant alleges that opponents kept on advising various tests. As it appears these must be the happenings of the entire day and they could not have "advised" tests, sonography and decisions for medicament without physically being there, in that case it will contradict the statement as above in previous paragraph; complainant also states that Dr. Rajesh Vyas saw the patient same day and admitted the patient to V.S. Hospital. From the available records it is not possible to get detail accounts of time since morning of 28.6.91.
(13) Nayanaben underwent various investigations, dialysis and other treatment under care of Dr. Rajesh Vyas from 28.6.91 till her death on 13.7.91 about 4.40 p.m. at V.S. Hospital. Complainant alleges that "opponents" has shown serious negligence and in-attention in operation and post operative care (sonography report done post operatively does not suggest above). Complainant says opponent ought to have known the problem regarding kidney since 27.6.91 morning, (page 5 of complainant says opponent Nos. 1 and 2 called opponent No. 3 on 27.6.91 morning 7.00 a.m.) Complainant on page 10 says that from 28.6.91 morning till she was admitted to V.S. Hospital (record says on 28.6.91) opponents could not give successful treatment for kidney failure with the result both kidneys of Nayanaben failed and she died because of that (it is necessary to note that complainant did not say that opponent did not give treatment). He also states "successful treatment" was not given; we wonder on what knowledge or information such a statement could have been made when complainant himself is not a medical man nor does he say how and who gave him such understanding that opponent "could not give successful treatment". Complainant on page 10, paragraph 5 gives various information about late Nayanaben''s nature, education, health, ability and loss to himself and his family.
IN further paragraphs on various counts the complainant seeks compensation to the amount of Rs. 1,84,000/- with 18% interest. Complainant also applied for joining the New India Assurance Company as respondent and indemnifier of opponent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
Complainant from page 17 submits the list of documents upto page 52.
IT is important to note that on page 44, Indian Red Cross Society has written a letter dated 21.4.92 with regards to possibility of worsening of the patient''s condition and ruled out the possibility of blood transfusion as a cause for the same in instant case. This document is produced by complainant but the complainant has not proved by calling witness and proving it. Exhibit 16 is written statement by opponent No. 3 Dr. Kirit Shah, physician where in one of the objection raised for conducting the case in Commission is that it will take long time and Commission "who has to proceed and decide the matter within stipulated time" could not do it. Yes ! long time it has taken but it is absolutely clear from records that most of the adjournments were exclusively at the requests of one or other party. Commission could have taken a stricter view but in interest of justice this had to be tolerated. The situation is entire creation of complainants and opponents and their advocates. Had they co-operated, matter could have been decided in "stipulated time". While we appreciate floral language of statement, the simple bare facts could have been definitely better.
OPPONENT No. 3 states that he saw the patient first time at 9.00 p.m. on 27.6.91 and not at 6.00 or 7.00 a.m. as mentioned by complainant. He, in the statement, contends he saw, examined investigated the patient properly and adequately. His diagnosis was correct and management was proper. OPPONENT No. 3 also speaks about his qualifications and achievement as a physician; the complainant has nowhere challenged the diagnosis or management by opponent No. 3 nor has the complainant cared to examine opponent No. 3 or any other expert as witness; (though opponent No. 3 was physically present) Exhibit 14 is written statement of opponent Nos. 1 and 2. The brief points are that they attended the patient properly and sufficiently, that surgical procedure was not the cause of worsening condition and ultimately death of Smt. Nayanaben. Patient had developed non surgery related problems and physician, nephrologist were called at proper time and patient received the required treatment. Post operative sonography did not show any complications related surgical procedure. We do not think opponent Nos. 1 and 2 has anything more to offer than saying that surgery was not the cause related to death of Nayanaben and they acted in responsible way in calling physician and manage her as per his instruction. They seem to have done it. Complainant in such a long time have not called them to cross examine them to challenge their version inspite of ample opportunities.
SURPRISINGLY even in an institution like V.S. Hospital where Nayanaben was admitted with history of post operative complication and died; post-mortem was not done. Complainant also has not submitted or obtained or requested to summon V.S. Hospital records or indoor case paper of opponent Nos. 1 and 2.
FROM the available records, complainant has not proved any alleged irregularities in treatment or attendance or lack or reasonable care by any opponent. It is a sad fact that young life is lost but then it is an accident; a fatal chance occurrence which was beyond control of treating doctors. As it seems whatever was possible by these doctors they did it (if they failed complainant has not proved it - He carries the burden to prove it because he alleges). Just because patient died during treatment a doctor cannot be hold responsible, particularly when the doctor has acted scientifically and adequately as it seems in this case. In view of repeated absence by complainant and their Advocates and ready co- operation of doctors, we would have considered awarding cost to the doctors but they have not pressed and though incorrect the feeling of complainant may have lured him to press for this complaint. Therefore, as abundant consideration to complainant, the complaint is dismissed but there will be no order as to the cost. Complaint dismissed.