MOHINDER KAUR vs Pawan Aggarwal

THIS order will dispose of First Appeal No. 801 of 2005 as also First Appeal No. 812 of 2005 as both these appeals have been filed against the same impugned order dated 21.4.2005 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (hereinafter called the ''District Forum'').

BY order dated 21.4.2005, the District Forum has allowed the complaint of Smt. Mohinder Kaur in the following terms: ''In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted against opposite party Nos. 1 and 3 with Rs. 5,000 as costs and they are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 to the complainant as compensation for the removal of her uterus as well as the money spent by her on her treatment and operation charges. This complaint is dismissed against opposite party No. 2. This order is directed to be complied with within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of its copy. Copies of this order be communicated to the parties concerned free of costs.'' First Appeal No. 801 of 2005 has been filed by complainant Smt. Mohinder Kaur against the dismissal of her complaint against opposite party No. 2 (Lady Dr. Saroj Singh) from whom Rs. 90,000 had been claimed as compensation.

FIRST Appeal No. 812 of 2005 has been filed by Dr. Pawan Aggarwal and National Insurance Company Ltd., Ferozepur (Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 3 in the complaint) for setting aside the impugned order dated 21.4.2005.

BRIEF facts giving rise to these appeals may be noticed: Complainant Mohinder Kaur alleged in the complaint that she was suffering from some stomach pain. Dr. Pawan Aggarwal (O.P. No. 1) held a camp in his hospital known as Aggarwal Hospital situated at Tehsil Road, Mandi Guru Har Sahai, Tehsil Jalalabad, District Ferozepur. The complainant went there and after checking Dr. Pawan Aggarwal told her that there was poison in her bladder and advised surgery. On 25.8.2005, she went to Dr. Pawan Aggarwal and deposited the requisite fee for the operation and was operated upon. She was told that her uterus had been removed and as such she would be fully cured. She remained as an indoor patient, but stomach pain persisted even after the operation. She again visited Dr. Aggarwal and remained admitted there for 2 days and thereafter again remained admitted for the third time for 2 days, but the problem of stomach pain still persisted. She along with her husband and some others again went to Dr. Aggarwal and complained about the stomach pain. However, Dr. Aggarwal could not explain as to why the problem was still persisting. The complainant then approached O.P. No. 2 Lady Doctor Saroj Singh, who told her that there was no necessity to operate upon her and that she was actually suffering from Gall Bladder stones. She started her treatment for that problem. She also got herself admitted in the hospital, where she remained for four days. She was administered a number of injections and medicines, but she could not recover. It was alleged that both O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No. 2 had treated her negligently. O.P. No. 2, according to the complainant, was prepared to undertake the operation for removing the stones in the gall bladder. She, according to the complainant, came to know about the negligent treatment by the OPs when she approached Shah Mastana Ji Allopathic Hospital, near Shah Satnam Ji Dhaam, Sirsa (Haryana). She claimed Rs. 1,00,000 from the opposite parties, which she had spent on operation and medicines etc. and Rs. 90,000 from O.P. No. 2 besides litigation expenses of Rs. 2200. O.P. No. 1, in reply to the complaint, had pleaded that a medical camp was organized by him, where the complainant was brought by one Kiran Kaur, a trained nurse for her medical check -up, where she was checked up by Dr. Geetanjli Masih, MBBS, DGO, Senior Gynaecologist of the hospital of opposite party No. 1. The complainant had complained of excessive bleeding per vagina during and in between menses. She was having an ultrasound report showing tumor in her uterus. She was advised surgery for the removal of the uterus. She was admitted to the hospital of O.P. No. 1 on 25.8.2004 by Dr. Geetanjli Masih. As the complainant was diabetic, O.P. No. 1 had advised her that first she should be treated for diabetes. Her relatives were told by O.P. No. 1 during history taking that she was having pain in epigastric region. According to the doctor, her blood sugar was under control. Complainants relatives gave consent for the operation and uterus of the complainant was removed and shown to her relatives by Dr. Geetanjli Masih and O.P. No. 1 himself. In fact, the operation was conducted by Dr. Geetanjli Masih and Dr. R.D. Singh of Frances Newton Hospital, Ferozepur. There was never any bladder of poison in her stomach. Therefore, no such bladder had to be removed. She was admitted twice later on in the hospital of O.P. No. 1 because of her pain in the epigastric region, which was due to acidity.

O .P. No. 2 also filed a written reply to the complaint and denied all the allegations stating therein that she had treated the complainant only for 4/5 days, during which period she was progressing very well and that the treatment was according to correct diagnosis. The complainant was not given any opinion regarding the operation conducted by O.P. No. 1. No suggestion was given for conducting the operation for removal of the gall bladder of the complainant.

O .P. No. 3 Insurance Company, who had insured the O.P. No. 1, filed the written reply to the complaint on the lines of the written reply filed by O.P. No. 1. After examining the evidence and the arguments of the parties, the District Forum allowed the complaint against O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No. 3 in the terms mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment, whereas the complaint qua O.P. No. 2 was dismissed.

THE learned District Forum observed that there was only one document which led O.P. No. 1 to form a opinion regarding Hysterectomy was the ultrasound report which was already in possession of the complainant. That document was not produced by O.P. No. 1. If the opinion had been formed on the basis of that document, it was necessary that that document should have been in the possession of O.P. No. 1. It was never alleged in the written statement filed by O.P. No. 1 that the said ultrasound report was taken away by the complainant. In absence of any such report on the file, the District Forum found that there was no evidence on the basis of which O.P. No. 1 could form an opinion that there was tumor in the uterus of the complainant and the same had to be removed. Even no affidavit of Dr. Geetanjli Masih, who was working with O.P. No. 1 and had performed the operation, was placed on the file that there was a tumor in the uterus of the complainant. The District Forum also went to the extent of observing that there should be some check on doctors who hold medical camps as illiterate patients get unnecessarily attracted to such camps, where the treatment is not proper. It was under these circumstances that the District Forum directed that the copy of the District Forums order be sent to the Secretary, Medical Council of India, New Delhi; Secretary, Medical Council of Punjab, Mohali; Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi and the Principal Secretary to Government Punjab, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Chandigarh, to look into the matter.

LEARNED Counsel for O.P. No. 1 as well as O.P. No. 3 Insurance Company have not been able to persuade us to take a different view than the one taken by the District Forum. We go a step further. Assuming that there was an ultrasound report in possession of the complainant, was it not the duty of O.P. No. 1 Dr. Aggarwal to recheck on the same by conducting tests like ultrasound or other tests to confirm that there was tumor in the uterus of the complainant. Even after the operation of the uterus the alleged tumor was not sent for testing to find out what type of tumor it was. The pain in the stomach, for which the complainant got herself admitted in the Hospital of O.P. No. 1, kept on persisting even after the operation, for which the reply of O.P. No. 1 was that the complainant was suffering from pain in epigastric region due to acidity. If the stomach pain persisted, the likelihood was that there was only the problem of pain in the epigastric region due to acidity and there was no need for removal of uterus cannot be ruled out. After all, a part of human body was to be removed. It is well known that when uterus of a woman is removed, there are certain psychological effects on the patient after the removal of the uterus because of hormonal imbalances. Complainant was of about 40 years of age when the complaint was filed. The doctors should have been very careful before performing such an operation by performing detailed tests to come to a definite conclusion that there was tumor in the uterus of the complainant. Nothing is coming forth that any such tests were conducted. Consequently, we do not find that there is any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. The compensation awarded is also not excessive under the circumstances of the case. Consequently, the appeal filed by O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No. 3, i.e. First Appeal No. 812 of 2005, is dismissed without any order as to costs.

NOW coming to the appeal filed by the complainant Smt. Mohinder Kaur (i.e. First Appeal No. 801 of 2005). There are no specific allegations in the complaint against O.P. No. 2 Lady Doctor Saroj Singh as to whether she was negligent. Even otherwise also, we find that the complainant remained admitted in the hospital of O.P. No. 2 for about 4/5 days and she diagnosed stones in her gall bladder and treated her for the same and, according to the doctor, the complainant was making good progress, though the allegation of the complainant is that the O.P. No. 2 had advised removal of the gall bladder stones by operation though this fact is denied by O.P. No. 2. The fact remains that no operation was undertaken by O.P. No. 2. We do not find any evidence against O.P. No. 2 to show that there was any negligence on her part to treat the complainant or there was any deficiency in service. We hold that the District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint against O.P. No. 2. We have not been persuaded to take a different view in the matter than the one taken by the District Forum.

WE find no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.