P.Jamjhute vs Shiva Bai

THIS revision petition has been filed by Dr.P.Jamjhute of Getwell Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner) being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in favour of one, Shiva Bai (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) who was the original complainant before the District Forum.

THE facts of the case according to the Respondent are that in November, 2000 after undergoing treatment in Geeta Hospital at Badnagar, she took further treatment in Getwell Hospital under the Petitioner. Since her problem persisted she was advised to undergo a hysterectomy which she underwent in Petitioners Hospital. 10 days after the operation, even though her medical condition was very bad and before the stitches were removed, she was discharged by the Petitioner. When she again went back to the hospital after a few days she was advised to come after two months since Dr.Jamjhute had gone abroad. Having no other option, she sought treatment in the Life Line Hospital where an operation was performed and it was discovered that half a metre of sponge has been left in her stomach during the hysterectomy It was because of this that her condition had deteriorated and her intestines had developed gangrene and there was pus formation. To save her life, a part of her intestine was removed and she had to incur a great deal of pain as well as expenditure on her treatment. Aggrieved by the negligence and deficiency in service of the Petitioner, Respondent approached the District Forum seeking compensation of Rs.4,85,835/- to cover the expenditure incurred in the three hospitals where she was treated, agricultural losses, mental harassment and expenditure on future treatment. The Petitioner, on the other hand, has totally denied the contentions of the Respondent. According to the Petitioner, Respondent had approached him at Getwell Hospital on 09.11.2000 with complaints of pus formation, fever and vomiting. She was treated for these and there was no occasion to perform any abdominal operation nor was any other operation performed on the Respondent. The Respondent was discharged on 28.11.2000 after her condition improved. It later came to be known when she was operated upon in Life Line Hospital that Respondents medical problems were due to negligence of the doctors at Geeta Hospital who had left the sponge in her abdomen during the hysterectomy operation prior to her admission in the Petitioners hospital. All these facts were recorded by the Life Line Hospital in the Respondents medical case history when she underwent a second corrective surgery. Thus, there was no deficiency or medical negligence on the part of the Petitioner.

The District Forum after hearing both parties and on the basis of the medical certificates and other relevant evidence produced before it, concluded that no case was made out against the Petitioner and dismissed the complaint.

AGGRIEVED by this, Respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission upheld the finding of the District Forum that the hysterectomy was not done in Getwell Hospital but was done in Geeta Hospital, Badnagar. However, the State Commission partly allowed the appeal on the ground that the Petitioner failed in providing due care which was expected that a doctor should provide because despite treatment her medical problems deteriorated. It, therefore, directed the Petitioner to pay the appellant a sum of Rs.25,000/- within 60 days of the communication of the order failing which it shall carry 6% interest per annum as well as Rs.1,000/- as costs. AGGRIEVED by this order, the Petitioner has come in revision before this Commission. The Petitioner was represented by his counsel, Shri Achal Sirohi. Shri Rahul Malhotra, counsel appeared as amicus curie on behalf of the Respondent. Counsel for Petitioner contended that the allegation of the Respondent that hysterectomy was performed at Getwell Hospital and a sponge left in her abdomen in that hospital was rightly not believed by the learned fora below on the basis of credible evidence on record including medical reports which included the discharge slip from Getwell Hospital and the medical case sheet from Life Line Hospital. During her 19 days stay in the Petitioners hospital she was given proper treatment for her medical problems and this included re-suturing the infected stitches. She was discharged only when her condition improved and pus formation had ceased. It was unfortunate that the hospital where the medical negligence had actually occurred was not impleaded by the Respondent and who instead tried to falsely implicate the Petitioner.

THE amicus curie on behalf of the Respondent however, reiterated that the hysterectomy was in fact conducted not in Geeta Hospital but in the Petitioners hospital and because of the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the doctor in that hospital she developed serious complications and had to seek treatment in another hospital which confirmed that there was a foreign object left in her abdomen leading to life threatening complications. We have considered the submissions of the two counsel and also the evidence on record. We accept the finding of the learned fora below which is a finding of fact based on credible evidence that the hysterectomy was performed in Geeta Hospital in Badnagar and not in Getwell Hospital as has been contended by the Respondent. As stated earlier, this is clear not only from the discharge slip but also the medical records of Life Line Hospital which was obviously provided to that hospital by the Respondent herself. This specific finding of the both the District Forum and the State Commission has also not been challenged by the Respondent since she has not come in revision before us in this respect. The question that now remains to be decided is whether the Petitioner failed in providing due care which the Respondent should have received and to this extent was there any deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner. The State Commission has reached this conclusion on the grounds that the complete diagnostic check-up was not done and the Petitioner was therefore, not able to correctly diagnose the problem. There also appears to be some haste in discharging the patient from the hospital. It is established that the Respondent remained in the Petitioners hospital for 19 days and various steps were taken to treat her including re-suturing her stitches under general anesthesia where pus information had occurred. Other tests were also conducted including blood test etc. and necessary medicines were prescribed. These facts taken in their totality are not indicative of any callousness or indifferent attitude on the part of the Petitioner. Leaving a foreign object in the abdomen during the surgery is a rare occurrence and one of extreme negligence and therefore, it is not unusual that this was not detected by the Petitioner. At the most this could be a reflection on his professional competence but no malafide or deficiency can be attributed to him in this respect as also there is no case of either lack of sincerity or wrong treatment.

KEEPING these facts in view, we are not convinced that the Respondent was not given due care by the Petitioner during her 19 days stay in Getwell Hospital. We, therefore, do not agree with the finding of the State Commission that the Petitioner failed to provide due care which the Respondent should have received and therefore set aside the order of the State Commission directing the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the Respondent. The revision petition is allowed with no order as to costs.