PYARELAL GUPTA vs S.K. JIWANMAL

THIS complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been filed by the complainant and claiming total compensation of Rs. 5,81,614/- as detailed in para 6 of the complaint.

THE averments in the complaint in para 6 are that Smt Narmada Gupta was the wife of the respondent No. 1, and mother of the respondent No. 2. She was suffering from unbearable pain in her legs, therefore, she consulted opposite party No. 1 Dr. S.K. Jiwanmal at his dispensary at Bhatapara. THE diagnosis of Dr. Jeevan made was acute numbness of right leg and foot due to disc-moldincs. Accordingly he advised as per his letter in Annexure-C 1 dated 1.6.2002 that the patient be shown to Orthopaedics department in the Modern Medical Institute, Raipur. It is further averred in the complaint that in view of the said advice, Smt. Narmada Gupta was brought to Modern Medical Institute at Raipur. She was examined by opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 namely Dr. S. Yadu and Dr. K. Jha who advised C.T. Lumboscral Spine (L 3 to S 1) and MRI Dorsolumbar Spine (D10 to S-1). Accordingly MRI and C.T. Scan was done on the patient at MRI Diagonistic Institute, Raipur. THE report thereof is as per Annexures C-3 and C-4. Diagonised impression as given in the said report Annexure C-3 was Posterior bulgings of L 3-L4, L4-L5 and L5-S1 disks causing mild THEcal Sac Compressions). Similarly the impression given in report Annexure C-4 was : and Coloses of Lumbar spine and posterior bulging of L-2 to L-5 causing mild thorasic sac compressions. It is further averred in the complaint that discharge certificate Annexure C-2 was obtained from Modern Medical Institute and patient Smt. Narmada Gupta was taken to Nagpur and admitted at Sushrut Hospital, Research Centre and Post-graduate Institute of Orthopaedics, Nagpur. Further averments in the complaint do not relate to opposite parties and are regarding the details of the diagnosis, treatment, etc. at the said institute at Nagpur and the treatment of Smt. Narmada Gupta at AIIMS, Delhi, Batra Hospital and Medical Centre, Delhi, Kalda Cosmetic Surgery Institute and Burn Centre at Raipur and lastly at J.L.N. Hospital at Bhilai. It is further stated that despite treatment the deceased Smt. Narmada Gupta died on 27.7.2002 at J.L.N. Hospital, Bhilai.

It was also averred in the complaint that Smt. Narmada Gupta died on account of improper diagnosis and treatment by opposite parties namely Dr. S.K. Jeevanmal, Dr. S. Yadu and Dr. K. Jha. It was averred that they are jointly and severally responsible for the negligent and wrongful treatment in not diagnosing the cardiac problem of the deceased. It was also averred that they considered the case as that of Orthopaedics case instead of cardiac case. A compensation of different heads regarding expenditure of treatment, loss of business, mental agony etc. was claimed as detailed in Para 6 of the complaint.

THE complaint has been resisted by the opposite parties. According to the opposite party No. 1, the patient Smt. Narmada Gupta was given treatment by him for some time. As she suffered from acute numbness of right leg, he suspected that it could be due to disc-prolapse and, therefore, he advised her to go to orthopaedics department of MMI, Raipur. It was also averred that the above diagnosis was only a provisional diagnosis and was not final one. The opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 averred that in view of complaints and symptoms of Smt. Narmada Gupta her treatment was started for arriving at the correct diagnosis of her ailment. C.T. Scan of the lumbosacral spine, etc. and Sonography was advised. After going through her report of C.T. Scan the patient was referred to Neurosurgeon Dr. K. Jha. After examination Dr. K. Jha advised M.R.I. of L.S. Spine which showed scliosis of spine with wedging vertebral bodies. She was accordingly given treatment for scliosis by Dr. S. Yadu. It was further averred that before she could be properly treated after due investigations she left against medical advice (LAMA), as mentioned in the discharge certificate Annexure C-2. It was further averred that no further treatment was given by opposite party Nos. 2 and 3.

FROM the above it is clear that so far as the opposite party No. 1 Dr. S.K. Jeevanmal is concerned he only gave initial treatment to Smt. Narmada Gupta and advised as per his prescription Annexure C-1 that she should take Barium meal test and abdominal sonography. It appears that the initial complaints of Smt. Narmada Gupta were stomach pain, etc. However, subsequently, when Dr. Jiwanmal observed acute numbness in her legs, he adviced Smt. narmada Gupta be taken to the Orthopaedics department of MMI, Raipur. The doctors opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 at MMI, Raipur after clinical examination advised the patient for MRI and C.T. Scan. The report of the MRI Annexure-C-3 disclosed Thecal SAC Compressions due to posterior Bulgings of L3 to S1 discs. It also appears that no further treatment could be given by the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 to Smt. Narmada Gupta as she left against medical advice. Thus, admittedly before any treatment could be given by the opposite parties 2 and 3, the patient went to Nagpur and received further treatment at Nagpur, Delhi, Kalda Cosmetic Surgery Institute and Burn Centre, Raipur and also at J.L.N. Hospital, Bhilai where she expired on 27.7.2002 as would appear from Annexure C-10. In view of the above, it is clear that the opposite party No. 1 on seeing the ailments of the patient Smt. Narmada Gupta thought it proper to refer her to Orthopaedics Centre. Since the complaint was of numbness of legs of the patient, she was referred to Orthopaedician. There appears to be no reason to hold that there was any deficiency on the part of the opposite party No. 1 Dr. S.K. Jeevanmal.

SIMILARLY the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 looking to the symptoms and complaints of the patient, considered it necessary that she should undergo pathological tests and advised MRI and C.T. Scan tests. As noticed above clinical findings were confined by the MRI and C.T. Scan Tests as per Annexure C-3 and Annexure C-4. However, further, treatment could not be given to the patient, as she left MMI Hospital against medical advice. The averments in the complaint do not disclose that the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 were negligent in advising that the patient shall take the tests of MRI and C.T. Scan. They could not give any treatment, as Smt. Narmada Gupta, left the hospital. There appears to be no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 in the foregoing circumstances.

SINCE admittedly further treatment was not given by any of the opposite parties to the patient they cannot be held liable for the complications that arose which led to her death. Therefore, in view of the above deficiency in services by any of the opposite parties is not established from the averments in the complaint or material placed on record. We accordingly held that the complaint doesn''t deserve to be allowed. The complaint is accordingly dismissed. Complaint dismissed.