RAMSINGH A. PARMAR vs SAMPATRAJ C. SHAH

THE complainant has filed this complaint alleging that the Opponent No. 1 Gujarat Medical and Research Institute, Shahibaug, Ahmedabad follows unfair trade practice and has caused great damage to the complainant. THE next allegation is that after taking consideration the opponents are not rendering proper services and on account of deficiency in service, he has suffered great damages. THE complainant was suffering from enlargement of prostate gland and on account of said enlargement it was obstructing the passing of urine. He read the advertisement in the newspapers published by the opponents informing the public that it was now not necessary to resort to old method of operation on account of latest equipments of THErmal Control Unit (T.C.U.) which removes the obstruction of enlargement of prostate gland by Micro Computer System electronic system which gives continuous warmness (heat). In such type of cases by introducing a transducer through catheter heat can be transmitted to the prostate gland which in turn melts down and remove the obstruction.

HAVING read this advertisement he approached the hospital and he was examined by the Opponent No. 2 who had stated that the complainant would be relieved from the disease and the charges for the same was fixed at Rs. 4,000/-. The complainant paid the advance charges of Rs. 500/- and thereafter he paid Rs. 3,500/- as stated in the complaint. He took the first sitting on 11.7.90 which continued for three hours. The micro electric waves were introduced in his urine tube and he was required to take certain medicines. Thereafter the complainant was called for second sitting on 10.9.1990 and same treatment was given and after 15 days he was again called on 26.9.1990 and same type of treatment was given. The complainant has alleged that at every sitting he was suffering pain but he was assured that after taking medicine his pain will be relieved and the obstruction will be melted and there should not be any difficulty. After every sitting sonography was made and for that separate charges were given. At every sonography test, according to the opinion of the pathologist, no improvement was found in the ailment and the complainant had to pay charges. After the third sitting on 26.9.1990 the complainant''s ailment was not relieved, he was suffering from pain and his urine was stopped .He has lost all faith. On account of this treatment, instead of getting any benefit, he was subjected to great pain and suffering. He had, therefore, resorted to the common treatment of operation by Dr. Mahesh Desai, Nurosurgeon, Nava Vadaj, Ahmedabad and by the said operation he was greatly benefited. The complainant has, therefore, prayed for Rs. 4,000/-, return of charges, Rs. 1,298/-, the cost of medicines, Rs. 3,168/- the other expenses incurred by him. He had approached the voluntary consumer association but they have not taken up his cases. The complainant has claimed the total amount of Rs.1,01,546.00 by way of damages which includes Rs. 9,000/- for mental torture, confusion and damages caused due to disappointment. There is no allegation in the complaint that either the Doctor or the Institute was negligent in treating the complainant. Now, if we look to the advertisement given by Rajasthan Hospital with regard to the Thermal Control Unit (T.C.U.), it reads as under : 1. That this unit is the first in India, (2) that one and only modern treatment for enlargement of prostate gland without operation (3) removal of obstruction of enlargement of prostate gland through Micro Computer Control Electric System by applying continuous heat though urinary tract, (4) this hypothermia is free from pain, symbol and can be done in out door division. It is not necessary to admit the patient in the hospital as indoor patient. This advertisement nowhere invites any person to take the treatment; but merely described the Thermal Control Unit System, one of the system for removing the obstruction created by the enlargement of prostate gland.

Mr. Bhatt, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the complainant has objected to only this part on the advertisement which states that this hypothermia system is free from pain and symbol and can be done in out door division. According to Mr. Bhatt there was pain and this system is not free from pain. We are unable to appreciate the argument of Mr. Bhatt. In this system it is necessary to introduce a catheter and thereafter transmit heat though Micro Computer Control Electric, System which merely transmits some heat and disintegrates the cells of prostate gland. The complainant''s objection is that after taking this treatment his urine was obstructed and he suffered severe pain. But if he had suffered any pain in the first sitting, he should not have opted for second sitting and it is on record that charges are for ''per sitting'' and are not excessive as clarified hereinafter. By reading this advertisement there is nothing to show that any unfair trade practice has been followed by the hospital. It is a Trust hospital and one of the foremost hospitals in Gujarat. Dr. Dileep Shah, the opponent No. 2 is also one of the leading Urologists in Ahmedabad and nowhere it is stated in the complaint that he has shown any indifference or has not given proper treatment or that he was negligent. If the complainant has not benefited by the system, it is his misfortune. In any treatment it is never claimed by the medical profession that every person who receives the treatment must and should be benefited by the same'' because the benefit of a particular type of system or operation or medicine depends upon number of factors. One system may not be suitable to one and may be suitable to another. A patient may respond lo one medicine, another may not respond to the same medicine. Merely because the patient was not relieved from the pain, one cannot jump to the conclusion that the system is bad or that the doctor has not given proper treatment. If everyone has to be benefited by a particular medicine or operation, then nobody will die by disease. In this complaint, unfortunately no evidence has been led by the complainant to show that the Micro Computer Control Electric System is not a proper system for the treatment of enlargement of prostate gland or that what is written in the advertisement is not true.

THE next alleged advertisement relied upon by the complainant is not the advertisement but it is an account of the interview taken by the "Sandesh" newspaper of Dr. Dileep Shah, the opponent No. 2. THE information was sought for by the newspaper in a question-answer form and Dr. Dileep Shah has given the account regarding various progress and new systems of treatment. He has stated that there is a great progress in the treatment by operation in every branch and particularly the treatment in urology is revolutionary. In 80% cases where surgery was inevitable, the same can be treated by latest discovery, in the developed countries, particularly in Israel. He has stated that in science of Urology there are two principal diseases viz., stone and enlargement of prostate gland. Lithotripsy is well known in India which can be utilized in 85% cases etc. With regard to enlargement of prostate gland, he has stated that there was no alternative except operation but at present the latest position is that one transducer is introduced by catheter and some heat is transmitted which melts the enlargement in the prostate gland which ultimately removes the obstruction in the urethra. This can be done to an outdoor patient also and this system does not create any pain and anesthesia is not necessary. This system is effective in about 75% cases and to understand this system he had twice visited foreign countries. THE Chatrabhuja Hospital will introduce this equipment in a short time etc. THE Doctor has in terms stated that this system is effective in 75% cases only and not in 100% cases and it can be performed without anesthesia which means that the pain is not that much where anaesthesia is necessary. When you introduce a catheter and transmit heat, everybody knows that some discomfort is to happen. Even assuming for the sake of argument that this treatment was not found effective in the case of the complainant, there is no evidence to show that he had suffered any pain on account of this treatment. If the enlargement in the prostate gland is not removed or not dis-integrated, the urine is bound to be obstructed and in consequence thereof he is bound to suffer pain unless it is removed by operation. That the opponents have filed their version and Mr. Sampatraj C. Shah has filed an affidavit. The opponents have submitted that the complainant was informed that only in 70% cases the treatment is effective and operation can be avoided. That the complainant had some benefit in the first sitting and thereafter he was called again for second sitting and as he found it convenient, he came for the second sitting. The treatment was given by opponent No. 2 who is qualified Urologist. There was some improvement. That the amount of Rs. 4,000/- was charged as package charges which included the operation charges if this system does work. In each sitting the hospital has used new electro Catheter which cost US $50 i.e. about Rs. 1,500/-. For our satisfaction we had called Dr. Dileep Shah in person to hear about this type of treatment. It may also not be forgotten that the complainant had three sittings and if each Catheter is costing US$50 i.e. Rs. 1,500/- the cost of Catheter would come to Rs. 4,500/- apart from anything else. Even in this package if the treatment does not give any benefit the operation was to be done free of charge. We have ascertained from Dr. Shah that in this treatment the hospital has not earned anything. We have found that the hospital is a Trust hospital and is rendering services by employing qualified doctors and have introduced modern equipments for which they are charging very reasonably. The complainant did not prefer to operate himself in this hospital under the package. We have gone through other documents and we are satisfied that there is no substance in the complaint. It is unfortunate that this treatment did not give proper benefit to the complainant for which nobody can be blamed except his misfortune. We have not found any substance in the allegation regarding unfair trade practice. On the contrary we feel that the complainant has tried to exaggerate the claim and tried to put the blame on the hospital without any reins or reasons. Nothing has been pointed out to say even the indifference of any of the doctors or the staff. The complainant has not taken the benefit of the package deal. We do not find that the hospital has gained anything out of this complaint. This type of complaints will restrain the good medical Institutions from acting freely and extending their services to needy and poor patients by charging them very very reasonable fee. We were inclined to award cost but considering the misfortune of the complainant where he was required to spent substantial amount for his operation, we have not passed any order as to cost. ORDER The complaint is dismissed. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.