SANJEEV SODHI vs DARSHAN KAUR

THE appellants were the opposite parties before the State Commission, where the respondent/complainant, Smt. Darshan Kaur had filed a complaint alleging a case of medical negligence against the appellants.

VERY briefly the facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant got ultrasound test of abdomen done by the appellants for a consideration and report was supplied to the complainant. The report reads as follows: "The gall bladder is normal in size and shape. Its wall thickness is 3 mm. It contains multiple echogenic shadows of stones accompanied by P-A shadowing in the neck region. No mass seen. No perifocal odema seen. No stone seen in the CBD or cystic duct."

Since the report showed multiple shadows of stones, the complainant got herself admitted for removal of stones and operation was carried on, on 11.6.1996 by one Dr. N.S. Sandhu, but in the reality no stones were found. Thus, alleging a case of medical negligence, a case was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties allowed the complaint and directed the appellants to refund Rs. 400 charged for the examination along with cost of Rs. 1,000. Aggrieved by this order, this appeal has been filed before us.

Despite service of notice, none appears for the respondent/complainant, hence proceeded ex parte. We heard the appellant Dr. Monica Sodhi on behalf of the appellants.

AFTER hearing appellant and perusal of material on record as well as the medical literature brought on record, we find that the State Commission has held the appellants guilty of medical negligence on account of the fact that while the ultrasound test carried out on 24.5.1996 by the appellants showed multiple echogenic shadows of stones in gall bladder by P-A shadowing in the neck region, the State Commission found it unconvincing that it could have disappeared within a period of 18 days, i.e., when the surgery done by Dr. N.S. Sandhu on 11.6.1996, the stones were not seen. The appellant has brought our attention to the medical literature titled ''A Textbook of Radiology and imaging'' edited by David Sutton 3rd edition'' in which it is laid down as follows: "Finally small gallstones are occasionally seen to disappear. This is usually due to their passage into the common duct where they may or may not be retained. This can happen at any time (Fig. 37.6) and is not necessarily accompanied by symptoms. This is one of the main justifications for operative choledochography."

OUR attention has also been drawn towards the operational notes of Dr. N.S. Sandhu on which the findings have been recorded in following terms: "Gall bladder had few adhesions with omentum and the cut surface showed thickened mucosa with few tiny whitish spots? Calcareous deposits, but did not contain any calculi. Liver and other adjacent viscera normal. CBD normal. Gall bladder sent for HPE (Histopathological examination)."

We have also seen the cross-examination of the concerned surgeon, wherein he has clearly admitted, "....if the stone is of very small size, a few in number, there could be its passing out during the period between 24.5.96 and 11.6.1996....." In view of the medical literature brought on record cited above, and what the operating Surgeon stated in his cross-examination, along with his findings referred to in the operation notes, we are of the view that in the light of this material, the order passed by the State Commission cannot be sustained. There is neither any other expert evidence nor material brought on record by the respondent/ complainant in support of the allegations of medical negligence on the part of the appellants. Only, deemed to be expert, Dr. N.S. Sandhu has admitted that these stones could have passed out during this period. In view of this, according to us, the State Commission could not have held the statement of the appellants "not at all convincing".

IN the aforementioned circumstances, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the State Commission, which is set aside. The Appeal is allowed and the complaint stands dismissed.

NO order as to costs. Appeal allowed.