SAWAN KUMAR And FIVE vs SURINDER KATYAL

COMPLAINANT Sawan Kumar alongwith others has come up in appeal against the order dated 5.3.1998 passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Karnal, whereby their complaint, alleging deficiency in rendering medical service against Dr. Surinder Katyal and Dr. (Mrs.) Veena Seth, Medical Officers in the Civil Hospital, Karnal, as also the State of Haryana through Secretary, Health Department, has been dismissed as the complainants had failed to establish any deficiency in service against the opposite parties.

ACCORDING to the complainants, late Shri Gurditta Mal, a tailor by profession, approached the opposite parties in the Civil Hospital, Karnal, with a complaint of hernia and was admitted in the said Hospital on 13.6.1995. The Doctors attending on him advised that the patient had to be operated upon for hernia and made the necessary pre-operation tests, including E.C.G., urine tests etc. On the following day, i.e. 14.6.1995, he was operated upon by Dr. Surinder Katyal, M.S., under spinal anaesthesia. Though the operation was successful and after the completion of the operation the patient was transferred from the operation theatre to the general ward, the patient expired. The complainants, who are the widow, sons and daughters of late Sh. Gurditta Mal, approached the District Consumer Forum, Karnal, by filing the instant complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the concerned Doctors of the Civil Hospital, Karnal, precisely with the grievance that the post-mortem examination of the dead-body was not conducted and the operation was conducted by the Surgeon without the assistance of an Anaesthetist who was not present at the time of operation. In their written statement, the respondents pleaded that due care was taken in rendering the medical treatment to the deceased and the operation was conducted by a very competent and experienced Surgeon who was possessing the Master''s Degree in Surgery and was having considerable experience of operating a number of patients over the years. It was further stated that Dr. Seth had carried out pre-anaesthesis check up in the morning and it was only after recording a note on the bed-head that the patient was fit for operation that anaesthesia was administered and the operation was conducted. It was further pleaded that during the operation the fluctuation of blood pressure of the patient was kept under control by administering vespressor drug (Maphantine) and that when the patient suffered cardiac respiratory arrest he was duly revived by artificial respiration. Therefore, all what was required to be done for rendering best medical treatment to the patient was wholly done and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Doctors. Thereafter, the parties produced their respective evidence and the complainants crossexamined the concerned Doctors and the other para-medical staff of the Civil Hospital at length. Despite all this, the complainants failed to establish any deficiency in service which could be attributed to the Doctors in rendering medical treatment to the deceased. On the other hand, the Surgeon, who operated upon the patient, was a qualified one, being Master of Surgery, and, apart from being a Post-Graduate. Even as Medical Graduate he was quite competent to administer spinal anaesthesia to the patient. It was also brought on record by the respondents that the Health Department, Haryana, had already issued instruction to all the Hospitals in the State that at the time of operation in the absence of an Anaesthetist the Surgeon operating can also administer anaesthesia. Otherwise also, the Anaesthetist had already checked up the patient and had declared him fit to be operated upon. In view of this position, the learned District Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint by holding, that the complainants had failed to establish any deficiency in service against the respondents.

In the appeal before us, the learned Counsel for the complainants-appellants has vehemently contended that firstly the Surgeon should not have administered anaesthesia to the patient and should have waited for the return of the Anaesthetist, and secondly, after completing the Qbeen shifted to the general ward even if the operation was successful. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has vigorously pleaded that the Surgeon, being a qualified one, was fully competent to administer anaesthesia to the patient in the absence of Anaesthetist and after the operation was complete and the patient had fully recovered after respiratory cardiac arrest by applying artificial respiration, there was no lapse or deficiency in rendering medical service if the patient was shifted to the general ward.

AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, we are of the considered view that there is no legal infirmity or any cogent ground to differ from the conclusions arrived at by the learned District Consumer Forum in its detailed and well reasoned order. To avoid repetition of factual, technical and legal position of the case, it is enough to record that the best possible medical care and attention was duly provided by the Surgeon before, during and after the operation was conducted by him - being a post-graduate in Surgery and fully qualified and competent to administer anaesthesia to the patient. The allegation of negligence or deficiency in rendering medical service was wholly without any basis. Viewing it from another angle, it has by now been established by the Hon''ble the Supreme Court and the Hon''ble National Commission that if a Doctor, while providing medical treatment to a patient adheres to the conventional and traditional treatment and in spite of that treatment the patient does not respond and even succumbs to the ailment during or immediately after the operation, the Doctor cannot be accused of negligence or deficiency in service. In view of the aforesaid position we do not find any merit in this appeal and there being no legal infirmity in the detailed and well reasoned order passed by the District Consumer Forum, we uphold the same and dismiss the complaint. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.