SHALAN SHRIRANG JADHAV vs PRAKASH CHOUKWALE

FEELING aggrieved by the judgment and order of dismissal passed by District Consumer Forum, Satara in Consumer Complaint No. 03/06 decided on 29. 6. 2006, the org. complainant has filed this appeal challenging dismissal of her complaint.

THERE is delay of 30 days in filing the appeal. Therefore, appellant has made an application for condonation of delay. It is stated in para 5 of the delay condonation application that her financial condition was too much bad and she was not aware about the further procedure of law. We are not satisfied by the explanation resorted to. Just and sufficient cause has not been made out in the application for condonation of delay. Therefore, we are not inclined to condone the delay. Briefly case of the appellant/org. complainant is as under: complainant is a widow having a disabled son and minor daughter. Her husband was serving at Mumbai. In the year July 2002, he met with an accident and he was admitted in the Sancheti Hospital at Pune. There he was operated. He was having blood sugar and by taking medicine he had controlled sugar level in the blood. Therefore, complainant and her husband shifted to Satara. On 6. 1. 2004, complainant''s husband had some pain on the right side tooth. He, therefore, called Dr. Choukwale/the respondent herein at his residence. Dr. Choukwale came to his house on 6. 1. 2004 and examined him and gave him some treatment. Again the complainant approached the opposite party in his hospital and on examination, the opposite party told him that concerned tooth will have to be extracted. Accordingly on 8. 1. 2004 at about l0. 00 a. m. , complainant and her husband went to dental clinic of opposite party and informed him that he was already suffering from diabetis. However, without bothering of the said ailment the opposite party has started extracting the tooth and while extracting the tooth her husband was having pain. Any how he extracted the tooth. After removal of tooth there was bleeding. Opposite party-doctor put some cotton squab at the site of extracted tooth. He gave some medicine and sent her husband back to home. However, on the following day again her husband/shri Shrirang R. Jadhav approached opposite party-doctor and told him that the bleeding was not stopping and there was swelling in his mouth and again some medicine was given by Dr. Choukwale. Even thereafter, injury at the site of extracted tooth and swelling in the mouth had not receded. Therefore, she took her husband to Dr. Shah on 11. 1. 2004. At that time opposite party-doctor was also present. Dr. Shah asked her husband to get admitted and told that without any test of blood and urine, it was not proper to give any treatment. When this was asked by Dr. Shah, opposite party-doctor was also present and he told him that he had not tested his blood and urine before giving any treatment to complainant''s husband. Thereafter, her husband was admitted in Jeevanjyot Hospital on 12. 1. 2004. Her husband''s blood and urine was checked and Dr. Sathe then started treatment. However, patient''s condition did not improve and Dr. Sathe directed that the patient should be taken immediately to Pune or Miraj. The opposite party then admitted Shri S. Jadhav in the Surgical and Politrama Hospital at Satara on 13. 1. 2004. Dr. Bagwan started treatment and since, there was injury at the right site of extracted tooth, he performed minor operation and continued to give treatment upto 14. 1. 2004. Even thereafter, condition of her husband did not improve, but became more critical. Hence, she took her husband in Wanless Mission Hospital at Miraj. Dr. Bidari conducted various tests and started giving treatment, but on 15. 4. 2004 at about 12. 30 p. m. to 1. 00 p. m. her husband expired. According to the complainant, since the opposite party-doctor has not conducted preoperational blood and urine tests before extracting the tooth, her husband expired. According to the complainant, her husband died because of negligence of opposite party-doctor. The complainant states that this became clear from the certificate of Dr. Bidari of Wanless Hospital and also from the certificate issued by Surgical and Politrama Hospital, Satara. Thereafter, she filed consumer complaint in the police station against Dr. Choukwale on 2. 2. 2005. According to the complainant, she had spent lot of monies on the treatment of her husband and at the time of extraction of tooth, her husband was 54 years old and he would be survived for another 8-10 years and, therefore, she has claimed an amount of Rs. 7,00,000 under various heads. She had sent notice through her Advocate on 25. 10. 2005 and despite the notice the opposite party did not bother to give her compensation and, therefore, she has filed consumer complaint for an amount of Rs. 7,00,000 as damages along with interest @ 12% p. a. . She has also claimed Rs. 5,000 towards cost of the complaint.

The opposite party-doctor filed affidavits and documents. Dr. Choukwale filed written statement supported by an affidavit. According to him, he had passed B. D. S. degree in 1976 from Mumbai University and since 1977 he is running dental clinic at Shaniwar Peth, Satara. He was also attached to G. T. Hospital and J. J. Hospital as a dental surgeon for some time. He admitted that in January, 2004, he was called at the house of the complainant since, her husband was having some dental trouble. He has specifically mentioned that he had given treatment to the husband of the complainant for extracting his left side tooth and not right side tooth. So, he was not guilty of medical negligence of any kind and he did not commit any deficiency in service in giving medical treatment to the complainant. For a complainant, in respect of right side tooth, he is not responsible because he had extracted left side tooth of the husband of the complainant. He admitted that he had gone to the house of the complainant on 6. 1. 2004 and on 7. 1. 2004 had examined the husband of complainant. He was having shooting pain. Complainant''s husband requested him that it should be extracted since, it was giving a lot of pain. He told the complainant and her husband that for extracting the affected tooth, she will have to bring her husband to the dental clinic.

SO, on 8. 1. 2004, the complainant brought her husband to his clinic in the evening. Complainant''s husband requested him that the said affected tooth should be extracted since, it was causing a lot of unbearable pain. He then asked the husband of the complainant, whether he was having hypertension or diabetics. She or her husband did not disclose that he was having diabetics and hypertension. Still he conducted benedics test and also tested blood of the complainant''s husband for blood sugar and recorded this fact in his register. The said test was found to be normal and, therefore, by giving local anaesthesia, he removed the affected tooth of the left side from lower jaw and then put cotton squab at the side of extracted tooth. He denied that after extraction of the tooth there was unbearable bleeding and swelling in the mouth of the complainant''s husband. He asserted that at the time of extraction of tooth, blood pressure of complainant''s husband was not normal. Same was position, when he admitted in hospital of Dr. Shah. Dr. Shah asked her husband to get admitted on 11. 1. 2004 at around 11. 00 a. m. Complainant admitted her husband on 12. 1. 2004. He denied specifically that Dr. Shah or himself did not conduct diabetics test and continued treatment. He further stated that as per doctor advice, the complainant admitted her husband at Surgical and Palotrama Hospital at Satara on 13. 1. 2004. In that hospital her husband was improving. Further against medical advice, complainant on her own responsibility took discharge from the said hospital on 13. 1. 2004 after mentioning that she would be responsible for taking discharge from the said hospital. Thereafter, the complainant had not taken any treatment and allowed her husband''s health to deteriorate. So, it was the complainant, who was negligent in not treating her husband properly. On 15. 1. 2004 at 3. 00 p. m. , she shifted her husband from Surgical and Palotrama Hospital at Satara on her own risk to Wanless Hospital at Miraj at around 9. 00 p. m. In the meantime her husband was left without any treatment and because of want of treatment her husband''s health became critical, when she admitted her husband in Wanless Hospital. In Wanless Hospital her husband expired, but complainant did not allow doctor of Wanless Hospital or local Government Doctor/medical Officer to perform autopsy and in the absence of post-mortem report it was not possible to arrive at right conclusion as to the cause of death of the said patient. Doctor of Wanless Hospital reported that because of Diabetics Mellitus and Diabetics Ketosis, the patient expired and therefore, according to opposite party-doctor, he is not responsible in any manner for the death of her husband and complaint as filed is absolutely false and frivolous. It has been filed just to extract money from him for no fault of his. The papers were submitted by police to Civil Surgeon, Satara. Civil Surgeon, Satara clearly gave opinion that opposite party is not responsible for the ultimate death of complainant''s husband. The opposite party-doctor filed certain documents in support of his written statement and prayed that the complaint should be dismissed. On the basis of documents, affidavits and on considering rival submissions, learned Forum below held that there was no medical negligence of any kind on the part of opposite party while treating husband of the complainant and, therefore, complaint was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the org. complainant has filed this appeal.

WE heard submission of learned Advocate Anjali Patil for appellant (org. complainant) and learned Advocate U. B. Wavikar for respondent (org. opposite party ). We perused the impugned order. We have gone through the documents on record. We are finding that the appeal as filed by the complainant is certainly without any substance. It is pertinent to note that the complainant asserted that she had taken her husband to the respondent/doctor for extracting right side tooth, which was giving shooting pain to her husband. So, according to the complainant, the doctor extracted the right side tooth of her husband on 8. 1. 2004, but without bothering to take some pre-extraction tests like hypertension, examination of urine, test of blood sugar and this extraction was improper. It gave rise to swelling and unabated (profused) bleeding due to which she had to shift her husband from one hospital to another hospital and ultimately on 15. 1. 2004 she had taken her husband to Wanless Hospital, Miraj and within few hours her husband expired in that hospital. In Wanless Hospital the doctor gave death certificate. It has mentioned that Shri Shrirang Jadhav was admitted on 15. 1. 2004 and died in the hospital on 16. 1. 2004 at 12. 30 p. m. and cause of death was mentioned as Diabetics Mellitus and Diabetics Ketosis, Hypertension with Left Dental Abscess with Ludwige Angina. Dr. E. R. Bidari of Wanless Hospital has issued this death certificate. This would clearly to show that because of multiple causes or diseases, husband of the complainant expired in Wanless Hospital. So, for the death of the complainant''s husband only dental treatment was not responsible, which was given by respondent herein. The deceased person was having Diabetics Mellitus. His blood sugar level was considerably high and the main cause of death was Ludwige Angina. In fact, Dr. Sathe of Jeevanjyot Hospital issued medical certificate to the effect that Shri Shrirang Jadhav was admitted in his hospital on 12. 1. 2004 for Diabetics Mellitus coupled with Diabetics Ketosis, Hypertension with dental abscess coupled with Ludwige Angina and he was discharged from the hospital on 13. 1. 2004. Satara Surgical and Palotrama Hospital also issued certificate that Shri S. Jadav was indoor patient. He was examined in the hospital on 13. 1. 2004 and clinically diagnosed as Diabetics Mellitus with Ludwige Angina and he was discharged on 15. 1. 2004 against medical advice. This would again go to show that main cause of death is Ludwige Angina coupled with Diabetics Mellitus. It has come on record that the complainant had lodged police complaint against opposite party and police had consulted Civil Surgeon, who reported that the patient was suffering from Ludwige Angina and death has not been caused by dental abscess. The papers maintained by the opposite party-doctor concerning this patient thus, show that he had checked this patient on 7. 1. 2004. His blood pressure was 130/80 and urine sugar was found nil. B. S. L. (R) was 130 mg. 10%. This would clearly show that before operation of extracting tooth of left side, doctor had conducted blood sugar test along with blood pressure test. It means that doctor as such dental surgeon had taken a good deal of precaution before extracting left side tooth of complainant''s husband. At page 217 of paper book of this appeal memo there is opinion given by Civil Surgeon, Satara. It stated that on 9. 4. 2006 information was sought regarding treatment given to Shri S. Jadahv by City Police Station, Satara. That papers disclosed that complainant''s husband was suffering from Diabetics Mellitus coupled with Diabetics Ketosis with Hypertension with left Dental abscess with Ludwige Angina. Looking to the dental abscess with diabetics and hypertension, it was old disease. Civil Surgeon opined that extraction of tooth of patient was not cause of dental abscess alone. He also opined that Dr. Gondhalekar''s diagnosis of Ludwige Angina cannot be confirmed. He also opined that looking to the diabetics and hypertension, it cannot be said that because of dental abscess, the two diseases were contracted by the patient. He specifically stated that Ludwige Angina was not the ailment contracted due to dental abscess. He further opined that after death of the patient on 16. 1. 2004 at 12. 30 p. m. in Wanless Hospital, Miraj, it was necessary to conduct post-mortem. But in the absence of post-mortem exact cause of death of patient could not be ascertained. However, looking to all the case papers and treatment given by all the doctors, he gave clear cut opinion that none of the doctors was deficient in giving medical treatment to the patient.

WHEN learned Advocate, Anjali Patil started arguing, we asked her what was the cause of death mentioned by the Civil Surgeon. Learned Counsel Mrs. Patil for the appellant clearly conceded that post-mortem could not be done because patient''s daughter Smt. A. A. Mane refused to give consent for post-mortem. This is mentioned on papers given by Wanless Hospital at page 199 of appeal memo. In the light of this fact, in the absence of post-mortem, it was very difficult to find any substance in the allegation made by the appellant against respondent/doctor, who was simply treating her husband for extraction of tooth of left side and bleeding from the site of extracted tooth and nothing else. The charge of medical negligence has been thoroughly disproved by the Civil Surgeon''s certificate placed on record, who is expert in the field.

IN the light of these circumstances, we are finding that the case of the complainant was rightly dismissed by the Forum below and we find no substance in the appeal. We fully confirm the findings recorded by the Forum below while dismissing the complaint. As such at the stage of admission itself, we are inclined to pass following order: ORDER 1. M. A. 2908/06 for condonation of delay stands rejected. 2. Appeal stands summarily rejected. 3. Parties are left to bear their own costs. 4. Declared in open Court. 5. Copies of the order herein be furnished to the parties.

Appeal dismissed.