Swami Vivekanand Regional Spine Centre vs DAULAT SINGH

THE complainant, Daulat Singh''s wife, namely, Smt. Sagar Bai, was treated in the Swami Vivekanand Regional Spine Center (OP) from 18.08.2005 to 22.09.2005, for weakness in both her legs and no movement and incurred a total expenditure of Rs.50,000/ -, for which no receipts were issued. After treatment, there was no improvement, the condition of patient became more critical. The OP did not refer the patient to other specialist or cancer hospital. Hence, the patient was brought back to the house, and she died on 22.09.2005. It was alleged that, OP fraudulently took Rs.50,000/ - from complainant and misbehaved also. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint against the OP, before the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Bhopal, M.P. (hereinafter referred to as "District Forum).

THE District Forum dismissed the complaint, whereas the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal, M.P. (hereinafter referred to as "State Commission") allowed the first appeal No.1957/2008 filed by the complainant and awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/ - and Rs.10,000/ - towards legal expenses. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the State Commission, the OP/petitioner filed this revision petition.

WE have heard the counsel for the parties. Counsel for complainant argued the matter on 09.02.2015. The counsel for petitioner argued the matter on 21.05.2015. Counsel for OP submitted that, prior to the admission in OP hospital, the patient delivered a baby, four days'' back. She was admitted with complaints of acute onset of weakness in both her legs after delivery. After proper investigations, it was diagnosed as D6 vertebral tumor (Metastatic Adenocarcinoma), for which she was operated on 20.08.2005, by Dr. Sunil Pandit at OP. The Histopathology report confirmed it as metastatic adenocarcinoma. The patient was treated with medicines and dressing of wound. The patient needed chemo/ radiotherapy; but it was not available with OP. As the complainant was unable to pay fees, for further treatment, the patient was discharged, on 22.9.2005. Thereafter, the complainant never turned -up for check -up. After thoughtful consideration and on perusal of medical records, it is apparent that the patient was operated in the OP Hospital for tumor at D -6 vertebra. The operative notes are reproduced, as follows: -

PATIENT positioned in right lateral position. Chest was opened by standard left sided thoracotomy. The lung was retracted anteriorly and correct level confirmed by fluoroscopy. D6 vertebra was removed piecemeal. Tumor was relatively less vascular, and could be removed completely. A fairly large epidural component of tumor was also excised. Bone graft harvested from the iliac crest was hammered in and hemostasis attained. Thorax was closed after inserting a chest drain.

COURSE in Hospital: "Patient had smooth postoperative recovery. Her pain reduced and there was no change in neurological deficit. Histopathology suggested metastatic deposit from adenocarcinoma. CA125 was negative. Patient refused further investigation and treatment. At the time of discharge, she remains paraplegic with pressure sore in right buttock."

IN our view, the doctors at OP performed a major operation, which requires post -operative care, for a long period. The medical record clearly shows that, during hospitalization, the patient was given regular dressing and physiotherapy, till the date of her discharge. Therefore, we do not think that the patient was kept in the hospital, unnecessarily. The discharge summary clearly shows that "the patient was advised chemotherapy, but relatives refused and patient is being discharged on request". Hence, the patient died, subsequently.

THE OP acted as per standards of practice and it was a reasonable decision to keep the patient admitted, after major operation. As per Bolam''s Test, (1957) 2 All ER 118, we do not find any negligence in the diagnosis or surgery or treatment. The revision petition has no merit. Hence, we set aside the order passed by the State Commission and allow this present revision petition and dismiss the complaint. There shall be no order as to costs.