SYED ZAHID ALI vs JAIPRAKASH PALIWAL

THE complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for deficiency in medical service claiming a compensation of Rs. 6 lacs for expenses incurred by him in medical treatment at Bhopal and Bombay etc. and Rs. 4 lacs for mental agony.

THE complainant has stated in his complaint that two operations were performed by opposite parties leaving behind a gauge inside the body amounting to deficiency in service. According to the complainant, the first operation was performed by opposite party on 20.6.1992. But, the complainant instead of giving the details of operation, has stated that second operation was performed on such subsequent date when the opposite party examined the complainant. THE complainant has stated further that he paid Rs. 20,000/- for two operations to the opposite party on different occasions. According to the complainant, the operation performed is known as "Ureterolysis". THE complainant remained admitted in the hospital from 20.6.1992 to 26.6.1992. Instead of giving the date of the second operation he went on narrating in the complaint the details of treatment taken by him from time-to-time. According to him when the pain in the stomach did not subside he went for review to opposite party in July, 1992. In para 8 of his complaint, the complainant has stated that he was asked by opposite party to get himself operated and he was again admitted in Suresh Nursing Home, Bhopal and the second operation was performed by opposite party. But, he has not mentioned the date on which he was admitted in the hospital, on which date he was operated and on which date he was discharged. He further stated that he was not given discharge summary stating that there is no such procedure in the Nursing Home for giving discharge summary. When he did not get relief even after the second operation, further investigation was done on 4.3.1994 and in May, 1995 he went to Dr. B.M. Loya who performed a major operation upon him for post operative pain and detected that there were gauge pieces in the scar and the same were removed. THE operation was performed in L.B.I. Hospital and Research Centre, Motia Lake, Tazul Masajid, Bhopal. THE complainant has alleged that non-removal of gauge from inside the body clearly shows that the opposite party did not exercise reasonable and proper care at the time of performance of operation and the complainant suffered terrible consequences for many years. The opposite party has replied that two operations were not performed by Dr. Paliwal. It was only one surgery which was performed by opposite party on 20.6.1992. The medical bills furnished by the complainant do not relate to two surgeries. The subsequent investigations and USG reports show normal status. Had there been a piece of gauge it would have carried some infection. That the certificate filed at page 30 is a forged certificate which amounts to criminal offence. There are two more certificates filed at pages 31 and 32 signed by Dr. B.M. Loya, which do not tally with medical certificate issued by the LBS Hospital, New Delhi filed at page 30.

Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the record of the case.

ON a perusal of the 46 documents filed by the complainant, we find that except document No. 30, there is nothing on record to show that there was gauge piece in the scar and was removed. There is no evidence of second operation performed by Dr. Paliwal. In the discharge certificate issued on 26.6.1992 by opposite party Dr. Paliwal the date of admission has been shown as 20.6.1992, the date of operation as 21.6.1992 and the date of discharge as 26.6.1992. The discharge certificate mentions "operated for Ureterolysis". It is further written therein the "Surgery and recovery is eventful", which will have to be reviewed on 30.6.1992 evening. According to the contents of the complaint, after the operation on 30.6.1992 his ultra sound was done on 3.3.1994. Ultra sound report dated 3.3.1994 filed at serial No. 23 shows normal findings. "The USG abdomen contents echo-free. Prostate of normal size and echotexture. No significant post void residue. Impression : Normal study". The certificate dated 25.5.1995 issued by Dr. Loya states that the complainant underwent a major operation for persistent post-operative pain. It does not mention anything about the gauge piece inside the body. Similarly, another certificate issued by Dr. Loya dated 23.5.1995 also does not mention that any gauge piece was found in the scar. The document filed at serial No. 30 is prepared and signed by whom is nowhere mentioned nor has the complainant made any mention about this document in his complaint as to from whom this document was obtained or which doctor issued this document. No details of date of admission, date of discharge or date of operation removing gauge pieces have been given as stated in documents filed at serial No. 30. The complaint was filed by the complainant on 31.12.1996 and thereafter the case was taken up on several hearings. But, the complainant filed no other document or affidavit in support of his contentions in the complaint. He just went on seeking time after time. In these circumstances he has not only failed to prove his complaint but evidently the complaint is false because had he been in possession of any satisfactory evidence to establish his allegation of gauge piece having been left inside the body, he would have definitely furnished that evidence. Instead of furnishing such a evidence, he just went on lingering the complaint for two years. The complaint appears to have been filed with mala fide intentions and we come to a finding that this frivolous and vexatious complaint not only deserves to be dismissed but also deserves an order of costs as provided under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Without having even an iota of evidence, concoction of a cock and a bull story to malign the repudiation of a surgeon is a serious matter and calls for imposition of deterrent costs upon the complainant. Keeping in consideration the status of the complainant, we direct that the complainant shall pay to the opposite party cost of Rs. 2,000/- for filling this false and frivolous complaint against the opposite party. Complaint dismissed.