ORDER
S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Feeling dissatisfied with the impugned order of learned District Commission dismissing her complaint, the then complainant- appellant herein has come into appeal seeking reversal thereof.
2. The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that as complainant was suffering from abdominal pain therefore she got herself admitted in the hospital of OP No.1 for treatment on 20.09.2012. The treating doctor removed the cyst, but, this treatment did not give her any relief from pain. Infact there was no sign of improvement indicating towards freedom from pain and discomfort and when she voiced her grief she was referred to PGI Chandigarh for further treatment. The treating doctor atPGI Chandigarh diagnosed complainant to be suffering from jaundice and she got relief following proper treatment. The OP No.1 charged Rs.1,50,000/- from the complainant and she ended up spending Rs.4,00,000/- for treatment of abdominal pain. Thus there being negligence as well as deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, hence the complaint.
3. OP Nos.1 and 2 filed their separate written statements. It was alleged that patient was admitted in the hospital of OP No.1 on 20.09.2012 as she was a case of multiple gall bladder stone. Before surgery of open
1
cholecystectomy was performed by OP No.1, due consent was obtained from the husband of complainant. During operation due to perforation of bile duct, there was leakage of bile from the right side of the liver bed. Before closing the abdomen, a drainage tube was inserted in gall bladder fossa. On 22.09.2012 post operative jaundice was suspected clinically which was a known complication and patient was referred to PGI Chandigarh for further treatment. Rest of the allegations were denied. Thus there being no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP, prayer for dismissal of this complaint was made.
4. OP No.2 filed separate written statement alleging inter alia that no deficiency in service as envisaged under the C P Act on the part of the answering OP has been alleged on any count as she has treated with utmost due diligence and care in consonance with standard medical norms as required in the given circumstances and thus complainant was not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Ld. District Commission. There was no negligence on the part of the insured doctors on any count as alleged by complainant.
5. After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithalhas dismissed the complaint vide order dated 07.11.2016.
6. Feeling aggrieved therefrom, complainant-appellanthas preferred this appeal.
7. Arguments heard. With their kind assistance entire record of appeal as well as that of the District Commission including whatever evidence has been led on behalf of both the parties has been properly perused and examined.
8. It is not disputed that complainant was admitted in the OP No.1- hospital for abdominal pain. It is also not disputed that after operation of cyst by the OP NO.1, she was referred to PGI Chandigarh for further treatment as there were clinical indication of post operative jaundice which was a known complication. It is also not disputed that the patient was diagnosed as jaundice by the treating doctor of PGI Chandigarh and following treatment for the same she became alright. Perusal of the file shows that there is no expert opinion to prove any medical negligence on the part of the OP No.1.During the period of treatment when the patient remained admitted in his hospital she was provided with all due care while giving the adequate and necessary treatment. The treating doctor was not liable to pay compensation. There was no such negligence on the part of the treating doctor. In fact in absence of any expert opinion, it cannot be presumed that it was a case of medical negligence as post operative jaundice happens to be a known complication of the procedure carried out by OP No.1.
9. Resultantly, with the above observation and discussion this Commission has come to the conclusion that it was not a case of medical negligence on the part of the treating doctor and no liability could be fastened on the insurance company. The learned District Commission has righty dismissed the complaint of the complainant against the OPs. The learned District Commission had committed no illegality while passing the order dated 07.11.2016. The appeal is devoid of merits and stands dismissed.
10. Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.
11. A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
12. File be consigned to record room.
13thSeptember, 2023 S. P. Sood Judicial Member
2