AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE complainants here are the husband and minor children of deceased Smt. Rajanben, who went under surgery for cancer of uterus and later on died after 1 year of surgery. Complainants have alleged medical negligence and deficiency in service. Complainants have asked for compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- from opponent Dr. Tushar N. Shah - a Gynaecologist who was treating the said Ranjanben. THE Insurance Company was permitted to be joined as opponent at later stage by Commission on application by opponent Dr. Tushar Shah, with concurrence of complainant (Exhibit 7). Brief facts of the case are: 1. Late Smt. Rajanben went to Dr. Shah on 29.1.93. She was suspected to have cancer of uterus.
DR. Shah investigated her, took biopsy and confirmed the diagnosis on 29.1.93 and major uterus surgery was advised. Complainant consulted Dr. Devendra Patel, cancer surgeon who concurred with opinion and advice of Dr. Shah.
Complainant again met Dr. Shah on 5.2.93 for surgery. Dr. Shah is alleged to have said that he is an expert in subject and has done many such operations and that he will successfully do the operation (page 4). Dr. Shah in his affidavit (page 68) says he gave correct picture of disease and its management, he had not assured them as claimed, by complainant. He, on the contrary, said prognosis was "guarded" and that it was a major surgery.
PATIENT was subjected to further tests and admitted on 7.2.93 to Shushrusha Hospital and operated on 10.2.93 after due preparation. Patient had urinary cathetarisation pre-operatively and it was continued post-operatively till 18.2.93. When patient was discharged after stitch removal and urinary catheter was removed.
PATIENT had pain in left lower back on 18.2.93 which gradually increased and her clothes were soiled by urine, urine continued to pass partially in clothes thereafter. Patient''s relative informed Dr. Shah of complaints on 21.2.93 and urinary catheter was reinserted on same day at Gandhi Maternity Home on advice of Dr. Shah (No document produced). Dr. Shah was again informed on 24.2.93 that half the urine soaks the cloth and back pain has persisted.
PATIENT was readmitted to Shushrusha Hospital on 25.2.93. Urologist, Dr. Vishana was consulted and IVP and other investigations were advised. Complainant alleges that IVP was indicative of "cut of ureter" (page 26). On perusal of said report (page 26) it does not mention. It is possibly interpretation of complainant. Dr. Vishana could not insert stent in ureter. (No report or statement of Dr. Vishana on record. Dr. Vishana is not examined as witness.) PATIENT continued to pass urine through the catheter and urine also continued (to soil), clothes inspite of catheter.
ON 13.3.93 Dr. Shah is alleged to have said that he cannot do anything further and they should go to cancer hospital for radiation therapy. Dr. Shah states (page 67) that patient had not seen him any time after on or around 1.3.93. Dr. Shah offered himself for cross-examination but complainant and his advocate declined for the same. Though Dr. Shah was physically present on 23.6.96. In a round-about way complainant implies that on 2.6.93, on showing report (to whom not mentioned - page 7) it was suggested that urinary leak problem was due to operative procedure deficiency (No statement, witness or evidence produced to establish the claim.)
According to complainant because of non-receipt of radiation due to urinary leakage due to improper operation, patient suffered post operatively and died on 10.2.94. The opponent denied his negligence in operation and death on 10.2.94. The opponent denies his negligence in operation and further says that patient had stopped leaking urine since April ''93 after Dr. Janak Desai inserted stent (complainant has not examined Dr. Desai or produced any expert evidence to prove the claims made by them.)
DR. Shah, in his affidavit, states that he is qualified, experienced surgeon, with teaching assignments, he had also been assisted by cancer surgeon with proper qualification and experience (DR. Tarang Patel, M.S. M.Ch. onco surgery - page 68) that he had done proper and adequately extensive surgery. The complication suffered by patient was because of her disease and has produced technical references for the same from a book "Gynecologic Oncology" edited by Malcom Coppleson, Volume 2, page 981-82. DR. Shah has also produced reference to show that radiotherapy in cases like that of late Rajanben had no change in ultimate outcome. Complainants have not bothered to produce any evidence to substanti ate their claim nor have they cared to cross-examine Dr. Shah the opponent, though he offered himself for the same. Complainant also did not care to produce expert witness inspite of having been given sufficient opportunities. Dr. Shah on the other hand has produced documentary evidence to substantiate his innocence. In the result the complainant fails. It also should be noted that because of casual approach and absence, once the complaint was dismissed for default on 25.4.95 but to give ample opportunity to complainant it was restored. Complainant continued to act in same casual manner. We, therefore, consider it appropriate to award the cost of Rs. 10.000/- to Dr. Shah which the complainant shall pay within 30 days from the date of this order. Complaint dismissed with costs.