Taj Pal Singh Wadi vs Mehnga Singh And Ors.

THE brief facts of the case are these.

SHRI Mehnga Singh suffered burn injuries and was admitted in Dr. Tej Pal Singh Wadi/OP1/hospital on 5.7.2007. It was alleged that OP -1 carelessly treated him. There was no facility to treat burn and plastic surgery in that hospital. Due to wrong treatment, the complainant''s condition became critical. Hospital records reveal electric burn but the patient suffered burn from the flames. During the treatment, the OP/doctor had gone to Pune. Hence, no treatment was given to the patient after returning from Pune. OP discharged the patient, without any examination and referred him to D.M.C., Ludhiana, on 16.7.2007, for plastic surgery. The doctors there, told about wrong treatment given by OP and the left hand of complainant was amputated in DMC, Ludhiana. Also the right hand was not cured properly. The complainants spent about Rs. 2,70,000 towards his treatment in DMC. Hence, alleging negligence on the part of OP, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Bathinda for compensation to the tune of Rs. 15 lakh. The District Forum vide its order dated 23.7.2008 dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved from the dismissal of his complaint the complainant approached the State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal No. 965/2008 having been allowed by the State Commission, vide impugned order dated 22.7.2013 directed OP 1 to pay Rs. 10 lakh as compensation and also directed OP 2/Insurance Company to pay insured amount as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, aggrieved by the order of State Commission, the petitioner/OP filed this revision petition.

WE have heard the arguments from the learned Counsel for parties. The petitioner/Dr. Tej Pal Singh was also present. The Counsel for petitioner submitted that the patient was admitted in OP/hospital oh 5.7.2007. Dr. Tej Pal advised the patient to go to higher centre but Mrs. Mandeep Kaur and Gurlal Singh, who accompanied the patient insisted for treatment by OP and gave their consent to do the needful. He further stated that the complainant did not disclose truth about the cause of his burn injuries. After coming to the OP hospital, the complainant himself disclosed to the OP that he was in a drunken condition and had fallen into fire. The labourers removed him and took to the local practitioner who did dressing. The police was also not informed about this incident. On coming to OP 1/hospital, the OP observed that both the hands were damaged. Wounds were giving foul smell and some desi medicines were applied on the wounds. For 4 -5 days prior to admission to OP hospital, no debridement was done. The extent of dead tissue could not be ascertained as tendons were exposed. The patient was treated with the help of mild anaesthesia from Dr. Sushil. The wounds were cleaned. The dead tissues were cleared under general anesthesia. The dressing was done regularly on both hands. The patient has not paid huge amount as he alleged. The patient was kept in isolation with air condition. He is a MS general surgeon practicing for last 24 years and has experience of working in the burn wounds in civil hospital, medical college at Bhatinda, Patiala and Faridkot. There was some improvement. The OP discharged the patient on 12.7.2007 with the advise to consult a plastic surgeon; but the patient left the hospital on 14.7.2007because he was arranging money to go to DMC, Ludhiana. Thus, during the absence of OP, the other two doctors looked after the patient and did the dressing.

THE learned Counsel for the complainant urged that on 11.7.2007, the Plastic Surgeon, who visited the OP1 hospital gave the fitness clearance for plastic surgery but the OP -1 neglected it and proceeded to Pune on 13.7.2007 and returned on 15.7.2007 and, thereafter, OP referred the patient to DMC, Ludhiana on 16.7.2007. Therefore, during the absence of OP, the patient was unattended and his treatment was not proper. Therefore, gangrene developed in both the hands. At DMC, his left hand was amputated and right hand also became handicapped. The Counsel further submitted that, there was contradiction in medical record that, the complainant suffered burn injuries due to fire, but the OP recorded it as burn injuries due to electrocution. Only two issues arise for consideration in this revision petition, the first being as to whether any negligence was committed by OP? and the second being whether the absence of OP doctor caused gangrene. We have perused the medical record, patient''s file of Adesh Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Bhatinda which clearly reveals that the patient was admitted on 2.7.2007 at 10.00 p.m. as on emergency basis with a history of alleged burn injuries at 8.00 p.m. at Buchhopalan at Khet near Govindpur. The case summary clearly reveals that the patient was admitted with C/o Electrocution. There was stricture in both arms, which was treated accordingly. The Adesh Institute of Medical Sciences informed the police station, Bhatinda about this case, which is reproduced below: "CR No. 7/7/7852 as a case of Alleged, H/o Burns Injury on 2.7.2006 around 8.00 p.m. at Bhucho, incidence took place at Bhucho Kalan at Khet near Gobindpur road."

On admission at Adesh Institute, the clinical notes revealed that, O/E the burns involving the right upper limb and left, forearms with bilateral contractors and the extension points at both feet. The patient was treated and shifted to the emergency ward. The clinical notes about ''General Physical Examination mentioned that the patient was apprehensive, conscious and oriented with breath smell emitting of alcohol. Therefore, after informing the police, the patient left AMA on 3.7.2007 at 9.00 a.m. prior to police inquiry.

FURTHER , we have perused the credentials, degree certificates of the petitioner. Accordingly he is a qualified surgeon and acquired MS surgery qualification in 1983. The hospital records of OP/hospital revealed that the patient was admitted in his hospital on 5.7.2007 and was discharged on 14.7.2007. He has recorded in the case sheet -record of the hospital as there were burns 5 -6 days back due to fall and fire (Bhatti) and he was in a drunken state. The police was not informed but the patient desired to inform them that it was electrocution. The Petitioner/doctor brought our attention towards the case -sheet and the relevant entries. He stated that initially, the debridement, proper cleaning wound and the regular dressings were done till the discharge from the hospital. The standard treatment for burns was given. He stated that he is a Surgeon (M.S.) and competent to treat the burns patients. During the absence of OP -1, other doctors Dr. Kailash, another orthopedic surgeon and Dr. Sushil were looking after the patient and were doing the dressing. The clinical notes also revealed that necrotic tendons and referral to DMC, Ludhiana was advised on 12.7.2007 for A.S.D. plus plastic surgery consultation.

IN addition, upon perusal of statement given by Dr. Sajeev Uppal, Professor of Plastic Surgery, DMC, Ludhiana, the relevant part is reproduced below: "As per record of Wadi Hospital presented to me treatment in the form of antibiotics, dressings, debridement and other drugs were given. He remained in this hospital till 12.7.2007 and then referred to Plastic Surgeon, D.M.C. Hospital for further management. As per record and the treatment given by Dr. Wadi, it seems that the above said treatment was similar to the treatment given in such like cases."

Thus, we are of considered view that there were no shortcomings in the treatment of burns given by the qualified surgeon OP. It was a standard of practice and a reasonable care. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order is hereby set aside by allowing this revision. There shall be no order as to cost.