Dr. J.P. Vaidya, Member — The complainants are (1) Shri Meghdut Thakkar, husband of late Smt. Nayanaben and (2) minor son Snehansh and they seek to recover Rs. 1,84,000/- (Rs. one lac eighty four thousand) from opponents (1) Dr. Anupama V. Desai, (2) Dr. Vidyut Desai, (3) Dr. Kirit Shah, and (4) New India Assurance Company for alleged negligence in operation and medical treatment of late Smt. Nayanaben.

Complainants have stated in complaint that:

(1) Nayanaben consulted opponent Doctors 1 and 2 for problems related to uterus on 23.6.91.

(2) Patient underwent laboratory investigations and X-rays as suggested by opponents 1 and 2 on 24.6.91.

(3) All reports were reported to be normal and patient was advised operation of hysterectomy.

(4) Patient was admitted on 25.6.91 in hospital of opponents 1 and 2.

(5) Patient was operated around 10.30 a.m. on 26.6.91.

(6) Complainant alleges that from 26.6.91 afternoon to 27.6.91 morning, no doctor remained in hospital and patient did not receive proper post operative care, patient was left in care of hospital staff.

(7) Nayanaben's health deteriorated in early morning of 27.6.91. She had vomitings and pain in abdomen. Complainant alleges that he informed opponent Nos. 1 and 2, who apparently saw her but could not understand what wrong was going on with Nayanaben. Complainant requested opponent Nos. 1 and 2 to call opponent No. 3 (There is nothing to suggest complainant knew opponent No. 3 and also that opponent No. 3 was invited by opponent Nos. 1 and 2 around 9 p.m. and not in the morning).

(8) Complainant says opponent No. 3 saw Nayanaben on 27.6.91 at about 7.00 a.m. in morning on invitation of opponent Nos. 1 and 2 at their hospital. Patient already had undergone operation previous day morning vide supra.

(9) Opponent No. 3 suggested certain changes in medical management and advised a bottle of blood transfusion which was obtained from Indian Red Cross Society and given. Complainant mentions that it did not improve Nayanaben's condition from morning of 28.6.91. Nayanaben developed difficulty in breathing and had swelling over body and eyes. She was conscious but was unable to speak; father-in-law of Nayanaben who is a medical practitioner was present by her bed-side (No statement or witness, evidence of said father-in-law a medical practitioner is on record).

(10) It is pertinent to note that since the time problems started in Nayanaben, the complainant has referred to all the alleged acts by any or all doctors as "opponents" only without identifying them — as done in former part of complaint.

(11) Nayanaben was examined by "opponent" in morning of 28.6.91 and opponent did not come again to see her. Nayanaben had difficulty in passing stool, had 'black' coloured urine and her health deteriorated. Further Nayanaben was given "40 injections of Lasix".

(12) Nayanaben underwent portable sonography test; blood report etc. on 28.6.91 and Dr. Kirit Shah advised the patient to be shifted to Civil Hospital for dialysis. Complainant alleges that opponents kept on advising various tests. As it appears these must be the happenings of the entire day and they could not have "advised" tests, sonography and decisions for medicament without physically being there, in that case it will contradict the statement as above in previous paragraph; complainant also states that Dr. Rajesh Vyas saw the patient same day and admitted the patient to V.S. Hospital. From the available records it is not possible to get detail accounts of time since morning of 28.6.91.

(13) Nayanaben underwent various investigations, dialysis and other treatment under care of Dr. Rajesh Vyas from 28.6.91 till her death on 13.7.91 about 4.40 p.m. at V.S. Hospital.

Complainant alleges that "opponents" has shown serious negligence and in-attention in operation and post operative care (sonography report done post operatively does not suggest above). Complainant says opponent ought to have known the problem regarding kidney since 27.6.91