Dr. Jatin P. Vaidya, Member— Complainant Dashrathbhai Keshabhai Nai has filed this complaint against Dr. Pravinbhai Chaturbhai Patel for alleged negligence and deficiency in medical services to the complainant and has asked for compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- and any other relief that complainant may be entitled to.

2. Complainant states that he went to the said opponent Dr. Pravinbhai Patel at Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad Urology Department in May, 1991 for complaint of pain and swelling in left testicle. Patient was examined by Dr. Patel and was advised hospitalisation and investigations. He underwent certain routine blood and urine examination and he also underwent special investigation of injection on penis and x-ray examination. He was later on advised to have some more investigations at private clinic in White House, Ahmedabad. He was accompanied for this investigation by Dr. Dilipbhai of Urology Department of Civil Hospital. An investigation including dopier studies were done and he was advised by said Dr. Dilipbhai to see Dr. Pravinbhai Patel with reports of investigations at his private Dhananjaya Hospital, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. He saw Dr. Patel at the said hospital on 24.5.1991 and was advised operation. Complainant underwent operation on his penis on 23.7.1991 at the Dhananjay Hospital. Following operation complainant's pain in left testicle did not subside and he developed impotence. Complainant further states that he was not impotent before and enjoyed sexual life with his wife normally (page 4). Complainant also states that he was never impotent before operation and he had never complained of impotence to Dr. Patel. Dr. Patel did not explain the significance of investigation or operation to the complainant. The complainant further states that he was advised second operation by Dr. Patel and he had lost faith in Dr. Patel as a result of problems he developed after operation. He, therefore, consulted other doctors including Dr. Mahesh Desai and that he was somewhat better now though his impotence persists. Complainant and his representative (Mr. Mehta) argued that Dr. Patel deliberately did not provide documents as asked by them (page 143) and this was done with purpose of avoiding responsibility. Complainant asked for reports and case papers of Civil Hospital, Urology Department of Dr. Patel and also case papers and register of Dr. Patel's private nursing home. Complainant also requested Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad to provide records which were not provided inspite of repeated requests.

3. The opponent Dr. Pravinbhai C. Patel states his qualifications, experience and expertise in the subject (page 25). Dr. Patel further states that the complainant complained of impotence and some pain in left testicle (page 11). His main complaint was impotence. For pain in testicle Dr. Patel prescribed medicines and reassured the patient (page 11). Dr. Patel also states that he explained the complainant fully regarding his condition, investigations and management including operation (page 150). Dr. Patel also investigated for impotence by various investigations including x-rays, dopier studies etc. and confirmed his diagnosis of impotence. It was only thereafter that he again explained and operated the complainant (23.7.1991). At no stage Dr. Patel gave guarantee about the result of operation. However, he says his operation is successful and no problem persists (impotence or bending of penis etc.) as claimed by complainant. Dr. Patel also states that he has produced whatever papers are in his possession and he could not produce Civil Hospital papers as they were in the custody of Civil Hospital and he did not have control over it. Dr. Patel also says that he has medical indemnity insurance and should liability to compensate occurs he is to be indemnified by Insurance Company (New India Assurance Company Limited Pages 45,51). Dr. Patel further argues that complainant has filed this complaint with intention to exhort money from him.