Back
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR
Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.A.A. Khan, President &
Mrs. Sushma Tanwar, Member
DR. MAHESH MISHRA—Appellant
versus
RAM SWAROOP—Respondent
Appeal No. 1653 of 1995—Decided on 29.5.2003
Medical Negligence - Urinary Track Problem - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(t), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(t), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(t), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(t), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(t), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(t), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(t), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(t), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(t), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(r), Section 2(1)(t), Section 2(1)(u), Section 2(1)(d)] - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, including Section 2(1)(g) defining 'complaint', Section 2(1)(o) defining 'deficiency', Section 2(1)(r) defining 'service', Section 2(1)(t) defining 'unfair trade practice', Section 2(1)(u) defining 'unfair or restrictive trade practice', and Section 2(1)(d) defining 'consumer'. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these provisions in the context of medical negligence and the standard of care expected from a medical professional.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a complaint against the appellant, a doctor, alleging medical negligence in the treatment of his urinary track problem. The District Forum held the appellant guilty and awarded compensation to the respondent. The appellant appealed against this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had not rendered deficient services and had taken reasonable care and caution in the treatment of the respondent's urinary problem. It concluded that the respondent had failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant had rendered deficient services in the treatment of the respondent's urinary problem.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the appellant's medical qualifications, the actions taken by the appellant in treating the respondent, and the lack of evidence proving deficiency in service.
Final Decision: The appeal succeeded, the impugned order was set aside, and the complaint of the respondent was dismissed with cost on parties throughout.
Mr. Justice M.A.A. Khan, President—This is an appeal by the opposite party to Complaint No. 1063/1994 from the order dated 27.7.1995 whereby the District Forum, Sri Ganganagar held the appellant guilty of medical negligence in the treatment of urinary track problem of the respondent and directed him to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical discomfort and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation to the respondent.
2. Relevant facts are these :
The appellant is a doctor by profession and being an urologist treats patients, suffering from urinary problems, at his Clinic/Nursing Home, known as Mishra Nursing Home, Rai Singh Nagar, Distt. Sri Ganganagar. The respondent-complainant was, at the relevant time, working as an IVth Class Govt. employee at Tehsil Rai Singh Nagar.
3. On 23.11.1994 the respondent filed his complaint before the District Forum with the allegations that on 22.2.1994 he consulted the appellant at his Nursing Home in respect of complaint of itching in urinary track and difficulty in passing urine, that the appellant, without conducting any sort of tests and checking, advised him to get himself operated for his problem without loss of any time otherwise his problem would get aggravated, that the appellant, acting negligently in conducting the minor operation of his urinary track, aggravated the problem and his urine stoped passing, that the apellant conducted second operation and also inserted a tube in the urethra but the urine did not pass through the urethra instead it flowed through the stitches of the wound that it was after conducting operations for two times that the appellnat got his urine and blood tested and after keeping him under observation for 5 to 10 days discharged him from his Nursing Home, that since his urinary complaint could not be removed he again consulted the appellant on 11.3.1994 but this time the appellant advised him to consult Dr. Kailash Floor of Government Hospital at Sri Ganganagar, that he consulted Dr. Floor on 12.3.1994 and remained as an indoor patient in his ward for 18 days but he was not cured of his disease, that Dr. Floor referred him to the Sawai Man Singh Hospital (Government) at Jaipur where he was operated upon twice, once on 16.4.1994 and thereafter on 6.5.1994, and then got relief. The respondent alleged deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and claimed compensation for mental agony, cost of medicines and cost of litigation totalling at Rs. 1,09,581.52.
4. The version of the case as per appellant was that on 22.2.1994 when the respondent had consulted him, he was in great pain due to stoppage of his urine, that in order to relieve him of his painful condition, the appellant performed cystoscopy on him with his consent and then on examination of the respondent the appellant came to hold the opinion that the complaint of the respondent could not be removed without performing a minor operation of the urinary track in order to enable him to urinate and it was after such operation that the respondent was relieved of his pain. The appellant specifically asserted that on examination of the documents with the respondent and on interrogation, the appellant had come to know that about 8 years back the respondent had been operated upon at a Hospital at Chandigarh for problem in his urinary track and at that time a tube had been inserted in the urinary track which remained there for sufficiently long time and caused “stricture urethra”, which led to the stoppage of urine. The appellant averred in his reply that such a material fact was not disclosed by the respondent to him and could be known by him in the course of cystoscopy and the minor operation performed thereafter. It was asserted that the appellant had taken all reasonable care and caution and used his best of professional knowledge and expertise in the treatment of the respondent and the complaint was an unfair and dishonest attempt to malign him professionally.
5. The District Fo
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
