Mrs. Rachna, Presiding Member — Complainant’s wife Smt. Subhadra Kumari Gupta, aged about 56 years, was admitted at Gandhi Memorial and Associated Hospitals, Lucknow (now known as King George’s Medical University) on 27.11.1996 with the complaint of pain in abdomen region. After investigations, she was diagnosed as suffering from the disease of obstructed “umbilical hernia” and was advised to undergo operation by Dr. L. Kakkar. Operation was performed on 21.12.1996 in KGMU in which the surgeon suspected cancer and, therefore, sent the specimen of intra abdominal mass with multiple lymphnode nodules for biopsy/investigation of cancer to the opposite parties’ pathology. The opposite party charged Rs. 300 as fee from the complainant for the above test. The opposite party gave their investigation report on 25.12.1996 to the complainant which disclosed “calcified caseous necrotic nodules. According to the complainant the disease was declared in its general name as abdominal tuberculosis. Believing in the aforesaid report the doctor started the treatment for the disease of abdominal tuberculosis. The concerned doctor discharged the complainant’s wife from KGMU on 1.1.1997 with the advice to continue the prescribed medicines. The aforesaid treatment remained to be continued but no improvement appeared to the complainant’s wife. The ongoing drugs resulted in vomiting which gradually increased and her health started deteriorating day by day. Hence the complainant’s wife was again admitted to KGMU on 24.3.1997 in the Medicine Department from where she was transferred to Surgery Department on 16.4.1997. After examination, the doctors took it as a case of intestinal obstruction and again decided for an operation.

2. On 19.4.1997 operation of abdomen was performed and the surgeons declared the inoperable malignancy, took the Omental tissue and sent it to Dr. K.M. Wahal Pathologist for biopsy/investigation. The said pathologist declared the disease as “Metastatic Carcinoma Omentum with blastic perotonilics (cancer)” vide his report dated 24.3.1997. Thereafter complainant’s wife was discharged from KGMU on 24.4.1997 with the prescription of some medicines. As per the advice of the doctors, the treatment remained to be continued but all in vain and later on the complainant’s wife expired on 5.5.1997.

3. The allegation of the complainant is that while performing of biopsy/investigation of the specimen the opposite parties acted carelessly and negligently and delivered a wrong report which was not true. If all the opposite parties would have done the job of the specimen properly, carefully with full diligence and skill, the report would have been positive for cancer and then the complainant would have got a chance of treatment of cancer of his wife and her life could have been saved.

4. In the complaint, the complainant has prayed for reliefs including compensation, expenses incurred etc. which totals to Rs. 16,50,000.

5. The opposite parties in the written statement has denied the allegations of the complainant. According to the opposite parties their record shows that on 21.12.1996, the specimen-form/report of KGMU dated 21.12.1996, along with specimen, was received at the pathology and the specimen form received from the surgeon did not specify the exact location of biopsy nor the exact source of, material was clearly specified. Further, the exact site of intra-abdominal biopsy was not known and it was also not known whether the site of biopsy was appropriate for the lesion being suspected. However, from the requisition form it may be, only presumably, believed that the biopsy was from within the abdomen. It is, therefore, stated that it is wholly misconceived and incorrect that “the specimen of intra abdominal mass with multiple lymph nodes” was sent for biopsy.

6. Further contention of the

opposite parties is that the diagnosis given by them was “Calcified Caseous Necrotic Nodule” and not “Calcified Caseour Nodule”. The said diagnosis does