Back
2009(1) CPR 195 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
NEW DELHI
K.S. Gupta, Presiding Member and Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member
Abdul Mazeed Khan —Appellant
versus
The Director, NIMS & Ors. —Respondents
First Appeal No. 49 of 2002
Decided on 12.1.2009
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. K.G. Kochar, Advocate, Amicus curiae.
For the Respondents:Mr. G. Ramakrishna Prasad, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Where operation was conducted according to correct medical procedures, medical negligence could not be proved.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)(g) —Medical negligence—Complainant suffering from cervic dorsal syringomyolia advised surgery by OP hospital—Complainants case that operation was a total failure and he lost total control of his lower limbs and got paralysed up to waist—Complaint alleging medical negligence—Finding of Medical Board consisting of neurosurgeon specialists that complainant was managed adequately at NIMS—No contrary opinion to support averments made in complaint—The very fact that complainant continued with his job disproved his contention that he was unable to walk—Complainant had no case to prove medical negligence as operation was conducted according to correct medical procedures—No deficiency on part of opposite parties in treatment, surgery or post operative care—Appeal dismissed. (Para 19 to 21)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Mrs. Rajyalakshmi, Rao, Member—This appeal is filed by Mr. Abdul Mazeed Khan, the original complainant, who is appellant herein, against the respondents, the Director, Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences, Panjagutta, Hyderabad, respondent No.1; Dr. B. P. Sahu, Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences, Panjagutta, Hyderabad, respondent No.2 & Dr. A.K. Purohit, Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences, Panjagutta, Hyderabad, respondent No.3; being aggrieved by the order dated 21.9.2001 of Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissing his complaint, alleging medical negligence on the part of the respondents, in complaint No.110 of 1996 wherein he claimed a compensation of Rs.6,00,000 towards mental pain and agony along with an interest of 18% p.a. and refund of Rs.33,000 incurred by him towards medical expenses.
2. This Commission appointed Mr. K. G. Kochar, Advocate as amicus curiae by its order dated 18.3.2002 to assist the Commission.
3. Brief facts of the case are:
Shri Abdul Majeed Khan, complainant, aged 54 years had a complaint of sensory loss and numbness in his left arm and left side of chest. He consulted Dr. Ram Taraknath, Neurologist, in Government General Hospital, Guntur who advised him to go to Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred as ‘NIMS’) for better treatment. He was admitted in NIMS on 21.7.1995 and Prof. Mohan Das, Professor of Neurology, advised him to take an MRI. It is alleged by the complainant that Dr. Mohan Das demanded Rs.7,500 for giving the MRI report and reduced it to Rs.4,500 acceding to his request. On seeing the MRI report, he was advised by Prof. Mohan Das that he needs to undergo an operation and that there is no alternative to cure his ailment. Thereafter, the complainant got himself admitted in the NIMS on 4.9.1995.
Submissions of the appellant
4. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant was told that after the surgery the complainant would regain the sensation by 70% and with luck he could gain the remaining 30% and that is how, he was encouraged to undergo this surgery. Three days after the surgery which was performed on 9.9.1995, he found certain complications like urgency of micturition, constipation, perianal numbness and loss of erection and he informed the same to Dr. B.P. Sahu and Dr. A.K. Purohit, opposite parties No.2 and 3 respectively. The doctors tested the testicles by pinching with a needle but there was no reaction. On fourth day, after the surgery, his right leg got completely paralysed for which three injections worth Rs.800 were prescribed. Still, the doctors were assuring him 70% cure of his ailment and that he would slowly recover. The complainant was discharged on 19.9.2005 from the hospital with paralysed right leg. Subsequently, his left leg also got paralysed upto the waist despite of taking the medicines prescribed by the doctors meticulously. He once again rushed to opposite parties for a checkup on 11.10.1995 and during the treatment, this time, the numbness spread to his stomach and back and he started swaying while walking. He explained to the opposite parties that prior to his second admission in the NIMS he could walk with a stick and that his condition is deteriorating. A second MRI was taken at Medwin. Although he followed all the instructions of the doctors, still he lost total control of his lower limbs and would pass urine, etc., involuntarily. He was discharged on 26.10.1995. Thereafter, he visited NIMS on 18.12.1995 and was prescribed some medicines.
5. It is stated by the learned counsel for the complainant that the operation was a failure but the opposite parties assured him that they would compensate him for their negligence and asked him to file an application for a job for his unemployed son. Thereafter, complainant wrote a letter to the Director, NIMS (on page 58, Volume IV), whereby; the bio-data of his son was given requesting the hospital administration to give him a job. It is
