IMPORTANT POINT
Doctor/Hospital should not conduct unnecessary medical procedures on patient.

Vineeta Rai, Member— This First Appeal has been filed by Dr. Sharma Nursing Home through its Principal Officer, Appellant herein and Opposite Party before the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) being aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, who allowed the complaint of medical negligence filed against it by Ms. Geeta, Complainant before the State Commission.

2. FACTS :

Respondent-Complainant had visited the Appellant-Nursing Home for treatment of medical problems on 09.04.1997. These problems, however, persisted and Respondent-Complainant found herself becoming unfit to work. Following the Dilation & Curettage (D&C) procedure that was done on Respondent-Complainant, her condition deteriorated and ultimately she found that her hands and legs were not working. When she approached a Government Hospital for further treatment and advice, she was informed that she had become permanently disabled upto 30%. She contended that this disability occurred because of the unnecessary surgical procedure of D&C conducted on her and, therefore, issued a notice to the Appellant-Nursing Home on grounds of medical negligence in operating on her although the ultrasound indicated that there was no abnormality and as a result of the unnecessary surgery she had become permanently disabled. On not getting a satisfactory response, Respondent-Complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission on grounds of medical negligence and deficiency in service and requested that Appellant-Nursing Home be directed to pay her a lump-sum compensation of Rs.10.00 Lakhs since she was earning Rs.4000/- per month and since she was maintaining her widowed mother and other members of the family, as also any other relief as considered appropriate including litigation costs.

3. Appellant-Nursing Home on being served filed written reply denying the above allegations and stated that the Respondent-Complainant was diagnosed with amenorrhea for two months, vaginal bleeding, and lower abdominal pain and it was stated that Respondent-Complainant herself wanted that the D&C procedure be conducted. Therefore, after taking written consent of her brother, who had accompanied her, D&C procedure was done under general anesthesia which was administered by a Doctor who was an MD in Anesthesia and in a well-equipped operation theater. Respondent-Complainant was discharged in a satisfactory condition and asked to come back after the histo-pathological report of the tissue which had been sent for culture was received. However, Respondent-Complainant did not turn up. Since the surgery was conducted by well-qualified Doctors after proper examination of Respondent-Complainant and she was discharged in a satisfactory condition, there was no medical negligence on the part of Appellant-Nursing Home and the complaint appears to be concocted with some ulterior motive best known to Respondent-Complainant.

4. During the pendency of the complaint before the State Commission and 4 years after the D&C procedure, Respondent-Complainant passed away on 23.08.2001 and her Legal Representatives were brought on record to pursue the case.

5. The State Commission on the basis of evidence produced before it concluded that the Respondent-Complainant was subjected to D&C procedure which was not required in view of normal ultrasound report, which stated “uterus is of normal size and echo-pattern. Minimal fluid seen in the cavity. No sac of POCs seen. No fibroid or mass lesion seen. POD is clear. No pelvic or adenexal mass lesion seen. No vesicle calculus or mass lesion seen”. This unnecessary surgery as certified by Bara Hindu Rao Hospital resulted in restriction of movement of both hands, legs and elbows of Respondent-Complainant indicating 30% disability. The State Commission also took note of the fact that Respondent-Complainant passed away 4 years after the surgery. The State Commission, therefore, concluded as follows:

“10. T