IMPORTANT POINT
Surgical intervention with meatotomy, incision to enlarge meatus, is most reliable treatment pain at tip of penis can be controlled by oral anlages or warm baths.

Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Member—The facts of the case as per the complainants are that in June 2000, the complainant no.1 felt problem in urinating as the skin (phimosis) over his penis was not opening fully, hence, he went to ESI Hospital, Rohini, Delhi where Dr.K.G.Marwah attended to him. The said doctor after examination gave his opinion that the skin over the penis (phimosis) had to be circumcised.

2. On 3.7.2000, the complainant was admitted for the required operation in ESI Hospital, Rohini, Delhi and his operation was done on 5.7.2000 by Dr.K.G.Marwah and the phimosis was circumcised. The complainant was discharged on 13.7.2000. After operation dressing was done which was opened after a week and a wound was observed. The doctor did dressing again and prescribed medicine. On 22.7.2000 pus developed over the tip of the penis which was checked by the doctor and medicines were prescribed.

3. On 31.7.2000, the complainant no.1 requested Dr.Marwah to check him up properly as there was something wrong in the operated portion of this penis because he was having pain also, Dr.Marwah, opposite party no.1 told the complainant no.1 that in fact during operation due to mistake/negligent conduct on the part of the opposite party a portion of the tip of the penis was cut/injured which subsequently developed into pus/spot. However, Dr.Marwah assured the complainant no.1 that the penis wound shall be healed up during the course of time and he further prescribed medicines i.e. combiflam/brufin etc. to take whenever, the complainant no.1 feels pain. The complainant no.1 used to take the prescribed tablets whenever he felt pain. When the wound did not heal up, the complainant no.1 was advised to get the VDRE done from ESI Hospital. The complainant no.1 went to Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital where his test was done and it was found negative. Biopsy was also taken for cancer test and he was further referred to the skin and V.D.Clinic.

4. In the cytopathology report dated 1.3.2002 of Maulana Azad Medical College, it was opined that the biopsy revealed “Multiple bits of tissue showing squamous cell carcinoma”, i.e., cancer of penis. The report gave a shock to the complainants. The complainant no.1 got admitted in the Hindu Rao Hospital on 1.4.2002 and was discharged on 18.4.2002 where his penis was amputated/cut to save him from further danger. His penis was amputated upto half of its length. The penis of the complainant no.1 was amputated further in the Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi on 4.7.2002 and the doctors of the hospital also did reconstruction upto 1.5 cm by taking medial thigh flap. The dissection of penis urethra was performed, urethral fistula closed and urethra and flap adjusted and reconstruction stratum was done at S.J.Hospital. All this resulted into loss of his complete penis. The cancer of the penis developed solely due to the negligence and carelessness of ESI Hospital, Rohini and specially Dr.Marwah. The operation performed by Dr.K.G.Marwah of ESI Hospital, Rohini on 5.7.2000 was done in a most negligent and careless manner and the portion of the penis was injured by the opposite party which subsequently complicated the issue resulting in amputation of penis. It was the duty of Dr.Marwah to first take all the precautions i.e. conducting all tests such as biopsy etc. and after complete examination.

5. The complainants are hence entitled to the medical expenses incurred during the entire period i.e. June 2000 to till August, 2002. It is therefore, prayed that this Commission may direct the opposite parties to pay to the complainants as per details given below :-

A. Medical Expenses Rs.50,000/-

B. Compensation Rs.50,00,000/-

Rs.50,50,000/-

6. In their written statement, the opposite parties stated that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainants are not covered under the definition of “consumer”. They have further contended that the complainant no.2 had no relationship with the opposite parties. The complaint is bad for non-joind