IMPORTANT POINT
Doctor should not be punished if anything goes wrong.

Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member —The complainant, Mr. K. K. Mittal, a chartered accountant (patient) underwent micro-distectomy operation. It was performed by OP2, Dr. Navin Chitkara at his Oxford Hospital Pvt. Ltd. on 06-04-2007 and discharged on 08-04-2007. Thereafter, he was continuously suffering from backache. During follow up on 14-04-2007 and 26-04-2007 he had continuous back pain. The OP prescribed pain killers only. Thereafter on 10-05-2007, he consulted another doctor, Dr. Sushil Kumar who advised MRI of L4-L5 disc. The MRI was performed at Apollo Imaging & Diagnostic Pvt. Ltd., it revealed that OP2 and his team has negligently performed the surgery. The MRI report showed reduction in vertical height of L4-L5 and there was still posterior central, para central disc protrusion at L4-L5. The nerve roots were severely compressed bilaterally. Thus, it clearly indicates that the OP2 failed to remove complete ligament growth between L4-L5. When the said second MRI report was shown to OP1, then he admitted that some lapses occurred during surgery. Further, on 14-05-2007, the patient got examined by Dr. R.K. Kushal, at Ludhiana who opined that regrowth of ligament occurred which needed resurgery. He approached Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi. The specialist told that the regrowth of ligament cannot be removed by another surgery but it can be removed by fixing the plate with screw on L4-L5 by procedure of decompression. He underwent the said surgery at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital on 18-05-2007 and was discharged on 22-05-2007. He spent about Rs.2,10,000/- for the said surgery. Therefore, alleging medical negligence the complainant filed a complaint before the Jalandhar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short the District Forum) claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- along with interest.

2. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the OP filed First Appeal before the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission), which was dismissed. Hence, this revision petition.

3. We have heard the counsel for the parties. The counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that, the complainant filed a complaint without any basis and on the ground of self-serving statement. He brought our attention to both the MRI reports to clarify the matter. The first MRI dated 31-03-2007 performed prior to first surgery clearly shows as:

“Mild Retro-Listhesis of L4 over L5 vertebra.

Postero-central/postero-lateral left sided. Protrusion L4-5 disc.

Mild diffuse bulge L2-3, L3-4, L5-S1 discs.

To correlate clinically.”

The patient was in the hospital of OP2 from 06-04-2007 to 08-04-2007. The course in the hospital was uneventful. The procedure performed was “IDSS L4-5 with Micro-discordectomy L4-5, (central L45) left nerve root thickened and oedematous”. It correlates with the discharge summary on the record. After one month and ten days i.e. on 10-05-2007, the patient’s second MRI was performed, as advised by Dr. Sushil Kumar. The relevant findings are:

“Vertical height of L4-5 disc is reduced.

Posterocentral paracentral disc protrusion is seen at L4-5 level, compressing the thecal sac and encroaching upon the neural foramina and severely compressing the existing nerve roots at this level bilateral.”

5. In this context, for more clarity, we have perused the discharge summary of Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. It clearly reveals the patient had history of pain in lower back and left leg for two years, pain in right lower limb and numbness both lower limbs for one and half months. It is recorded that the patient started having pain in lower back, radiates to both lower limbs. Thus, it was a recurrence which is most common after such surgery. We have perused the consent form. It is signed by the patient himself with a signature of witness. It clearly mentions as following;

“We have also been told that the patient can r