IMPORTANT POINT
Complainant since had failed to prove that her sufferings were results of improper performance of surgery by the Doctor, case of medical negligence ruled out.

ORDER

S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member

Complaint:

1. The complainant, Mrs. Tanveer Jahan, filed this complaint under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act,1986) for the alleged deficiency in service and medical negligence on the part of opposite parties no. 1 to 5, which resulted into injuries and permanent damage to the complainant. The complainant alleged that the present case was a saga of in-despicable devastation inflicted on the complainant and family of the complainant besides the criminal acts of commission and omission of the treating doctors who pushed the patient into the jaws of death.

2. The complainant (for short ‘the patient’) about 35 years of age was suffering from recurring pain in the abdomen for one year in 1997. On 22.04.1998 she got admitted in Surgical Unit II, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) under Dr. S. Chumber the opposite party no. 2 for laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgery fixed on 02.05.1998. She was diagnosed as gall bladder stone. On 01.05.1998, one Dr. Chander Mohan, a duty doctor in the unit demanded Rs. 5000/- from the complainant’s husband towards operation. Also, one Dr. Shiv Shankar, a junior resident persuaded him for the payment. In a bewildered position and keeping in mind the welfare of his wife, he paid Rs. 5,000/- in cash. Both the doctors disclosed that Rs.3,000/- would be paid to the operating doctor and the rest amount of Rs.2,000/- will be divided amongst Dr. Sikha, a Sr. Resident of Unit-II and the staff assisting during surgery. After the said payment Dr. Chander Mohan gave a cyclostyled printed pro-forma of medicines with several tick marks and a prescription to purchase surgical items from the nearby medical store. Accordingly, patient’s husband purchased the items and handed over to Dr. Chander Mohan at 9.00 p.m on the same day.

3. On 02.05.1998 in the morning around 8.00 a.m. the patient was operated and brought in a semiconscious state from the operation theatre. Her pulse was feeble and rate was high. The blood pressure was falling. It was alleged that the patient regained consciousness on the next day i.e. 03.05.1998, but her condition was not satisfactory. However, her husband maintained his calm and followed the instructions of the doctor and the nursing staff by reposing faith on them. The complainant further alleged that on 02.05.1998, in the night at 9.00 p.m. Dr. Shiv Shankar again demanded Rs.5,000/- from the patient’s husband in the name of Dr. S. Chumber, but he declined to pay it, therefore Dr. Chander Mohan and Dr. Shiv Shankar threatened that the patient would be discharged from the hospital and endangering the life of the patient. Her husband sent a detailed complaint to various authorities including the opposite party no. 1 but there was no action. Due to non-payment of money, keeping vengeance the patient was forcibly discharged in precarious condition in early hours at about 7 am 04.05.1998. Though the female attendant, Dr. Vinita, begged with mercy of the doctors but patient was discharged. The abdominal drain tube was removed; the urinary bag which was attached was spared. It was alleged that the doctors at AIIMS were greedy and lure for the money. Their attitude towards the patient was willful callous and apathetic. Thus it was disregard for the human life by the casualness, carelessness and absence of reasonable skill and care. The reasons given in the discharge slip depict a vengeful attitude adopted by Dr. S. Chumber and his team consisting of Dr. Shikha, Dr. Chander Mohan and Dr. Shiv Shankar. The complainant alleged that she was discharged on the advice of Dr. S. Chumber. It was an attempt to cover up for negligence committed by the OP-1.

4. Knowing the untimely discharge of the patient, her brother-in-law Mr. SAS Kirmani and a family friend Dr. Das Gupta, tried to speak Dr. S. Chumber (OP-2) at 10.00 a.m. but Dr.S.Chumber refused to talk with them. Therefore, arrangement for shifting was made but no other hos