Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member and Dinesh Singh, Member
Vinod Khanna —Complainant
versus
R.G. Stone Urology and Leproscopy
Hospital and Ors. —Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.428 of 2018
Decided on 6.7.2020
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Mr. G.P Thareja, Advocate, Mr. Satyam Thareja, Advocate and Mr. Suyash Rawat, Advocate
For the Opp. Party Nos.1 and 2:Mr. Jeevan Prakash, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Use of pre-printed and fixed ‘informed consent cum undertaking’ form with blank spaces for limited select handwritten entries and for signatures is unfair and deceptive on part of hospital.For the Opp. Party No.3: Mr. A.K Prasad, Proxy Counsel
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(g), 2(1)(o) and 21 – Medical services – Medical negligence – Urology – Botched surgery – Patient suppressed in pleadings that he was cured after surgery with medicines within six weeks of discharge from hospital – Allegations of complainant are completely afterthought based on assumptions, surmises and perverse beliefs – Complainant/patient was treated as per standard norms – Complainant failed to establish breach of duty of treating doctor - OP-2 and resultant injury was proximate cause from breach – No deficiency in service / medical negligence on part of doctor (OP-2) and hospital (OP-1) – Complaint dismissed – However, a pre-printed and fixed ‘informed consent cum undertaking’ form with blank spaces for limited select handwritten entries and for signatures has been used – This is administrative arbitrariness and one-sided high handedness and unfair and deceptive on part of opposite party no. 1 (hospital) – It is just and appropriate to impose cost of Rs. 10 lakh on opposite party no. 1 (hospital), to be deposited with Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission. (Paras 8 and 10)
Result: Complaint dismissed.
ORDER
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member—The Complainant Vinod Khanna aged about 65 years (for short “the patient”) in second week of January, 2010 suffered pain in abdomen and difficulty in passing urine. He was rushed to emergency department of Fortis Hospital at Vasant Kunj, New Delhi and after cauterization urine was removed. Thereafter, due to financial difficulties, for further treatment, he approached Dr. Anil Varshney (OP-2) at RG Stone Urology and Laparoscopy Hospital (OP-1 – for short “hospital”).The OP-2 examined the patient and advised surgery for to remove pus and also if required, removal of prostate. Ultrasonography (USG) study was performed and the patient underwent surgery on 13/01/2010. The OP-2 removed the pus and prostate. Total bill incurred by the patient was Rs.1,04,725/- The patient was discharged on 15/01/2010 with catheter placed in the bladder for five days. On 18/01/2010 patient approached OP-1 hospital for the complaints that after surgery the he started passing urine from the rectum instead of his urethra. The OP-2 after examination informed the patient that the complication occurred and advised for natural healing, re-insertion of the catheter for further six weeks. Being worried, the Complainant approached Dr. Ajit Saxena at Indraprastha Apollo Hospital and he got admitted and took treatment from 19/01/2020 to 04/02/2010. Thereafter, was under follow-up at Indraprastha Apollo Hospital on 15/02/2010, 18/03/2010 and 23/03/2010.For his treatment incurred about Rs.1,30,791/- expenditure at Indraprastha Apollo Hospital. However, patient did not get complete cure. Thereafter, on 13/04/2010 patient reverted to Fortis Hospital at Vasant Kunj and discharged on 21/04/2010. He further incurred Rs.1,15,640/- for the treatment. Thereafter, he was visiting regularly to the Fortis Hospital.
2. Being aggrieved by the negligent treatment at OP-1 the Complainant suffered injury and complications at the hand of OP-2, complainant filed the instant complaint before this Commission and prayed compensation of Rs.1,88,37,602/-.
3. The OPs 1 and 2 resisted the complaint and denied the allegations. The OPs took preliminary objection of limitation as the instant complaint was filed in year 2018, i.e. after 8 years of cause of action which arose in year 2010. The OPs further submitted that the Complainant had prior surgery of hernia and appendix with history of tuberculosis and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV). It was submitted that prior to visit to OP-1 Hospital, he approached few renowned hospital in Delhi, but could not get the treatment. At
OP-1 repeat USG confirmed the diagnosis as grade III benign enlargement of prostate
(BEP) with multiple abscess cavities and some of them found fluctuating and communicating to posterior side of nodules which might be due to immuno-compromised status of the patient.
4. On 13/01/2010, the patient was admitted for the planned surgery for prostatic abscess de-roofing. He was known case of HIV positive, cryptococcal meningitis, Kaposi’s sarcoma and tuberculosis. The surgery was uneventful, lasted for about an hour. As a standard procedure OP-2 did per rectal examination and needle was put in the cavity, but no pus came out. Cystoscopy was done and urethra was found normal. De-roofing of the prostrate was done and the Foley’s catheter placed. All required post-operative due care was taken. The patient was discharged on 15/01/2010 and called for follow up on 18/01/2010.
5. On 18/01/2010, on removal of Foley’s catheter, it was noted that the patient passing urine through rectum which was a rare complication. The patient was properly explained and counseled about such known rare complication. It was unavoidable because of the fistula with multiple cavities communicating to the posterior side. It was due to the necrosis of rectal wall due to the existing abscess cavity which facilitated urine passages communicating with rectum. Majority of fistulae heal on its own over a period of
