The Bolam Rule and the need for care and caution in the interest of society in cases of medical negligence.

ORDER :

MRS. REKHA GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1. Revision petition No. 2164 of 2009 has been filed agarnst the judgment dated 12.1.2009 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,- Delhi (‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 437 of 2006.

2. The faets of the case as per respondent No. 1/ complainant are that respondent No. 1 was having pain in the right side of her abdomen and she went to the Petitioners/opposite parties-hospital on 13.2.2002 and various medical tests were conducted by the petitioner hospital on 13.2.2002 itself and after examining the test reports, respondent No. 1 was asked to get admitted in the hospital for a minor operation. The respondent No. 1 got admitted on 19.2.2002 and an operation was conducted on 21.2.2002 and she was discharged on 9.3,2002 though she was not feeling well even at the time of discharge, however, the doctors assured the respondent No. l that her condition would improve gradually. Thereafter the respondent No. l kept on visiting the hospital but since she got no relief; the hospital asked her to consult Sri Ganga Ram Hospital. As per respondent No. 1, she suffered financially and physically due to the deficiency in service on the part of the hospital and its doctors though she had paid Rs. 1.00 lakh in cash to the hospital and had spent Rs. 50,000 on medicines etc., and spent another Rs. 50,000 at Ganga Ram Hospital. Being aggrieved respondent No. l filed the instant complaint before the District Forum seeking compensation of Rs. 4,90,000.

3. As per the version of the petitioner No.1 as well as the attending doctor/ petitioner No. 2, respondent No. 1 had undergone an operation for removal of renal stones some 15-20 years back some time in 1983 prior to her treatment at the petitioner’s hospital. Further she had a Hydronephrotic Kidney. Efforts were made to treat her without removing the kidney but due to the fact that the kidney was damaged the petitioners had no option but to remove her kidney and all this was done with the consent of respondent No. 1 and her attendants. Further, when respondent No. l was discharged from the hospital of the petitioner she was in a good condition.. On 13.2.2002 when the respondent No. l came to the OPD of the petitioner’s hospital she was having complaint of right lumbar pain for about a year along with fever off and on. She was investigated and intravenous pyelography showed hydronephrotic kidney, i.e., a swollen upper half of kidney along with diverticulum of the superior calyx, which means there was out pouching of the collecting system which was clearly reflected in the x-ray of the respondent and the records maintained by the petitioner hospital. Thereafter, taking the fully informed and written consent of respondent No. l and her husband right retrograde pyelography and DJ stenting was conducted. But even after that respondent No. l complained of pain and therefore, laparoscopic adhesiolysis of kidney from posterior wall was performed after discussion of the same with the respondent No. l and her husband and also after informing them of the possible outcome of such operation. After taking their consent laparoscopic adhesionolysis was performed on 21.2.2002 to relieve any entrapped nerve in the scar tissue which may have been cause for pain. This was done in order to ensure relief to the patient and to avoid the stage of removal of the hydronephrotic kidney. After this procedure, respondent No. 1- the patient did not complain of pain for 23 days and was therefore, discharged. On 4.3.2003 the patient again came to the petitioner’s hospital with a second opinion of Dr. A.B. Ghosh and petitioner No. 2-doctor after examination and investigation advised partial nephrectomy which was performed after taking the consent of respondent No. 1. The patient and her husband were also informed that if the problem persisted, total nephrectomy, i.e., removal of whole kidney, would have to be resorted to and informed consent was obtained for both procedur