IMPORTANT POINT
Joint replacement surgery — There was radiological & MRI evidence of residual tumour at the affected leg; the team of doctors of Oncology, Joint replacement surgery and Radiotherapy took a joint decision to save the Complainant’s limb which could avoid amputation of leg so that he can walk on his own natural feet rather than an artificial foot.

ORDER

Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member—The instant Appeal is preferred by the Appellants under Section 19(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘the Act’) against the impugned Order dated 16.12.2013, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), wherein the Complaint was dismissed.

Brief facts:

2. The appellant / Complainant Mr. Chaman Lal joined the Indian Air Force as an airman in Clerk General Duties (CGD) trade on 12.10.1987. He was promoted from time to time and became Sergeant in 1998 and according to him, he has unblemished service record of 15 years. Due to health issues, he was reported sick several times at the Air Force Station, New Delhi. In March, 2001, he had symptoms of pain (off & on) in the upper end of Rt. Tibia. He was treated by the Air Force doctors and specialists of Base Hospital Delhi Cantt., but got temporary relief by painkillers. The Appellant got MRI Scan for his right leg at Max Medical Centre at his own expense on 26.08.2001. That revealed some abnormality with right tibia bone as sign of malignancy in the right knee. He was, thereafter, on 31.08.2001, admitted in the Army Hospital Research and Referral Delhi Cantt. (AHRR), Delhi Cantt10. The CECT chest revealed 3 x 3x 20 mm opacity (nodule) in right lung lower lobe (RLL). It was alleged that the Opposite Parties have not done biopsy/Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology (hereinafter called as ‘FNAC’) of lung nodule to confirm Tuberculosis. Also, other tests like PCR, Mantoux, Pus the Culture AFB, Bronchoscopy or CT guided FNAC etc. were not done. He was detained in Hospital for 34 days without any treatment. Under local anesthesia, Surg Cdr B. Fanthome took a True cut Biopsy from the upper part of Tibia (HPE B/2691/01), which was reported as Fibro-muscular tissue only. Thereafter, a bone open cut Biopsy (B/2809/01) was taken on 13.09.2001, which showed Round Cell Tumor (Ewings). As advised by the medical Oncologist, 4 CHOP chemotherapies were given between 03.10.2001 to 06.12.2001. The chest lesion became clear. He was further given Radiotherapy from 18.12.2001 to 25.01.2002 to his right leg bone ( area 18x12.5 cms) and 2 cycles of chemotherapies from 26.01.2002 to 16.02.2002. The X-ray of leg was taken and MRI was conducted on 06.03.2002. The Radiation Oncologist gave fitness for Knee replacement surgery and the he was discharged with advice to come after 3 months. On 02.05.2002, he reported to the Surgical Oncologist. After investigations and MRI (08.05.2002), he got admitted in Joint Replacement Centre Ward at AHRR for removal of the right tibial bone and some part of the knee joint. It was alleged that without conducting any proper medical tests, he was operated on 03.06.2002 and 7 inches of long bone with knee joint was removed. The Histopathology (HPE) study of the whole resected bone and specimens was done by the Oncopathologist - Lt. Col. R. Lakhtakia, who reported on 11.06.2002, as “no evidence of Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (NHL)”. The Appellant alleged that he was ill-advised by the treating doctors for removal of affected 7 inches by cancer (NHL) and its replacement. Besides that, he was given extra-large size knee prosthesis. Therefore, the prosthesis got infected since its fitting. Despite pus discharge from the operative site, he was discharged from hospital with low medical category with instructions to report after three months. He did not recover fully, but again fell down in the verandah of AFCC office (AF Comm. Centre), suffered contusion of Rt. Leg. In August 2006, at Apollo Hospital, the pus discharge was diagnosed as due to tuberculosis. In the same condition, he was transferred to Pune on 01.07.2007. The Air Force Authorities did not provide him any attendant facility.

3. He further alleged that due to negligence of the Opposite Parties, he suffered permanent disability attributable to the doctors in the AHRR. He further alleged that he was not given the re