IMPORTANT POINT
Standard care - It should be borne in mind that the type of medical service offered, the practitioner’s expertise, training, and experience, and even the location where the treatment took place may all be taken into account while determining the acceptable level of standard care.

ORDER

Dr. S. M. Kantikar, Presiding Member—The present Complaint has been filed under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) by Mr. Purushottam Pareek and Mr. Om Prakash Pareek – the husband and son of the deceased patient (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Complainants’) against the Yamuna Surgical And Maternity Hospital (OP-3) and the treating doctors - Govind S. Dhavale (OP-1) and Dr. Mithari Sharad Rajaram (OP-2) seeking compensation amounting to Rs. 1,62,14,214/- for the act of medical negligence.

Facts of the Complaint:

2. Mrs. Rajudevi, the wife of Purushottam Pareek (Complainant No. 1), aged 49 years (since deceased, hereinafter referred to as, the ‘patient’) was suffering from a Gynaec problems, consulted OP-1 Dr. Govind S. Dhavale on 23.05.2014 at Yamuna Surgical & Maternity Hospital, Ichalkaranji (for short ‘OP-3’ - ‘Yamuna Hospital’). It was alleged that OP-1 created fear in the mind of the patient and advised to get her immediate surgery for removal of uterus (hysterectomy). Lab investigations revealed Hb% was 8.4 g% (anaemic). On 25.05.2004, Dr. Mithari Sharad Rajaram - Anaesthetist (OP-2) carried out pre-anaesthetic check-up and listed as the Patient for abdominal hysterectomy. On 26.05.2014, the patient got admitted in Yamuna Hospital (OP-3) under care of OP-1. The OP-1 told as it was a routine surgery and there was no risk. It was alleged that on 27.05.2014 the OP-1 performed the surgery without taking informed consent for surgery and anaesthesia. He removed uterus and further, allegedly, removed appendix without any indication and without consent. The appendix was not sent for histopathology. The patient was brought out of the Operation Theatre (OT) in unconscious state. Thereafter, in the evening, she was referred to Nirmaya Hospital in the coma stage. It was diagnosed as a case of ‘Hypoxia’. On the same day at 9 pm, the patient was discharged from Niramaya Hospital and admitted to Aster Aadhar Hospital, Kolhapur. She remained there till 19.06.2014 and shifted her to Kokilaben Hospital, Mumbai, where she during treatment breathed her last on 02.07.2014.

3. Being aggrieved, on 23.09.2014, the patient’s husband filed a police complaint. The police referred the matter to Medical Board at CPR Hospital, Kolhapur, which gave opinion on 20.04.2015 that there was medical negligence, hence FIR was registered. The Complainants also filed another Complaint before Maharashtra Medical Council (MMC) at Mumbai. The Consumer Complaint was filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties before this Commission for alleged medical negligence and deficiency in service causing death of the patient. The Complainants prayed Rs.1,62,14,214/- compensation from the Opposite Parties.

Defence:

4. The Opposite Parties filed their respective Written Versions and denied the allegations of medical negligence.

5. Dr. Govind S. Dhavale (OP-1) & Yamuna Surgical and Maternity Hospital (OP-3) have filed their common written version and denied all the allegations of negligence during the treatment of patient. The preliminary objection that the Complainant is not a consumer, as no consideration paid to OPs - 1 & 3 and he did not deposit Rs. 10,000/- in the hospital. The Complaint is bad for non-joinder of the parties. Further, the Complainant has not made his daughters, who are legal heirs, as necessary party of the deceased. The Complainant has deliberately not filed all documents, pertaining to the surgical procedure done at OP-3 as well as at the other hospitals. He submitted that on 23.05.2014, patient came to his hospital with complaints of recurrent vaginal bleeding since past 6 months, with pain in abdomen and generalised weakness since about 4 months. On examination, her vitals were normal, B.P. -120/80 mm of Hg. The PV examination showed anteverted bulky uterus, tenderness in right fornix and right iliac fossa. The clinical diagnosis was dysfunctional uterine Bleeding (DUB)