Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM VSM (Retd.), Presiding Member and Sudhir Kumar Jain, Member
Vikramaditya Venishetty – Complainant
versus
Dr. Anant E. Bagul and Ors. – Opp. Parties
Consumer Complaint No.460 of 2014
Decided on 10.9.2025
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Ms. Shubhangi Arora and Ms. Bina Madhavan, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties:Uday B. Wavikar and Vikas Nautiyal, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Medical Negligence – Deterioration of condition of patient post-surgery is not necessarily suggestive of fact that surgery performed or treatment given to patient was not proper or inappropriate.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(a)(i) – Medical Negligence – Limb Girdle Muscular Dystrophy – Unsuccessful Stem Cell Therapy – Treatment including stem cell therapy given to OP was an effective therapy and was given as per established procedure and protocol – There was no apparent omission on part of OP in treatment of complainant – OP has taken appropriate care in treatment of complainant and OP has apprised complainant about treatment at its threshold – There is no allegation against OP that he breached ethical protocol in treatment of complainant – Deterioration of condition of patient post-surgery is not necessarily indicative or suggestive of fact that surgery performed or treatment given to patient was not proper or inappropriate – There was no deficiency in service on part of OPs in treatment of complainant. (Paras 13, 14, 14.1, 15 and 16)
Result: Complaint dismissed.
ORDER
Sudhir Kumar Jain, Member—Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the complainant is a dentist by profession. The complainant developed Limb Girdle Muscular Dystrophy (LGMD) at the age of 20 years resulted in muscular wasting. The complainant in 2006 was diagnosed as suffering from LGMD at Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad after investigations and a biopsy from his left thigh. The complainant was looking for a hospital for treatment and came across profile of the opposite no 2 where the opposite party no 1 was a consultant orthopaedic surgeon. The complainant in the year 2011 travelled to Pune to consult the opposite party no 1. The opposite party no 1 apprised the complainant about the procedure of stem cell therapy which would be of two types/methods. The first method was by administering four initial doses followed by two additional doses after six months and the second method was involving six consecutive doses and second dose was stated to be more effective. The opposite party no 1 specified to the complainant that each dose would be containing 30,00,000 stem cells which are injected intramuscularly using ultrafine needles with guaranteed outcome. The opposite party no 1 further apprised that the complete treatment protocol involved administration of four intramuscular doses under general anaesthesia and two intravenous doses totalling 18,00,00,000 stem cells at a cost of Rs.85,000/- per dose.
1.1 The complainant as per advice of the opposite party No. 1 opted for the second treatment method. The complainant was administered four consecutive doses in a gap of four days. The health of the complainant got deteriorated necessitating postponement of the subsequent doses for a week. Thereafter the fifth dose was administered intravenously, and the sixth dose was administered intramuscularly under general anaesthesia. The opposite party No. l assured the complainant about improvement immediately during treatment. The complainant was also administered antibiotics before every dose but the complainant was having hypersensitivity of reactions. The complainant due to no improvement enquired from the opposite party no 1 about the effect of therapy. The opposite party No. 1 thereafter recommended a ‘Z-Plasty’ procedure involving computer assisted stretching to correct the walking on toes of the complainant through tendon lengthening surgery. The complainant informed the opposite party No. 1 that his previous surgeon in Vijayawada had contra indicated the Z-plasty procedure in his case. The opposite party No. 1 assured the complainant about successful correction of his health condition as well as left leg shortening. The complainant was assured that the surgery would require only a single day of bed rest and the complainant would be able to walk immediately post-surgery. The complainant due assurances had agreed for the surgery. The opposite party no 1 on 15.05.2012 administered the sixth stem cell dose and performed the tendon lengthening surgery simultaneously. The Complainant was asked to remain hospitalized for another week but the complainant could not walk even with foot support. The complainant was discharged from the hospital on 18.05.2012 after being charged Rs.5,80,000/- for the treatment excluding other medical expenses. The complainant came back to Hyderabad but remained in touch with the opposite party no 1. The complainant was not able to walk with support and even after going physiotherapy. The complainant on 24.03.2013 came to Pune for consultation with the opposite party No. 1. The opposite party no 1 after examination acknowledged that the condition of the complainant had further deteriorated as the stem cell therapy was not successful. The opposite party no 1 administered a stem cell booster dose and recommended regular physiotherapy. The complainant before treatment was able to manage himself and used to walk without support. The complainant after treatment was not able to discharge hi
