IMPORTANT POINT
Medical negligence – Negligence cannot be attributed to a Doctor so long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill and competence.

ORDER

S.P. Tavade, President.—Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pune dated 23/01/2006, in consumer complaint no.391/2004 the original OP Nos.1, 3 & 4 have preferred this appeal. Parties to this appeal shall be herein after called and referred to as per their status in the original consumer complaint.

Facts giving rise to this appeal can be summarized as under:

2. The complainant-Mrs. Babychanda, had filed the consumer complaint before the Ld. District Consumer Commission through the power of attorney holder - Mr. Rabindraprasad Srivastava, who is her husband. The Opposite Party No.1 is the Hospital run by the Grant Medical Foundation. The Opposite Party No.2 - Dr. R.W. Wadia is the Consulting Neurologist and Opposite Party No. 5 - Dr. Ashis Batra is Radiologist at OP no.1 Hospital. Opposite Party no.3- Dr.S.Vhora is Neuro Surgeon and Opposite Party no.4-Dr.C.P.Bajpayee is Neuro Surgeon, at OP no.1 Hospital, who had performed the operation on the complainant -Mrs.Babychanda. The Learned District Consumer Commission has exonerated the Opposite Party Nos. 2 & 5 and passed an order against the Opposite Party Nos. 1, 3 & 4.

3. It was the case of the complainant that she was suffering from persistent headache for long time, and therefore, she consulted the Opposite Party No.2, who is Neurologist working in the Opposite Party No.1 Hospital. He examined her and advised to take MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) of the brain. On 5/7/2003, the Opposite Party No. 5 had carried out MRI of the Complainant’s brain. It was revealed that the focal lesion in left CP angle cistern extending into the left internal auditory Meatus, consistent with acoustic schwannoma, measuring 25 X 27 mm., and the same was causing brain stem and IV ventricular compression. On the same day, the Opposite Party No.4 Neurosurgeon, examined the Complainant and advised for surgery. Accordingly, the Complainant was admitted in the Hospital on 07/07/2003. As per the directions, various investigations were carried out by the Complainant and the surgery date was fixed on 13/07/2003. The complainant was provided with an estimate of the surgery. Accordingly, the Complainant deposited Rs.40,000/-, as an advance payment, including surgery expenses of Rs.13,200/-.

4. The Opposite Party nos.3 & 4 performed the operation of the complainant for acoustic neuroma. They claimed that 75% tumor was removed by the operation. After this, the Complainant’s CT Scan was carried out on 16/7/2003. She was again advised 10 days hospitalization. It was contended that Opposite Party no.1 had demanded sum of Rs.1,71,200/- towards the expenses of the post-operative treatment. It was contended that one more CT Scan of brain was taken on 18/7/2003. The husband of the Complainant was serving in Central Government (GERF). He raised the issue of exorbitant demand of the bill by the Opposite Party No.1. Accordingly, after deliberation the bill was reduced to Rs.63,485/-. The said amount was paid by the husband of the complainant. It was contended that within a period of two weeks from the date of discharge, the complainant started suffering with side effects. Therefore, she visited Opposite Party no.1 Hospital. One more CT Scan of complainant’s brain was taken. It was noticed that there was solid mass lesion in left CP angle cistern measuring 30 X 20 mm, in size. The Complainant was shocked to learn that size of the tumor remained almost the same, even after operation and she developed partial (L) VII (N) Palsy. Therefore, the Complainant was advised second surgery at the earliest. It was alleged that without removing the tumor in earlier surgery, false claim of removal of 75% tumor was made and thereby, she was cheated. It was also alleged that there was deterioration in the health condition of the complainant. Hence she alleged acute negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties.

5. The complainant went to Mumbai and