STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Consumer Complaint No.114 of 2020 Date of Institution : 16.03.2020 Reserved on : 07.03.2022 Date of decision : 19.04.2022 Satbir Goyal S/o Late Sh.Prem Chand R/o House No.2351, Sector 45, Chandigarh.

..….Complainant Versus

1. Max Super Specialty Hospital, Mohali, near Civil Hospital, Phase-6, Mohali, Punjab, through its Director/Chairman/Managing Director/Director/Authorized Signatory.

2. Dr.R.S.Rai, Surgeon, Max Super Specialty Hosptial, Mohali, near Civil Hospital, Phase-6, Mohali, Punjab.

….…Opposite Parties Consumer Complaint under Section17(1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No 3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Argued by:-

For the complainant : Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate For the OPs : Sh. Saurabh Dalal, Advocate MRS.URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER Complainant-Satbir Goyal has filed the present complaint under Section 17 (1)(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short “The Act”), against the opposite parties i.e. Max Super Specialty Hospital and Anr. (in short “OPs”), alleging that the complainant suffered pain in the right side of abdomen and approached Shri Dhanwantry Ayurvedic College and Hospital, where USG was conducted on 16.05.2019. A stone was found in his ureter on right upper side and impressions of Bilateral renal concretions and Grade II fatty infiltration of liver were also mentioned in the said USG report. Thereafter, he approached OP No.1 Hospital, wherein he was admitted and various tests were conducted. He was diagnosed with Upper Ureteric Calculus. The complainant further averred that OPs did not conduct any test to locate the position of the stone in the ureter. OP No.2 performed Retrograde Pyelogram (RGP) + Ureteroscopy (URS) surgery upon the complainant on 22.05.2019. The physician injected a radio contrast agent into the ureter in order to visualize the ureter and kidney with fluoroscopy or radiography in a urologic procedure i.e. Retrograde Pyelogram. The complainant also alleged in his complaint that OPs recorded that the ureteroscope could not be negotiated beyond mid-ureter, so on withdrawing back the scope from ureter, which suddenly gave way and suspected to be avulsed. His ureter was injured from two sides while withdrawing the scope from the ureter. The OPs abandoned the procedure due to said reasons and performed nephrostomy and wound was closed leaving the tube drain. Complainant was informed that for repair of the damaged ureter, an attempt was required to be made, if possible. However, no corrective surgery was performed and the complainant was discharged on 28.05.2019 with urine collection bag. He was told to come for follow up after 7 days. It was mentioned in discharge summary that “a plan would be for ileal ureter replacement after 3 months”, which was a reconstruction of urinary tract. Meaning thereby, it was case of damage of ureter during the procedure, which required another corrective surgery. The complainant has also alleged that before conducting the said surgery, no X-ray of abdomen and USG was conducted by the OPs, which has resulted into injury. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,88,397/- for the said treatment through the Insurance Company.

2. Thereafter, the complainant approached Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh (PGIMER) on 04.07.2019. The record of the Out Patient card from 04.07.2019 to 23.10.2019 is on the record as Annexure C-5. The complainant was admitted in PGIMER on 09.11.2019 and thereafter his operation was performed on 18.11.2019. His injured ureter was recreated after taking a piece from small intestine of the complainant. Thereafter, he was discharged on 14.12.2019.

3. The complainant not only suffered physic