Prakash Bapu Choudhari Vs. Chakravarti Medical Center - Court Judgment

Uma S. Bora, Member:

1. Shri.Prakash Bapu Choudhary appellant herein/original complainant preferred this appeal against the order of dismissal of complaint case No.228/07 passed by District Consumer Forum Ahmednagar on 19.12.2007.

2. The facts in nutshell are as under:

"Mother of complainant Devubai Bapu Choudhary aged 58 years was suffering from abdominal pains. Therefore with reference letter given by Dr.Sonawane complainant approached to respondent Dr.B.M.Chakrawarti running Chakrawarti Medical Centre at Ahmednagar. On 1.2.2007 Devubai was admitted in respondent hospital. Respondent conducted investigation and performed various test like sonography, C.T.Scan, and found that there is tumour in the stomach of Devubai, to remove the said tumour she was required to be operated. For the said surgery expenses of Rs.25,000/- or Rs.30,000/- were required to be done by the complainant. Accordingly on 7.2.2007 Devubai was operated. It is alleged by the complainant that Devubai was operated by respondent but pains were not vanished. Therefore he took his mother to medical hospital at Auranabad. But the said hospital refused to admit the mother of complainant. Then he went to Pravara Rural Hospital where doctor checked the mother of complainant and informed the complainant that as left kidney of Devubai was removed she is suffering pains. Doctors at Pravara Hospital advised the complainant to take his mother to Ruby Hospital, Pune. Therefore complainant went to Ruby Hospital Pune where also doctor informed him that as kidney was removed his mother is suffering pain. Accordingly, gave report to the complainant. This fact came to knowledge of complainant on 20.3.2007. Therefore on 21.3.2007 complainant filed FIR with Tofkhana Police Station at Ahmednagar. On 7.4.2007 mother of complainant died. Therefore he approached to District Consumer Forum claiming Rs.5 lakhs as compensation, Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and cost of complaint."

3. Opponent appeared before the Forum and resisted the complaint. It is submitted by opponent that after the admission of mother of complainant in their hospital thorough investigation was carried out and various tests like sonography, C.T.scan etc. were done and it was found that there was growth of adrenal gland tumour. Accordingly complainant was informed about ailment and also explained the course of treatment and removal of kidney as necessary procedure to save the life of Devubai. After giving complete idea about the treatment respondent conducted the surgery. But complainant by suppressing several factors approached to Forum with malafide intention. Therefore complaint be dismissed.

4. After hearing both the parties District Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that there is no medical negligence on the part of respondent as alleged by the complainant.

5. Dissatisfied with the said judgment and order original complainant came in appeal.

6. Adv.D.R.Kale appeared for appellant, Adv.Shri.Athare Patil appeared for respondent. It is submitted by Adv.Kale that mother of appellant was admitted in the hospital of respondent on 1.2.2007 with the complaints of abdominal pain. Respondent after thorough investigation conducted surgery for removing tumour. But while removing tumour respondent also removed kidney that is also without taking consent of complainant or his mother Devubai. It is further submitted by Adv.Kale that as kidney was removed without taking consent of complainant or his mother respondent has committed medical negligence. District Consumer Forum ignored the said fact while dismissing the complaint. Hence appeal be allowed. In support of his contention he relied on Samira Kohli “Vs- Dr.Prabha Manchanda and Anr. 2008(1) Supreme 191, it is held by Apex court that what is relevant and of importance is the inviolable nature of the patient's right in regard to the body and his right to decide whether he should undergo the particular treatment or surgery or not-Therefore unless the unauthorized additional or further procedure is necessary in order to save the life or preserve the health of the patient and it would be unreasonable to delay the further procedure until the patient regains consciousness takes a decisioin, a doctor cannot perform such procedure without the consent of the patient.

7. Adv.Athare Patil submitted that on 1.2.2007 complainant brought his mother Devubai with reference letter of Adv.V.B.Sonawane to the hospital of respondent. Devubai suffering from abdominal pain since 15 days prior to her visit to the hospital of respondent. After admission she was thoroughly investigated, computerized tomography was done and then she was referred to C.T.Scan which clears that thercods cancerous growth of left adrenal gland with involvement of left kidney. After carrying thorough investigation complainant was advised to go for surgery for removing cancerous growth. Accordingly consent form with explanatory notes was got signed by the complainant. Complainant, patient Devubai and her relatives were informed about type of surgery, diagnosis, possible complication, requirement of post-operative medication etc. before going for surgery on the Devubai. Dr.S.S.Bhalerao who has large experience of adrenal surgery was called to perform said surgery and surgery was completed successful. At the time of operation, it was found that cancerous growth of left adrenal gland had extended to left kidney and also involved aoxtic gland and left diaphragm. Therefore considering extensive growth of malignancy a left nephro adrenalectomy along with glands were excised(removed) as per standard procedure. Respondent relied on medical literature from book of Campbell on urology. It is mentioned in the said book that "In addition this tumour often extend directly into adjacent structure, especially kidney and may involved anterior venacava. The treatment is surgical removal of primary tumour with admission to remove entire lesion even resection of adjacent organs (e.g.kidney and spleen) is necessary as well as resection of focal lymph modes en bloc". It is further submitted by Adv.Athare Patil that Dr.Vijaykumar Keskar from Nurgis Datta Memorial Cancer Hospital, Barshi had supplied questionnaires before the Forum while replying the said questionnaires Dr.Keskar clearly mentioned that after observing C.T.Scan report and pathology report it seems that adrenal gland tumour could not have been removed without removing kidney. It is further observed by Dr.Keskar that cause of death of Devubai is not removal of kidney. It is further submitted by Adv.Athare Patil that District Consumer Forum after thoroughly considering the facts and evidence rightly dismissed the complaint. Hence appeal be dismissed.

8. We thus heard counsel both for sides and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that Smt.Devubai mother of appellant was brought to the hospital of respondent with complaint of abdominal pain. It is an admitted fact that respondent through Dr.Bhalerao conducted surgery of removal of cancerous adrenal gland. It is seen from the record that consent form was signed by complainant which was annexed with explanation about the proposed surgery, type of surgery and future complication. But appellant while approaching Forum suppressed said fact. In our view the authority cited by appellant i.e. Samira Kohli (supra) is not applicable in the present case. It is allegation of complainant that kidney was removed without taking consent of complainant cannot be accepted as the consent was already obtained by respondent. The expert opinion of Dr.Kesarkar is on record. According to which removal of kidney is essential for removal of cancerous growth of adrenal gland. On perusal of medical literature also it is found that respondent had adopted settled practice and procedure while treating the mother of complainant. In the expert opinion of Dr.Keskar it is clearly mentioned that death of Smt.Devubai had not occurred due to removal of kidney. In our view therefore there is no expert evidence to prove the fact that respondent is liable for medical negligence. District Consumer Forum while dismissing the complaint rightly appreciated the fact and evidence therefore we do not want to disturb the reasoning recorded by the Forum. Hence,

ORDER

1. Appeal is dismissed.

2. No order as to cost.

3. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.