RASIK M SHAH Vs. A R KALRA
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Rasik M Shah
A R Kalra
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by unsuccessful complainant, who lost his complaint in the Forum below.
(2.) CASE of the complainant in the Forum below was that he is doctor by profession and his wife Niru Shah had a toothache and shaky right last lower molar tooth. He gave her medicine on 20.11.1997. He consulted Dr. S.P.Jain on 21.11.1997 as swelling was observed The drugs advised by Dr. Jain were given to the patient, but still she was unable to swallow food and was on liquid. He therefore took his wife to Dr. A.R. Kalra for treatment. One lady doctor examined his wife and adivsed extraction of molar tooth. A bulging inside in vicinity of tooth was found which was suggestive of abscess. He therefore suggested that incision drainage was necessary. However doctor informed the complainant that there would be no problem as the patient was on antibiotics and extraction would lead to drainage. She extracted tooth of his wife, changed antibiotics and certain other drugs were prescribed. Complainant visited the clinic on 25.11.1997. Patient was examined and was directed to continue the same treatment. Complainant again went to the same clinic. As the patient was not relieved of the pain and swelling was increasing, Maxillo -fascial surgeon examined the patient and advised to continue the treatment as it was cellutitis. Complainant and patient were informed that swelling would gradually disappear. The complainant's suggestion to adopt aspiration method was not followed by O.P. Complainant called another doctor, who was Maxillo -fascial surgeon on 27.11.1997. Same treatment was advised. Complainant again visited clinic of O.P. on 28.11.1997. Lady doctor told that incision would help the patient, but Dr. Kalra told the patient that patient should come at night as surgeon visits the clinic at night hours. Therefore dissatisfied with the O.P. he took patient to another surgeon. Surgeon followed aspiration method and carried out drainage. Surgeon blamed O.P. for negligence for not following simple procedure for relief from pains. Thereafter complainant visited clinic of O.P.
(3.) O .P. denied that there was any fault or negligence on his part. Complainant sent registered notice to the O.P. on 13.4.1998 alleging negligence and deficiency in service on his part and asked the O.P. to give reimbursement of the bills for which he had approached another surgeon, that the surgeon to whom he had taken his wife for further treatment. After receipt of notice O.P. allegedly apologised and showed willingness to refund the money. But monies were not sent. Hence he filed consmer complaint in the Forum below.
O.P. filed written statement on 20.4.1999 and resisted the complaint. O.P. pleaded that there was no negligence on his part in treating wife of the complainant. O.P. pleaded that line of treatment adopted was proper and he had given proper advice. He admits that he had informed the patient and the complainant that swelling would subside within short period of time and there was no necessity to adopt aspiration method. He further pleaded that on 28.11.1998 he had called oral surgeon for incision and drainage but complainant did not attend fixed evening appointment and therefore that was not done, so there was default committed by complainant. O.P. pleaded that he and his juniors adopted procedure prescribed in medical books/journals. He therefore justified that he had given proper treatment to the complainant's wife when she was visiting to their hospital.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.