HARNEK SINGH Vs. GURMIT SINGH
LAWS(NCD)-2020-6-3
NCDRC
Decided on June 05,2020

HARNEK SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
GURMIT SINGH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

HUNTER V. HANLEY [REFERRED TO]
ROE AND WOOLLEY V. MINISTER OF HEALTH [REFERRED TO]
ACHUTRAO HARIBHAU KHODWA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S. M. Kantikar, Presiding Member - (1.) Both the cross appeals have been filed against the common order dated 24.1.2008 passed by UT Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (for short, 'State Commission') wherein the State Commission allowed the complaint. The complainant, Harnek Singh filed the first appeal No. 108 of 2008 for enhancement of the compensation and other appeal No. 120 of 2008 filed by Dr. Gurmit Singh/OP for dismissal of the complaint.
(2.) The brief facts of the Complaint: The facts are drawn from F.A. No. 108 of 2008 and the parties are referred herein as mentioned in the complaint.On 13.07.2004, Harnek Singh, the complainant and his wife Manjeet Kaur (for short, 'patient') approached one Laparoscopic Surgeon, Dr. Gurmeet Singh/OP-1 at Preet Surgical Centre & Maternity Hospital at Patiala ( for short Preet Hospital- OP-2) for the complaints of abdominal pain. After examination and investigations OP-1 diagnosed it as gall bladder stone. On 28.07.2004 OP-1 performed laparoscopic Cholecystectomy and placed a drain in the abdomen. The complainant alleged that the patient developed progressive abdominal pain and distension; during post-operative period, and then she developed respiratory distress also. The drainage tube was showing large quantities of abnormal fluid; initially it was green and then became greenish brown with some fibrinous material with foul smell. Thus, it was an indication of a mixture of bile & intestinal contents. The complainant further alleged that OP-1 caused injury to the bile duct, but kept on re-assuring them that everything was fine. The complainant came to know through one paramedical staff in the hospital that the patient became serious because of some operative injury to the bile duct and/or intestines. The complainant requested several times to the OP-1 to seek second opinion from another surgeon or refer the patient to other hospital in Patiala having proper facilities. However, OP-1 did not pay heed for it. On 30.7.2004 around 9.00 p.m., suddenly the patient became critical and then OP-1 referred the patient to Dr. Atul Mishra (OP-3) at Department of Surgery, Dayanand Medical College and Hospital/OP-4 (for short, 'DMCH'). The patient reached DMCH at 11.30 p.m., and admitted under OP-3 unit. The doctor on emergency duty Dr. Puneet Gupta after examination suspected it as a case of an operative injury to the bile duct. At 2.30 a.m. on 31.7.2004, CT scan was performed, it revealed moderate intra-abdominal and sub phrenic collection (i.e. collection of fluid below the Diaphragm) and there was significant pneumo-peritoneum (i.e. free air in the abdomen) with collapse and consolidation of lower part of both the lungs. The doctors did not make efforts to confirm the possibility of any operative bile duct injury. Dr. Atul Mishra (OP-3) did not come to see the patient in the night immediately, but he examined the patient on the next day at 9.00 a.m. At DMCH, for the first three days no active treatment was given by OP-3 and also no efforts made to remove the infected bilious and feculent abdominal collection. It further led deterioration of the patient's condition. Thereafter, the patient developed respiratory complications with irreversible septicemia and became critical on 03.08.2004.Then only, OP-3 decided to perform re-exploration for removal of the infected abdominal collections. Subsequently, the patient developed septicemia and died on 11.8.2004. The complainant further alleged that at DMCH the Autopsy [post mortem (PM)] was not done despite requests. PM was denied because according to the OP-3, after re-exploration the cause of death was already confirmed. The DMCH did not hand over complete medical record, but only the short discharge summary of about 12 lines was issued by OPs-3 & 4.
(3.) Xxx XXX XXX;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.