DHANWATI KUMAR Vs. S K JHUNJHUNWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complaint under Sec.12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 filed by Smt. Dhanwati Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) against Dr. S. K. Jhunjhunwala and the Life Line Diagnostic Centre (to be referred to as the O. Ps.) claiming an award for a total sum of Rs.15 lakhs on various counts as detailed in paragraph 43 of the complaint. Her case is as follows.

(2.) The petitioner is an educated housewife since June, 1996. She had been suffering from severe pain in her abdomen and having found the treatment given by some local doctors of no use approached one Dr. Lakshmi Basu who after getting several tests as done and seeing all such reports opined that the petitioner had two small stones in her Gall Bladder and she (Dr. Lakshmi Basu) advised to consult a specialist for removal of the said stones. Dr. Basu also advised operation by laparoscopic process which would remove the stones more easily.

(3.) The petitioner then contacted the O. P.1, Dr. Jhunjhunwala, who was an experienced and reputed surgeon having various degrees from abroad and was attached to a number of reputed Hospitals and Nursing Homes including Life Line Nursing Home. The O. P.1 after examining the petitioner and going through all the reports advised her to contact the Life Line Nursing Home, that is, the O. P.2. Accordingly she did so and that Nursing Home fixed 8.8.1996 as the date for holding the operation of her Gall Bladder. On that date at about 2 p. m. she was taken to the operation theatre in that Nursing Home, while her husband, parents, children, relatives etc. were anxiously waiting outside. But some time after, the O. P.1 came out of the operation theatre and to the utter surprise of everybody there told that he had failed to remove the stones from the Gall Bladder by conducting laparoscopic process and removed the Gall Bladder itself by restorting to the conventional open surgery method. Thus the O. P.1 violated all the rules and norms of medical jurisprudence by removing such a vital organ of the human body by opening the abdomen without taking consent either from the petitioner or from her husband or from the parents present there and was thus guilty of illegal act and gross negligence in duty. Secondly, the O. P.1 at the request of the relatives of the petitioner showed the operated and chopped off Gall Bladder to them who to their surprise and astonishment found no trace of any stone in the said Gall Bladder nor any stone alleged to be removed by the O. P.1 was shown to them. Thus, though the Gall Bladder was removed, the stones were not. After the operation there were eighteen stitches on her abdomen of which the upper four stitches are still in bad form having not healed up even after using all medicines. Normally in case of an open surgery like this 5/6 stitches are required and such a large number of stitches itself shows that the O. Ps. were careless. Thereafter in February, 1997 the petitioner had an attack of Jaundice, when she again went to the O. P.1 who after examining her took the matter very casually and after seeing the ultrasonography report opined that there was some infection and there was nothing to worry and referred her to Dr. Mahesh Goenka, but in spite of her repeated requests he did not divulge the reason of the said illness. But the petitioner went on experiencing various problems relating to her stomach and she consulted Dr. S. Banerjee who after examining her and perusing all the reports advised her to get fresh ultrasonographic report from Salt Lake Ultrasound Scan Centre on the ground that the reports of Bishuddhananda Hospital were not up to the mark. Then the petitioner went to the centre as advised by Dr. Banerjee and underwent another test of ultrasonography and with that fresh report she contacted Dr. Banerjee again who after studying the same told that there was a stone of 8mm. in diameter in ampula and according to Dr. Banerjee that stone was nothing but the stone that was originally formed inside the Gall Bladder and the stone had slipped away to the bile duct at the time of operation. After knowing this the petitioner again contacted the O. P.1 and requested him to clarify the position. But the O. P.1 this time also took the matter lightly and told the petitioner that there was nothing to worry, but failed to give any satisfactory reply for the presence of the said stones in the bile duct even after the operation and the removal of the Gall Bladder. After this the petitioner decided to undergo further medical treatment at her home town at Delhi and accordingly on 4.6.1997 she was admitted at Sri Gangaram Hospital in Delhi where ERCP was done and multiple stones in the bile duct were detected and according to the Doctors the trouble which the petitioner was feeling in her abdomen was due to the existence of these stones. Thereafter she had to undergo another operation at that Hospital and those stones were removed and thereafter she was completely cured.