- (1.) THIS is an appeal against the order dated 1.12.2004 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar whereby the complaint of the complainant for compensation on the ground of medical negligence of the opposite parties in doing the operation of the father of the complainant was dismissed.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed the complaint with the allegations on 17.8.2002 that his father Sh. Jawahar Lal Hastir aged about 65 years was suffering with stone in the gall bladder. He consulted Dr. Ajay Aggarwal, opposite party No. 2 of Shubham Surgical Center and Nursing Home, opposite party No. 1 on 19.8.2000. It is said that there was examination on the said date. On examination it was revealed that the sugar and blood pressure is on the higher side. On 23.8.2000 Sh. Jawahar Lal Hastir was admitted in the nursing home and he was operated upon by Dr. Ajay Aggarwal, opposite party No. 2. At that time opposite party No. 3, Dr. Anil Dixit and opposite party No. 4, Dr. Atul Joshi were also present. It is to be remembered that no negligence has been alleged against opposite party Nos. 3 and 4, nor any relief has been claimed in the relief clause against them. The entire allegation is against opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. It is further pleaded in the complaint that Dr. Ajay Aggarwal told that there is nothing dangerous. It is alleged that on 23.8.2000 the victim was taken in the operation theatre at 8.00 a.m. At 9.45 a.m. one compounder came out, took the scooter of the complainant and went to take some medicines from the market. On return the compounder informed that the victim is being stitched upon and in 15 -20 minutes he shall come out. At 10.10 a.m. Sh. Jawahar Lal Hastir came out on stature. He was feeling extreme pain. The compounder went to take extension board for fitting the monitor but extension board was not available, therefore, the compounder kept on standing with the monitor, which could not be properly cured. It is alleged that the complainant deposited the fee for operation. In para 8 of the complaint it is alleged that the father of the complainant was restless. He was asking for water. Even section pipe was taken out. Oxygen was called for. Several doctors were called but the patient died at 11.00 a.m. It is said that the operation was done negligently. Sh. Jawahar Lal Hastir was a heart patient. No heart operators were kept, nor any heart specialist was called for. It is alleged in para 10 of the complaint that some nerve has been cut down by the negligence of the doctor or he has committed some great mistake. It is further pleaded that Sh. Jawahar Lal Hastir died out of negligence of the doctors. The complainant claimed a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/ - as compensation.
(3.) THE opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 filed their joint written statement and alleged that the criminal proceeding has been started against the opposite parties under Section 304, I.P.C., in which it shall be decided whether the respondents have been negligent or not. In this case complicated question of law and facts are involved, therefore, this complaint shall not lie. It was further said that this is not a consumer dispute. No consideration has been taken by the opposite parties from the complainant. It is further pleaded that the nursing home is insured. It is again pleaded that no negligence has been committed by the opposite parties. All precautions have been taken in the operation. There was no negligence on their behalf. The allegations are false and baseless. The respondents were duly qualified to meet with any situation and handled the patient in the best possible way. ECG, blood sugar fasting and PP, Hb, TLC, DLC, blood urea, BT CT and other investigations were advised, the reports of which came out to be within normal limits. It is further alleged that 100% oxygen was given. Vitals and other parameters were found within normal limits. All of a sudden the patient developed dyspnoea. All the doctors rushed but the victim could not be saved. Respondents were available with the patient throughout. Autopsy was advised but the attendants did not co -operate. To the contrary the original medical records were snatched away from the custody of the respondents. We should not discuss the written statement of the other two respondents against whom no allegations have been made, nor anything has been claimed against them.;