- (1.) THE complainant has filed this complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties for getting a sum of Rs. 17,20,981, towards damages for losses suffered due to medical negligence, costs of proceedings.
(2.) IN brief the facts as narrated in the complaint are as under: (i) The complainant suffered pain in right side of her abdomen and contacted opposite party No. 1 on 26.7.1999. After conducting clinical exami -nation, opposite party No. 1 advised x -ray and ultra sound sonography. After seeing the reports the opposite party doctor diagnosed that the complainant was suffering from pyelonephritis and advised Lithotripsy. (ii) The opposite party conducted Lithotripsy on 27.7.1999 and advised the complainant to consult again on 15.8.1999. However, the complainant felt no relief and continued to have pain. When the complainant again contacted the doctor as advised, the opposite party doctor told her that the stone was of quite big size and can be crushed in parts. He further told that it would require repeated Lithotripsy twice or thrice. The complainant had undergone Lithotripsy opera -tion four times but to no avail. (iii) After repeated unsuccessful Lithotripsies, the doctor suggested that as the stone is too big it would require regular surgery. Subsequently opera -tion was undertaken on 10.11.1999. It is averred in the complaint that while operating, the doctor acted negligently resulting in profuse bleeding. Then the doctor called complainant s husband and informed him that in order to save her life it was necessary to remove complainant s right kidney. (iv) Complainant s husband had no option. The opposite party removed right kidney of the complainant, thereby causing loss of natural organ and the same cannot be compensated in money. (v) On 19.11.1999 the opposite party discharged the complainant saying that there is nothing to worry about as one can conveniently live with one kidney also. (vi) The complainant claimed Rs. 15,00,000 for the loss caused due to removal of kidney due to negligence of the opposite party No. 1; Rs. 1,00,000 for physical pain and suffering; Rs. 1,00,000 for mental shock and harassment and also a sum of Rs. 20,981 towards the amount spent by the complainant in connection with the operation. (vii) The complainant has filed her own affidavit and various documents as per list, in support of her complaint.
(3.) IT is noticed that the complainant had initially filed the complaint against four doctors but subsequently by way of amendment deleted the name of the radiologist and pathologists who were arrayed as opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 and incorporated Oriental Insurance Co. as opposite party No. 2. So, presently there are only two opposite parties in the complaint. The opposite party No. 1 doctor resisted the complaint and averred in the written version as under: (i) The opposite party No. 1 admitted that the complainant had contacted him with the complaint of abdominal pain and after making clinical examination that due to stone reports of X -ray and ultra sound sonography he had concluded that the complainant was suffering from renal stone. He further admitted that he had advised Lithotripsy but submitted that it was a non -invasive process. (ii) The opposite party admitted that Lithotripsy was performed on 27.7.1999 and repeated on 24.8.1999 and 15.9.1999. It was explained to the complainant that due to stone being hard and large, Lithotripsy will not give proper results and in such cases surgery is the only alternative. Hence the complainant was advised to undergo surgery that is known as Nephrolithotomy. (iii) It is averred in the written version that during Nephrolithotomy there was severe haemorrhage and the same could not be controlled by any effective measures and in order to save the life of the complainant, nephrectomy was performed. It is specifically averred that haemorrhage during Nephrolithotomy is a known complication and nephrectomy is the best treatment available in the circumstances. It is also averred that a person may lead normal life even after nephrectomy. (iv) In further averred that before discharge urine output was duly counted and the same was found to be more that 2000 ml in 24 hours is normal. The complaint has been filed only to harass the opposite party. (v) It is averred in additional pleadings that since complainant was from medical fraternity operation charges were exempted. (vi) It is also averred that the opposite party had obtained professional indemnity policy from Oriental Insurance Co., Bilaspur. (vii) The opposite party No. 1 prayed for dismissal of complaint under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act. He has filed his own affidavit in support of the written version.;