VEENA MISRA,MEMBER - (1.) THIS appeal arises out of the order dated 26.4.2008 by District Forum, Mahasamund in complaint No. 02/06 whereby the complaint was allowed. Both the O.Ps. have preferred appeal against the same order hence both the appeals bearing Nos. 312/08 and 318/08 are being decided by this common order.
(2.) BRIEF facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the complainant approached OP -1 with a complaint of pain in abdomen. She was admitted to his Nursing Home on 9.3.2004 where after necessary examination, she was advised Hysterectomy operation. On 10.3.2004, the operation was done. Subsequent to the operation, the complainant was unable to pass urine. Hence, catheter was applied but still urine did not came out. The complainant repeatedly asked the OP -1 doctor regarding cause of not passing of urine and the doctor in turn assured her that she will be alright. When on 17.3.2004, the stitches were removed, blood instead of urine started passing. Then the OP -1 doctor referred the patient to Dr. Shubha Dubey i.e. OP -2 where Sonography was done and the OP -2 doctor came to the conclusion that the patient required Dialysis as her Kidneys were not functioning properly. Hemodialysis was done on 17.3.2004, 19.3.2004 and 21.3.2004. The patient was also required to deposit Rs. 10,000 initially. On 21.3.2004, OP -2 doctor advised that the patient will have to remain admitted for a period of 1 months. As the relatives of the complainant did not have sufficient fund, they got the patient discharged and took her to Raja Khariyar Mission Hospital and from there on 23.2.2004, the patient was taken to Sector 9 hospital Bhilai where Dr. S. Mandal examined the patient and put a hole at the back of the patient and inserted a tube through which urine could be drained out and the complainant was discharged on 29.3.2004 with advise to come on 15.4.2004. The complainant was again admitted in Sector 9 hospital on 15.4.2004 and remained there till 19.4.2004. X -ray was taken by Dr. Devraj Jain and from the X -ray, it was noticed that while stitching after Hysterectomy Operation at Mahasamund, the OP -1 had blocked the urators also hence the complainant was not able to pass urine. Again she had to undergo an operation on 11.5.2004 to open the urators and thereafter catheter was applied and urine started passing through the catheter. After a week, the catheter was removed and the complainant was able to pass urine normally. Hence, it was alleged that due to wrong and negligent treatment by OP -1, the complainant had to undergo great problems as she was unable to pass urine and subsequently OP -2 -Nephrologist failed to properly assess the problem and provided treatment for the problem which the complainant was not suffering from. Hence, the complaint was filed for a direction for payment of Rs. 2,22,000 towards compensation.
(3.) WHILE resisting the complaint, OP -1 stated in written version that he had conducted the surgery successfully with consent of the complainant. Regarding her problem in passing urine, proper treatment required under the condition was provided. As the complainant as well as her relatives expressed their willingness to consult doctor at Raipur, he advised them to consult Dr. Shubha Dubey who is a Nephrologist and had given referral letter also. There was no deficiency and negligence on his part. Hence it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed. Op -2 resisted the complaint on the ground that there was no deficiency in service on her part. The complainant had approached her on 17.3.2004 with reference letter from Op -1, wherein it was mentioned that on 10.3.2004, the complainant was operated for Hysterectomy, she was alright for 3 days and was passing urine. When the catheter was removed, it was found that she was unable to pass urine. She complained of Nausea, Vomiting and Swelling on her body. Hence, after medical examination it was found that she was suffering from post operation Acute Renal Failure (ARF for short). On blood tests, both her blood urea and serum creatinine were found increased. On sonography, her kidneys were found to be enlarged and echogenicity was also increased. There was no collection of urine in the kidneys. Hence, she came to the conclusion that urine was not being formed and the kidneys were not working. Since, ARF is fatal she decided to conduct Hemodialysis in order to save the life of the patient. The condition of the patient was improved after Hemodialysis. The relatives of the patient were not inclined to continue treatment and on 21.3.2004 they got her discharged. Hence allegations of negligence on her part are totally false and baseless. She prayed that the complaint against her be dismissed.;