- (1.) COMPLAINANT No. 1 is a renowned consumer organisation, who has proposed the cause of aggrieved complainant Nos. 2 and 3 in this complaint. Anjanaben, since deceased happened to be complainant No. 2 s wife and complainant No. 3 s mother. She will also be referred to as the patient herein. Brief allegations of facts as contained in the complaint might be stated.
(2.) AS the 1st son was born in Modi Hospital under the care of first opponent, she was taken up for pregnancy checkup to 1st opponent on 7.2.1996. Opponent No. 3 Dr. M.I. Patel carried out sonography on 8.2.96 under the instructions from opponent No. 1. The blood and urine tests were performed at Santram Laboratory at Nadiad on 16.2.96. Opponent No. 1 diagnosed from the reports that the patient had pregnancy of 8 weeks. The sonography report, however, revealed two possibilities. 1st opponent suggested that if the foetus was to be saved, removal of cyst would be necessary by undertaking surgical process within 15 days as the foetus might be affected and the patient s life might be endangered. Accordingly, operation was to be performed on 22.2.96. It has been alleged that opponent No. 1 opined that no blood would be required. It has also been alleged that since the patient never complained of symptoms related with such a huge cyst, opponent ought to have gone for further extensive abdominal sonography and in not doing so opponent No. 1 displayed lack of professional duty and responsibility.
(3.) AT around 6.30 a.m. on 22.2.96 Anjanaben was taken up for surgery to remove cyst. Complainant No. 1 s consent was obtained for the operation. After around half an hour (around 7 a.m.) the 1st opponent came out and informed that it was necessary to call a senior surgeon. Complainant No. 2, though insisted, was not allowed to see his wife. Even the relatives present were not allowed to see the patient Anjanaben. Dr. Jitendra Patel, Senior surgeon -opponent No. 2 reached there at the first opponent s request and joined in operation. At around 7.45 a.m. 1st opponent informed the complainant that upper portion of the mesenteric cyst was operated but lower portion would be removed later on account of very big size of the cyst. Complainant No. 2 was permitted to remain present in the operation theatre but having gone there, he could not bear the sight of his wife lying unconscious. He, therefore, came out of the operation theatre. At about 9 a.m. 1st opponent came out and showed the cyst saying that the patient s condition was normal. She was shifted to the ward at around 9.15 a.m. At about 10.30 a.m. she regained consciousness and started complaining of severe pain in abdomen. She was not able to pass urine. After being called, first opponent attended the patient at around 3 p.m. Injection Lasix was given to the patient. Further amount of Rs. 5,000 was paid for 2nd opponent Dr. Jitendra Patel but no receipt was given. The patient did not pass urine till 5 p.m. despite Lasix injection. Pain in her abdomen continued. At about 5.30 p.m. one injection was given but of no effect even till next day i.e. 23.2.96. So, blood test was carried out at Alpa Laboratory, Petlad. The report showed 65 blood urea, 191 random blood sugar and 3.8 creatinine which were above normal. Because of the rapidly deteriorating condition of the patient, she was removed to Muljibhai Patel Urological hospital, Nadiad, under the advice of 1st opponent at about 1.30 p.m. on 23.2.1996. All the three opponents accompanied the patient and her relatives to Nadiad in their respective vehicles and got the patient admitted in Muljibhai Patel Urological hospital where she was put under the care of Dr. Rajapurkar, Medical Director of the hospital. He immediately advised for sonography report of 24.2.96 which would show that left renal fossa was empty which was the area operated upon by first two opponents. The foetus was shown alive and of 9 weeks. Dr. Rajapurkar, therefore, pointed out that due to negligence of the opponents the only functional kidney was removed by the operating doctors. The mesenteric cyst which was removed was also brought for examination and its report dated 26.2.96 revealed some diagnosis showing that the segment of ureter was also clearly seen attached with the so -called cyst. The result was that Anjanaben s survival was possible by either dialysis or kidney transplantation for which a long drawn trouble and expenditure was undergone by complainant No. 2. Detailed particulars have been given in the complaint. After carrying out dialysis for some time, Dr. Rajapurkar suggested for kidney transplantation which was done with the donation of Anjanaben s father Vinodbhai s kidney on 26.4.96. The patient passed urine for the first time after admission in the hospital on 23.2.96. Upon her discharge from hospital, the discharge card showed management of End Stage Renal Failure due to Nephectomy of left functional kidney. The right kidney is small ectogenic with dilated PCS and thinned out cortex.;