1. THIS appeal is filed by Mr. Abdul Mazeed Khan, the original complainant, who is appellant herein, against the respondents: the Director, Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences, Panjagutta, Hyderabad, respondent No. 1; Dr. B.P. Sahu, Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences, Panjagutta, Hyderabad, respondent No. 2 and Dr. A.K. Purohit, Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences, Panjagutta, Hyderabad, respondent No. 3; being aggrieved by the order dated 21.9.2001 of Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissing his complaint, alleging medical negligence on the part of the respondents, in Complaint No. 110 of 1996 wherein he claimed a compensation of Rs. 6,00,000 towards mental pain and agony along with an interest of 18% p.a. and refund of Rs. 33,000 incurred by him towards medical expenses.
2. THIS Commission appointed Mr. K.G. Kochar, Advocate as Amicus Curiae by its order dated18.3.2002 to assist the Commission.
3. BRIEF facts of the case are:
Shri Abdul Majeed Khan, complainant, aged 54 years, had a complaint of sensory loss and numbness in his left arm and left side of chest. He consulted Dr. Ram Taraknath, Neurologist, in Government General Hospital, Guntur who advised him to go to Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred as NIMS'') for better treatment. He was admitted in NIMS on 21.7.1995 and Prof. Mohan Das, Professor of Neurology, advised him to take an MRI. It is alleged by the complainant that Dr. Mohan Das demanded Rs. 7,500 for giving the MRI report and reduced it to Rs. 4,500 acceding to his request. On seeing the MRI report, he was advised by Prof. Mohan Das that he needs to undergo an operation and that there is no alternative to cure his ailment. Thereafter, the complainant got himself admitted in the NIMS on 4.9.1995. Submissions of the Appellant
4. LEARNED Counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant was told that after the surgery the complainant would regain the sensation by 70% and with luck he could gain the remaining 30% and that is how, he was encouraged to undergo this surgery. Three days after the surgery, which was performed on 9.9.1995, he found certain complications like urgency of micturition, constipation, perianal numbness and loss of erection and he informed the same to Dr. B.P. Sahu and Dr. A.K. Purohit, opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. The doctors tested the testicles by pinching with a needle but there was no reaction. On fourth day, after the surgery, his right leg got completely paralysed for which three injections worth Rs. 800 were prescribed. Still, the doctors were assuring him 70% cure of his ailment and that he would slowly recover. The complainant was discharged on 19.9.2005 from the hospital with paralysed right leg. Subsequently, his left leg also got paralysed upto the waist despite of taking the medicines prescribed by the doctors meticulously. He once again rushed to opposite parties for a check up on 11.10.1995 and during the treatment, this time, the numbness spread to his stomach and back and he started swaying while walking. He explained to the opposite parties that prior to his second admission in the NIMS he could walk with a stick and that his condition is deteriorating. A second MRI was taken at Medwin. Although he followed all the instructions of the doctors, still he lost total control of his lower limbs and would pass urine, etc., involuntarily. He was discharged on 26.10.1995. Thereafter, he visited NIMS on 18.12.1995 and was prescribed some medicines.
5. IT is stated by the learned Counsel for the complainant that the operation was a failure but the opposite parties assured him that they would compensate him for their negligence and asked him to file an application for a job for his unemployed son. Thereafter, complainant wrote a letter to the Director, NIMS (on page 58, volume IV), whereby; the bio -data of his son was given requesting the hospital administration to give him a job. It is contended by the complainant that though he was promised to be compensated by giving a job to his son, the opposite parties did not accede to the promise. Thereafter, another document has been referred to where noting on page 57 in volume IV has been shown to us wherein a reference has been made by an unknown person to Shri T. Rajendra which is given here as under:
"Kindly refer to our telephone conversation of date. Please appoint Shri Mansur L. Khan as semi skilled worker (Record Asstt/Clerk) as desired by Director."
6. THE learned Counsel for the complainant referred to the counter affidavit, filed in the State Commission, by Shri R. Dharamrajan, Executive Registrar, Incharge, NIMS, on behalf of the opposite parties in which, in paragraph 13, it is reflected as given hereunder:
"When the complainant was brought to the institute, it was diagnosed to have been suffering from cervic dorsal syringomyolia and the patient -complainant was also identified to be a diabetic patient. It was expected that the disease might remain static for considerable time or it might have sudden deterioration."
7. HE further referred to the medical record of the hospital (Volume VI, page 19 to page 25), wherein, it is clearly recorded that "Not a known DM (diabetes mellitus)" and the same is reflected on the discharge record at page 25 "No history of DM (diabetes mellitus)".
8. THE complainant contended that Shri R. Dharamrajan has given wrong information in the counter affidavit just to suit their pleadings whereas recordings in the discharge document placed above clearly mention that the complainant was not diabetic. This mis -statement itself is negligence on the part of the respondents.
9. LEARNED Counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant was of 54 years age and had more years of service with chances of promotion from the post of Head Constable to higher posts which were lost due to the negligence of the opposite parties in performing the operation. Further he could not seek for retirement also, on medical invalidation, because he had a son who is unemployed and requires his support. Hence, he continued to be in service, although he was incapacitated to work in normal manner.
10. AGGRIEVED by the conduct of the opposite parties that despite their assurance of 70% reduction in the disease not only the operation failed due to their negligence but also they did not fulfil the assurance of giving a job to his son and since there is no hope of his recovery, complainant filed a complaint in the State Commission claiming Rs. 33,000 incurred by him towards medical expenses and Rs. 6,00,000 towards compensation along with an interest of 18% from the date of admission in the hospital.
11. THIS Commission obtained an independent report from the AIIMS the contents of which are given here as under:
"The operation notes for the procedure performed on the patient at NIMS, original case file of the complainant, evidence/report of the complete radiological work -up of the patient and original consent form signed by the patient/attendant However, based upon the available medical report and the paper book, the Medical Board is of the opinion that the patient, Mr. Abdul Mazeed Khan, has been managed adequately at NIMS, Hyderabad."
12. THE learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that the above report does not inspire confidence because the Board did not have certain documents, to base their opinion, placed before them and hence it cannot be relied upon. Submissions of the Respondents
13. LEARNED Counsel for the opposite parties submitted that on seeing the MRI report the complainant was rightly advised surgery without which the disease, the complainant is suffering from, i.e. cervic dorsal syringomyolia will not be cured. On the other hand, the disease would spread to his entire body in few years. It is argued that the contention raised by the complainant that they were not given the MRI report and that Dr. B.P. Sahu, opposite party No. 2, who performed the surgery, did not have sufficient professional experience or competence to perform the same are not based on any evidence and just hearsay statements.
14. THE complainant initially referred the claim before the District Forum with a claim of Rs. 33,000 and later approached the State Commission by increasing it to Rs. 6,00,000 with a mala fide intention of extracting money from the respondents.
15. THE complainant made false representation against doctors that they have promised him 100% cure, which is not borne by the record and there is no evidence. A disease of this nature sometimes remains static for a considerable time or there is likelihood of sudden deterioration in the patient''s condition. The opposite parties, doctors, also explained to the complainant that the disease caused cavities in the spinal cord with accumulation of the watery substances due to which the spinal cord expands. By doing this surgery it would reduce the pressure by releasing the watery substances that gets accumulated in the spinal cord. By this surgery, doctors tried to see that progression of the disease is controlled and the same was explained to him and to his son very clearly, along with not only the implications but also the complications involved in the surgery. Required consent form of the surgery was signed by the son of the complainant. The procedure called laminectomy was performed with due care and absolute diligence by the doctors and at the time of the operation no gross enlargement of the spinal cord was noticed.
16. AS for the competence of the doctors who performed the surgery, opposite party No. 2, Dr. B. P. Sahu, is working as Professor in the Department of Neurosurgery in NIMS and has worked as Registrar in the Department of Neurosurgery in Christian Medical College and Hospital, Vellore and Brown Memorial Hospital, Ludhiana. He joined NIMS in 1989 and obtained a super specialization degree in the neurosurgery in the year 1995 and worked as Senior Resident in neurosurgery in NIMS before becoming Assistant Professor in Neurology in NIMS. He had 9 years experience in neurosurgery before he performed the operation on the complainant. It is further stated that the incident of Syringonyelia is 0.39 to 1.6% as per the medical text and that there is no deficiency in service in the surgery or in the competence of the doctor to perform the same.
17. AS far as the job that has been allegedly promised to the son of the complainant, the document that the complainant has relied upon is placed on page 57 of volume IV, wherein, the letter which has been sent by Dr. I. Dinakar to the complainant mentions that -
"as regards to a request for job of your son please send a bio -data."
18. ON the same page, a hand written noting is there by an unknown signatory referred to Sri T. Rajendran and it is submitted that this Mr. T. Rajendran is only a labour contractor and complainant was perhaps trying to get some recommendation through the contractor for the job. Opposite parties categorically denied this allegation of the complainant. They had considered providing an appointment on the compassionate ground to the son of the complainant and denied the same later on. The complainant offered to send bio -data of his son for a job, which was taken for consideration but was not promised. Further this has nothing to do with the case of the medical negligence to which the complaint relates. It is further submitted that the complainant, in fact, was not suffering as described by him and that his condition after the surgery improved considerably. In this scenario, the police department also did not permit him to retire on medical grounds such as medical invalidation because the complainant is able to perform his duties to their satisfaction. The complainant has resorted to blackmailing and using unfair tactics to get a job for his son in an undue manner. It is also stated that he has written letters threatening the doctors with dire consequences.
19. WE perused the record, affidavits with cross -examinations, medical record, order of the State Commission, medical literature, affidavits and depositions of the parties and heard the arguments. In our considered view, we find that there is no medical negligence/deficiency in service on behalf of the opposite parties. Firstly, the Medical Board consisting of neurosurgeon specialists was constituted by the Medical Superintendent, AIIMS in pursuance of our directions. In its report dated 26.7.2007, the Board has given the findings that the complainant was managed adequately at NIMS and that there is no contrary opinion to support the averments made in the complaint. Secondly, in the letter written by the complainant to the Director, NIMS, he mentioned that he was able to raise the leg and walk with a stick. To the contrary, on the internal page 5 of the letter, he has projected himself as incapacitated and that he is unable to walk. The very fact that he still continues his job disproves his contention that he is unable to walk. These are self -contradictory statements made by the complainant. On internal page No. 52, the complainant himself has written:
"A very good operation was done. I request the Director to go through my application sympathetically and provide a clerk''s post to my younger son Mansoor Khan who is an unemployed, studies B.Sc. Degree. I pray to help me in providing a clerical post as a compensation for the injustice caused to me, to my son and, I anticipate the kind orders on my application. If I file case at Guntur and you have go round the Court at Guntur, and without that, my application to provide job to my son may be considered, by not treating this as a threat, and you may be pleased to appoint my son to a clerical post in your hospital, and I pray for your honours kind consideration in the matter."
20. THIS clearly shows that being a head constable he is fully aware as to how he could actually threaten the hospital in various ways especially when he admits on one side that a very good operation was done and on the same note he mentions that great injustice has been caused to him. This clearly shows that the complainant himself has no case to prove medical negligence as the operation was conducted according to the correct medical procedures and we cannot hold the doctors liable for the unfair tactics as alleged by the complainant. The complainant himself during the cross -examination mentioned that he was asked to pay Rs. 2,000 for injections by Dr. A.K Purohit for performing the MRI but when he pleaded inability no money was collected from him, even though the test was performed. He further admitted that during his stay at the NIMS, the doctors and the staff used to regularly attend on him and that he has no complaint against them for the treatment given to him because they did not neglect him. He further mentioned that MRI was also performed at Medwin at the instance of NIMS and the cost was not collected from him. All these documents and his own admission show that he is not in a bed -ridden condition and the operation was done to the best of the abilities of the doctors who are very qualified and showed their commitment to treat the complainant. The doctors have gone out of their way to help the complainant in every possible manner even financially and in the medical treatment.
21. IN view of the above discussion, we are of the view that there is no deficiency on part of the opposite parties in treatment, surgery or post -operative care. The attitude of the complainant to use threatening tactics against the doctors and the hospital to force them to provide employment to his son should be admonished and although we feel the appeal deserves to be dismissed with cost and fine, we have restrained ourselves from doing the same, considering his age and general health condition. The First Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.
