1. The facts in brief are that, Dr. Ravinder Sood ( OP) performed hysterectomy operation of Smt. Bala Devi, the complainant/ patient on 2.11.2001. Thereafter, she started some urinary problems, the OP on 4.11.2001 referred her to Rajindera Hospital, Patiala, who further referred her to PGI Chandigarh. The patient remained in PGI from 23.2.2002 to 2.5.2002 under treatment of Dr. S. K. Singh, Urologist, who noticed that there was a cut in the ureters of the complainant due to previous hysterectomy operation. Hence, complainant alleged that there was damage to both of her kidneys due to deficiency in service and negligence of OP. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, Kaithal on 14.8.2002 and claimed total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.
2. The District Forum, Kaithal allowed the complaint on 10.3.2006 and directed the OP to pay a sum of Rs.80,000/- as a compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony including costs.
3. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, OP preferred first appeal No. 951 of 2006 before the State Commission, Haryana. Appeal was dismissed on 14.09.2009.
4. Aggrieved by the impugned order of State Commission, the OP filed this revision petition.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. There was delay of 11 days in filing this revision. The petitioner did not file application for condonation of delay. In the interest of justice we condone the short delay without imposing any cost.
6. The learned counsel for the OP vehemently argued that consumer fora lacks jurisdiction because of non-joinder of parties as apart from OP, few other doctors treated the patient. Secondly, after operation patient developed some complications, therefore, she was immediately referred to the higher centre without any delay. OP acted correctly, there was no negligence. Therefore, complainant''s allegation was false that, she suffered loss of both kidneys due to negligence during operation. The counsel further submitted that, the operation was conducted by the team of doctors, after the operation, patient was in comfortable condition without any urinary problems. The patient developed urinary problems after few days.
7. The counsel for the complainant argued that immediately after operation on hysterectomy, the patient developed urinary problems. Therefore, she was referred to Patiala and since the condition of patient was serious, Rajendra Hospital, Patiala further referred the patient to PGI, Chandigarh. Learned counsel has brought our attention towards the discharge follow up card issued by PGI Chandigarh to show that the diagnosis was post hysterectomy with bilateral kidney injury. Therefore, relying upon this document, it is clear that the OP was negligent and careless by removing uterus, which caused injury to the both ureters. The counsel for OP relied upon various authorities of Hon''ble Supreme Court like; Martin F. D''Souza Versus Mohd. Ishfaq 2009(2) RCR (Criminal 65 (SC); C. P. Sreekumar (Dr.) Vs. S. Ramanujam, 2009 (ii) CPJ 48; Shikha Nayak vs. Dr. Manabesh Pramanick 2007(i) CPJ 95; Dr. Ganesh Prasad and another vs. Lal Janamajay Nath Shadheo 2006(i) CPJ 117; Kamla Pattni & Ors. Vs. Apollo Nursing Home & Ors . 2005 (iv) CPJ 41 and Umed Singh Barwal Vs. Sripal 2005 (iv) CPJ 377 (Haryana). In our view these authorities are not applicable in this case as , the facts are different. The medical record, the Discharge and Follow-up card issued by P.G.I. Chandigarh speak volumes about the negligence committed by OP. Thus, the complainant suffered ureteric injury after hysterectomy performed by OP. The OP failed to diagnose it postoperatively, but the patient was referred to one to another hospital, and finally it was detected by Dr. S. K. Singh, Urologist, at P.G.I., Chandigarh.
8. After thoughtful consideration, we are of view that, non-joinder of parties has no relevance in this complaint. We have perused the medical record, which revealed that the patient had 1 st degree prolapse of uterus with cervicitis. The operative notes dated 2.11.2000 mentioned by OP during hysterectomy there were massive adhesions around uterus.
9. It is also pertinent to note that the post operative findings show that there was decreased in urinary output from 3.11.2000, the BIood Urea was 68 mg. Further on 4.11.2000 at page 59, clinical notes run as under:
"Patient had some acduer FORC
Urine output 7 pm to 7 am less than 50 ml
USG Done - Shows grade I hydronephrosis suffered and
Dr. Bansal Seen Case at 11 AM given injection Lasix 12 amp but urine output not
improved.
Repeated BI Urea 68 mg.
Team of doctors labeled it as post operative oliguria
? Ureteric obst.
At 2 PM - vital signs maintained but urine output same, edema persist decided to
refer case to PGI/PIA for ureta to uroloegy department. Patient shifted at 4 pm.
Xxxxxxx
Sign."
10. On perusal of medical record, PGI Chandigarh, it is apparent that the patient was admitted on
23.3.2002 with diagnosis of post hysterectomy bilateral ureteric injury.
Operative Findings at PGI are as following:
3 cm long stricture at lower 3 of rd
(L) ureter i. complete blockade
(L) Ureteroneocystostomy + DJS on 19/4/02 by
Dr. S. K. Singh/ Dr. Sah/Dr. PW"
There was no hydronephrosis
11. We are unable to locate any medical record between 4.11.2001 to 23.02.2002 i.e after
discharge from OP hospital till the admission in PGI Chandigarh. But, as per the findings in para
8 and 9 , it clearly establishes that the patient suffered injury to the ureter and developed further
complications after hysterectomy operation. There was progressive decrease in urine output,
increasing urea level clearly conclusive of any obstructive uropathy due to negligence during
operation. We consider the principle of Res Ipsa Loquitor is applicable in this case.
12. We confirm the order and view taken by both the fora below. The patient suffered after hysterectomy, thereafter in PGI took prolonged treatment for obstructive uropathy, underwent several investigations and surgical interventions, from 23.2.2002 to 8.6.2002. Thereafter, she was advised for regular follow up at Urology OPD.
13. On the basis of forgoing discussion, there is no merit in this revision petition, the petitioner/OP unnecessarily dragged the matter, hence we dismiss this revision petition with costs of Rs.25000/- . The OP is directed to comply with this order within 90 days otherwise it will carry interest @9% p.a. till its realization.
