"It is the Surgeon and not a Patient, who decides the urgency of any surgery". Adv. ROHiT ERANDE ©

"It is the Surgeon and not a Patient, who decides the urgency of any surgery". 

Adv. ROHiT ERANDE ©

 Before : Hon.  NCDRC, REVISION PETITION NO. 553 OF 2022

 (Against the Order dated 18/02/2022 in Appeal No. 112/2012 of the State Commission Rajasthan)

DEEP SINGH V/s. SHUBHAM HOSPITAL & 2 ORS.

BEFORE : HON'BLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,PRESIDING MEMBER

Judgment Link :

http://cms.nic.in/ncdrcusersWeb/GetJudgement.do?method=GetJudgement&caseidin=0%2F0%2FRP%2F553%2F2022&dtofhearing=2022-12-19

Short Facts :

1.    The issue involved in the instant case that the burst appendicitis was due to delay to perform the  operation. 

2.  The Complainant contended that on 02.09.2003, he suffered acute abdominal pain and admitted in Shubham Hospital (Opponent no.1) at  8 am. The  physician Dr. Ajit Kothari (Opponent-2) examined him and   referred the Complainant  to a Surgeon (Opponent -3) who advised surgery and as asked  Complainant deposit Rs.9000/- on the same day. 

3. The grouse of Complainant was the OP-3 should have operated immediately on 2.9.2003 itself but surgery was  delayed without any reason.  It was performed on 3.9.2003 night, for the burst appendicitis.  Thus it was deficiency and negligence of hospital and the treating doctors and hence he filed the compliant

4. The Original compliant was dismissed by the Jodhpur District Forum and the Appeal preferred by the Complainant before the State Commission was also dismissed. Therefore, the Complainant filed the instant Revision Petition.

   Held 

    1. The NCDRC observed that after careful perusal of  the material on record interalia  Order of District Forum, it is evident that  on the same day (2.9.2003) USG of abdomen and pelvis was  reported to be normal, further  it was advised  to rule out GI (gastro-intestinal) Pathology. The blood tests reports showed  Total leucocyte Count (TLC ) 9800/cmm; it was  not very high and not diagnostic of  acute appendicitis and need for emergency surgical intervention.  Therefore, the patient was treated conservatively for one day and operated on next day. It was the standard of surgical practice in the cases of abdominal pain which  the OP-2 and 3 followed in the instant case.   

2.       It is held that it is evident from record that on 02.09.2003 the physician Dr. Ajit Kothari and  Dr. S.P. Mathur have examined the complainant. Surgery was advised  but  due to personal reasons, the complainant himself  decided   to wait. The patient was operated on next date, it was  successful and the Complainant was discharged from the hospital on 18.09.2003 in normal condition. He was taking normal diet.

3.       The Commission further observed that as per discharge summery (Exhibit-6)  a small wound was mentioned  on the skin of his abdomen, therefore  regular dressing was advised, but  the Complainant did not do it regularly. The wound got aggravated, therefore, on 5.11.2003 secondary Suturing was done and the wound completely healed. It is held that it was not due to any negligence during previous surgery.

4.      The NCDRC also relied upon the  the opinion of  Board of 3 experts  from Medical College, Jodhpur which opened that there was no negligence from the treating doctors. The board also opined that the symptoms may be attributed to post-operative adhesions, which is a routine sequel of such operation and  does not require any specific treatment. 

5. While refusing to exercise the Revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission which is extremely limited, the commission dismissed the Revision and relied on  the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd.[2011 11 SCC 269] and the recent decision in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.[Civil Appeal No. 432 / 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022] wherein it has been observed as under:-

“9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its Revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required.”

thanks and regards,

Adv. ROHiT ERANDE ©