JUDGMENT
D.P. Wadhwa, (President)
1. This petition is by the complainant. Alleging medical negligence by the
respondent-doctor, complainant-petitioner filed a complaint in the District Forum. It was
held that there was no medical negligence. Petitioner went in appeal to the State
Commission which also held that there was no medical negligence and dismissed the
appeal. It was thus concurrently held that it was not a case of medical negligence on the
part of the respondent-doctor for which complainant was to be compensated.
2. Complainant petitioner had huge incisional hernia. She was operated by
the respondent on 30.8.1996. Petitioner contended that a cut of 10″ was made on her
belly and after surgery the cut was stitched. These stitched were removed after 10/12
days of the surgery. However, two sides of the cuts did not job and the belly remained
in two halves after removal of the stitches. Respondents had done mesh plastery and
mesh remained protruding from the inner portion of the belly which was clearly visible.
It was then contended that fixing of mesh caused infection which resulted the petitioner
having fever. Respondent found he was not in a position to treat the petitioner and
advised that the could be taken for treatment to another doctor in Chandigarh. Husband
of the petitioner, however, took her to New Delhi for treatment. Respondent had denied
all these allegations. He contended that he removed the stitches on 8th day of the
operation. He pleaded that the petitioner had a seroma which was a known occurrence
when a foreign body is implanted in the body tissues. He said that a portion of the wound
was opened up to drain it after the suction drain got pulled out. It is not disputed that
the respondent is a qualified surgeon and his competence is also not disputed.
Respondent also said that what the petitioner was required dressing with meticulous
care. Petitioner was discharged on 20.9.1996 as her husband wanted to shift her to
Delhi. Respondent said he performed the surgery well and there was no negligence on his
part. State Commission noticed that the petitioner had taken treatment from various
hospitals including in New Delhi after taking discharge from the hospital of the respondent.
Dr. S.M. Bose, Professor of Surgery, P.G.I., Chandigarh, gave his opinion and he said
that there was no medical negligence which could be attributed to respondent. We do not
find it is a fit case for us to exercise our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the
Consumer Protection Act. This revision is dismissed.