ORDER
P.D. Shenoy, Member
1. Brief facts of the case:
This is a case of alleged medical negligence. Complainant was operated upon by the opposite parties for hysterectomy. It is alleged that during the operation OPs 2 and 3 (Dr. Smt. P. Dheerawani and Dr. Smt. Rama Shrivastava) were negligent as a result of which the urinary bladder of the complainant was cut at 2 to 3 places. The complainant was facing problem while passing urine for every 20-30 minutes.
2. The complainant was suffering from Fibroid Uterus with Menorrihigia and a lot of blood used to come out during the menstruation cycle. When the stomach of the complainant was opened during the surgery it was found that the size of uterus was inflated and multiple tumors were seen in the uterus. The urinary biadder was totally adherent to the back portion of the uterus which required separation of the two organs with a sharp knife during surgery, which would result thinning of the urinary bladder, as a normal process and would require time for healing the wound. As the complainant stated that she was experiencing pain during passing of urine, the gynaecologist suggested that this could be due to infection in the urinary tract. It is the contention of the gynaecologist, that complainant did not allege about the need to discharge urine every half an hour. She recommended that complainant should consult Dr. Golcha who is an urologist. She further contended that at the time of discharge from the hospital the complainant was not facing the problem of frequent urination.
3. After hearing the parties and going through the records, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. Dissatisfied by the order of the District Forum the complainants had filed an appeal before the State Commission which was also dismissed. Hence, this revision.
Findings:
4. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties. Though the complaint was filed in the year 1994, the complainant filed the evidence of a doctor, Dr. Dwivedi, who is a nephew of applicant and stated to be an expert, only in the year 2000. He had stated that the patient Rajni Tiwari is his maternal aunt, he was a student of DM at the time of filing this affidavit and he has not done specialisation in gynaecology and surgeries. He admitted during the course of examination that total abdominal hysterectomy was the right treatment for the patient afflicted with fibroid uterus. He also agreed that uterus can be removed only by cutting of the joint developed between the urinary bladder and uterus and he also admitted that only the urologist can treat the disease of urinary problems and not the gynaecologist.
5. The following words extracted from his cross-examination are relevant for arriving at a decision in this case:
It is true that fistula formation is a known complication of surgery. It is also true that leakage of urine due to fistula formation is also a known complication of surgery.
6. The Apex Court in Achutrao Haribhau Khodwa v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. has held that-
A medical practitioner has various duties towards his patient and he must act with a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. This is the least which a patient expects from a doctor. The skill of medical practitioners differs from doctor to doctor. The very nature of the profession is such that there may be more than one course of treatment which may be advisable for treating a patient. Courts would indeed be slow in attributing negligence on the part of a doctor if he has performed his duties to the best of his ability and with due care and aution. Medical opinion may differ with regard to the course of action to be taken by a doctor treating a patient, but as long as a doctor acts in a manner which is acceptable to the medical profession and the Court finds that he has attended on the patient with due care, skill and diligence and if the patient still does not survive or suffers a permanent ailment, it would be difficult to hold the doctor to be guilty of negligence. But in cases where the doctors act carelessly and in a manner which is not expected of a medical practitioner, then in such a case an action in torts would be maintainable.
7. The ratio of the above judgment is squarely applicable to the case in hand as there is no doubt in our mind that the treating doctor has acted with a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and exercised a reasonable degree of care.
8. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case, especially the statement made by the expert witness, Dr. Dwivedi, in his cross-examination and the concurrent findings of the lower Fora we hold that there is no medical negligence in this case. Therefore, we decline to interfere in the orders of the lower Fora. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.