Kusum Sharma And Others v/s Batra

Hospital & Medical Research

About:

The deceased Shri R.K. Sharma (husband of first complainant and father of other
complainants) with ailments for general oedema got admitted (18 March 1990) into
Batra Hospital, Delhi (Opposite Party No. 1).

He was advised surgery for removal of an adrenal tumour after thorough

examinations.

The surgery was carried out (which had some complications) and further post
surgery complications and corrective surgeries led to his death (11 October 1990).

The complaint was filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act claiming
compensation of Rs. 45 lakhs attributing deficiency in service and medical
negligence in the treatment of the deceased.

Contention:
Complainant Side1.

Negligence upon procedure of surgery(anterior).

2.

Status of the tumour was different than that was reported.

3.

Guidance from other experts was not followed during a further surgery.

4.

The first surgery resulted in an infection which was detected and operated on by a
different hospital(Medical College Hospital, Jodhpur).

5.

Damage to pancreas was reported late to the complainant side.

How and why arguments were rejected:

1.

Medical texts which were quoted by the court speaks of both anterior and posterior
approaches for the given surgery and it was a matter of judgment of the surgeon to
adopt any from the said procedures.

2.

Finding of Moolchand Hospital and finding of 'Mitosis' itself were indicative of

malignancy and the Complainants didnt rebut this.

3.

The Complainant, at the time of her cross-examination dropped the complaint of

negligence against Opposite Party No. 4. Hence, this part of the Complainant was not
held against the Opposite Parties.

4.

Neither Medical College Hospital nor Dr. Harban Singh (the practitioner who operated
the infection) were made a party. The latter was not even examined. At a very late
stage, Complainants filed certain document one of which was an 'Essentiality
Certificate' issued by Dr. Harban Singh. The Essentiality Certificate makes it clear that
no incision was made to drain out gluteal abscess.

5.

The edifice of the whole case 'negligence' is based on the foundation of damage to
pancreas caused at the time of first surgery on 2.4.90 carried out by Opposite Party No.
3. However negligence in the part of the complainant side for further check ups with
the Opposite Parties leads to dismissal of this contention too.

Verdict:
The complainants failed to prove or substantiate complaints against Opposite Party Nos.
1 to 3 on any ground. As a result, the complaint against Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 of
'negligence' failed and the complaint was dismissed.