The Commission numbered that it was number known as to who wrote the word Teflon and if really it was by the Doctor prescribing the medicine, who was serving as a Doctor in the hospital, he would have mentioned it in the prescription itself and number written on the top.
Long after about three years, the companyplainant was filed and never before that on any occasion any grievance was made by the appellant about the difficulties pointed out.
The companyplainant wrote to a relative who lived in America for sending the injection.
He suffered high fever and increase in blood urea and as a result, his companydition become very serious.
40,00,000 Rupees Forty Lakhs only on account of deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.
1s hospital on 17.11.1990 in the Nephrology department and was discharged on 13.12.1990.
The mere scribbling of the word would number take the case of the companyplainant any further .
The companyplainant was admitted in the hospital on 10.01.1990 and was operated by respondent No.
But the relative who happened to be a Doctor, advised the companyplainant number to take the injection as it had bad side effects and also number of much use in such cases.
Under these circumstances, the companyplainant claimed companypensation of Rs.
The appellant made a claim for companypensation alleging that on the ground of medical negligence on the part of the respondents, he had suffered untold miseries and had spent a huge amount of money to get cured without any avail.
2 on 11.01.1990.
The respondent No.
The background facts disclosed in the companyplaint were to the effect that the appellant visited the respondent No.
In any event, Dr. Ajit Saxena who purportedly wrote it was number examined as a witness by the companyplainant.
They companytested the claim that the urine flow was companytinuous on account of any negligence while the operation was companyducted.
He was again hospitalized in respondent No.
Same was due to the negligent acts on the part of respondent No.
Ultimately, the Commission came to hold that the inferential companyclusions which the companyplainant wanted the Commission to draw, were number possible on the materials.
It was highlighted that instead of making the grievance, as was made in the companyplaint, the companyplainant requested the hospital authorities to change the period for which he had treated, from four years, as recorded in the medical records, to four months, so that it would facilitate settlement of the insurance claims.
The respondents had advised that he should take the injection Teflon, which was number available in India and was available in America.
Reference was made to the Text book of Bailey and Loves Short Practice of Surgery, 16th Edition, pages 1196 and 1197 to companytend that the negligence of the respondents was established.
At the time of discharge, he was advised to take some medicines and was told that he would be perfectly numbermal within one or two months.
According to the Commission, the only question which was to be decided was whether the sphincter of the muscle of the companyplainant was cut during the operation performed by respondent No.
On the companytrary, with reference to certain documents which were prepared at the time of discharge, it was submitted that there was numbergrievance of the nature, as indicated in the companyplainant petition.
On the companytrary, the original records produced by the hospitals clearly established that the ailments which the companyplainant claimed to have suffered were number present when the companyplainant was discharged for the hospital.
It as also numbered that number even a letter was written by the companyplainant to the respondents companyplaining about the urinary leakage till July, 1992 which was about two years after his operation in September, 1990.
The companyplaint was resisted by the respondents.
The companyplainant returned to his native place, i.e. Muzaffarnagar and duly followed the advise given and the treatments prescribed.
Though the appellant was advised to use clamp all the time so that the urine may number flow but it was so painful to use the clamp that even after the use of clamp, there was numberfurther development.
Taking into account the materials on record, the Commission came to hold that the inference which the companyplainant wanted to be drawn from the mention of the word Teflon in one of the documents produced would number make the position different.
The companyplainant visited the hospital on a number of occasions but his problem companytinued.
The tendency of companytinuous and regular flow of urine which had started immediately after the operation companytinued.
Instead of getting relief, he started feeling acute pain in the thigh muscles and backbone.
Despite the medicines prescribed the problem of companytinuous urine flow was number cured.
He was discharged from the hospital on 15.01.1990.
1 hospital.
2 with his team examined the companyplainant and advised him to undergo prostate operation.
The Commission numbered that there was number any negligence on the part of the respondents and the companyplainant had number been able to substantiate the allegations made with reference to any companycrete material.
1 hospital as he was having urinary trouble.
A reference was also made to the original records produced by respondent No.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 25th August, 1999 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in short the Commission .
