1. The facts as narrated in the claim, in nutshell, are as under; The claimant is serving in Crescent Mill at Jaranwala Road Faisalabad. His wife was admitted in the Social Security Hospital Susan Road Madina Town Faisalabad, on the claimant's Social Security Card on 07.09.2007 as she was suffering from some disease. After diagnosis of the disease, the defendant Doctors, Rahat Rasheed, Gynecologist and Doctor Awais Ashraf, Senior Consultant Surgeon, operated the claimant's wife as a result of which the bleeding started to flow due to grass negligence in the operation due to unskillful ness and negligence of the said Doctor. The claimant's wife had to be operated four time but in vain. As the claimant's wife was mismanaged and mishandled by the defendant Doctors due to their negligence hence, she passed away after her discharge from the Hospital. Under such circumstance, the claimant served legal notice to the defendants and lodged this claim as a final resort u/s 25 of Punjab Consumer Protection Act 2005, for recovery of an amount of Rs. 840000/- as loss of life of the claimant's wife, medical expenses, price of 28 blood bags, loss of salaries of claimant's son, mental torture and legal expenses.
2. The defendants have vehemently opposed the above said claim by filing their statement of defence, interalia, on the ground that the patient was operated and re-operated on conservative medical advice assessed by multiple doctors experts in specialized fields and made strenuous efforts to save the patient, as such, she was properly treated and managed by a team of the Hospital Doctors and that when she was discharged from Hospital on 01.12.2007, she was taking meal by mouth and was fit to go home on feet.
3. As this complicated case involved mix questions of law and facts, the parties were required to support their respective versions through their affidavits and their documentary evidence. In support of his version the claimant produced his sons Sakhi Ahmad and Shafaqat Ali as PW-2 and PW-3, through their respective affidavits as EX-PW2/1 and EX-PW3/1, respectively whereas he got recorded his statement through his affidavit as EX-PW1/1. In the interest of justice all the witnesses were cross examined from opposite side. In rebuttal, Doctor Muhammad Awais Ashraf and Doctor Rahat Rasheed, have got recorded their statements as DW-1 and DW-2, through their respective affidavits as EX-DW1/1 and EX-DW2/1. During cross examination on the PW-2 namely Shafaqat Ali, the learned defendant's counsel have got exhibited permissions for operation as EX-D1 and EX-D2, as the witness admitted his signature on these documents as EX-D1/A, EX-D-2/B, respectively.
4. It would be relevant and pertinent critically to appreciate the evidence on record as produced by the parties prior to reaching a safe conclusion in this case, as under;
5. After narrating the version of his claim parrot-like, as delineated in the body of the claim, when Nazeer Ahmad PW-1, was subjected to the weapon of cross examination, he affected his ignorance about the facts whether or not his son's permission was obtained for operation on the claimant's wife that if any harm occurred her heirs would be responsible for it, that he had no knowledge whether or not the patient was kept in INTENSIVE CARE UNIT (ICU) from start to end, that after discharge of the patient from the defendant's Hospital she was never got admitted in any other Hospital as she was examined medically by a village Doctor but that he never reported about the post operation illness to the defendant Doctor Awais Ashraf. The witnesses Sakhi Ahmad and Shafaqat Ali, the sons of the claimant have admitted in cross examination that the patient was kept in ICU from her first operation till her discharge from the Hospital in December 2007, that the claimant or themselves never lodged complaint to the higher officer of Health Department of the mishandling of the patient case. It also transpires from the statement of PW-2, that the patient was operated upon four times in the Hospital during which so many blood bags were infused in her body to save her life. Doctor Muhammad Awais Ashraf DW-1, and Doctor Rahat Rasheed DW-2, have deposed, in rebuttal, that after admission of the patient, she was operated on 21.09.2007, that the case of the patient Mrs. Ishrat Bibi was very difficult because of multiple unbreakable adhesions of uterus with intestine which was to be removed primarily, that post operative recovery was satisfactory as she was kept in ICU there after, that the patient was suffering from CHRONIC LIVER DISEASE as Hepatitis C, therefore, her prothrobin time was prolonged and she was advised blood transfusion in audit to bring PT to normal value, that the Hemoglobin level of the patient was also low before surgery because of consistent per vaginal bleeding and that her post operative recovery and management was care fully and skill fully conducted in 74 days of span of time so as to discharge her on 01.12.2007, from the Hospital when she was fully stable. EX-D1 and EX-D2, are sufficient to show that Shafaqat Ali PW-3, gave permission for operation of his mother taking responsibility of the after effects of such operations.
6. From the above scenario, I have carefully squeezed out following points with clarity; i. The patient was discharged from the Hospital in the month of December 2007, but the claimant did not take pains to lodge complaint about the alleged harsh behavior of the Hospital Doctors before any Health Officers of high rank which is astonishing; ii. After discharge from the Hospital, the claimant's wife, the patient remained alive for so many days but she was never provided proper medical assistance therefore, she seems to have expired due to contributory negligence of the claimant himself; iii. The efforts of defendants Doctors to save the patient's life is prevalent on record as she was operated several times and was provided best medical assistance keeping her in ICU from her first operation till her discharge from Hospital; iv. The patient was suffering from CHRONIC LIVER DISEASE and Hepatitis C, therefore, the post operative complications were beyond the control of the defendants Doctors; v. The permission of deceaseds son, prior to her operation has absolved the defendant Doctors from any responsibility under the above said circumstances.
7. Keeping in view all the above said set of affairs, the alleged act of omission or course of conduct, complaints must be judged not by ideal standards nor in the abstracts but against the background of the circumstance in which the treatment in question was given to the patient, the claimant's wife and the true test of establishing negligence on the part of defendants Doctors is as to whether they have been proved to be guilty of such failure as no Doctor of ordinary skill would be guilty if acting in reasonable care. Merely because a medical procedure failed, it can not be stated that the defendants Doctors are guilty or negligent unless it has been proved that they have not acted with sufficient care and skill and the burden of proving the same rested on the claimant who ascertated it but he has miserably been failed to prove it. There is no question of warranty, under taking or profession of a skill. The standard of care and skill to satisfy the duty in tort is that the ordinary competent medical practitioner exercised the ordinary degree of professional skill. The defendants Doctors have shown that they acted in accordance with general and proved practice, they are not required in discharge of their duty the care that they should use in high standard of degree of skill since they might never be acquired. From a through perusal of averments in the claim and documents, it has not been revealed that there was negligence on the part of the defendants Doctors in the performance of operation and it has been proved to the satisfaction of this court that the defendant's Doctors used prescribed standard of medical ethics and have taken every care to treat the patient. Accordingly the claim is not maintainable. The same merits dismissal and is hereby dismissed. File be consigned to the record room after its due completions.