ORDER Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member—The present appeal is filed by Smt. Santosh Bai Badkul, who is the original Complainant in case No. 18/1999 which was filed in M. P. State Commission alleging medical negligence against Dr. K. L. Bandi, and Choithram Hospital and Research Centre, Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 respectively along with National Insurance Company, Respondent No. 2. The Complaint claiming compensation of Rs. 12,00,000 for the alleged medical negligence in performing abdominal operation was dismissed by the State Commission by the order dated 31.12.2002. 2. Brief facts of the case are: Appellant, Smt. Santosh Bai Badkul, suffered abdominal pain and was referred by Dr. Bhagat of District Hospital, Sagar to consult Dr. K. L. Bandi of T. Choithram Hospital and Research Centre. Dr. Bandi was consulted on 3.12.1993 and after performing necessary investigations, the Appellant was admitted in the hospital on 9.12.1993 where chronic cholecystitis with cholelithiasis was diagnosed and the symptoms showed the presence of stones in the gall bladder. The Appellant complained of unlocalised abdominal discomfort, eructation and intolerance to certain food. Dr. Bandi performed Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (removal of Gall Bladder) on 10.12.1993 and a drain pipe was fixed to drain out bile and waste food from the abdomen. The Appellant was discharged on 13.12.1993 after removing the drain pipe on 12.12.1993 and Respondent Doctor instructed the Appellant to come after one week. Appellant developed fever on 14.12.1993. She contacted Dr. Bandi and was advised to take treatment from Greater Kailash Nursing Home. Accordingly, Appellant was admitted on 16.12.1993 to the Nursing Home where she was treated for acute gastroenteritis and was discharged on 31.12.1993. 3 It is the case of the Appellant that since her health was not improving, she consulted Dr. R. S. Mehta of Government Medical Hospital and alleged that Dr. Mehta gave an opinion that the fever was due to the complication which developed because the drain pipe? after the Leprascopic Cholecystectomy was removed within three days, by the Respondent No. 1 whereas it should have been kept for at least a week. Appellant alleged that due to early removal of the drain pipe, the collection of blood in gall bladder fossa and subhepatic area, inside the stomach occurred. 4. after the Leprascopic Cholecystectomy was removed within three days, by the Respondent No. 1 whereas it should have been kept for at least a week. Appellant alleged that due to early removal of the drain pipe, the collection of blood in gall bladder fossa and subhepatic area, inside the stomach occurred. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant alleged that due to non-clearance of fossa collection of post-operative debris from abdominal region, the patient suffered further hospitalization which incapacitated her further and that she was subjected to subsequent illnesses which arose due to negligence of Respondent No. 1. She relied on the discharge card dated 31.12.1993 given by Dr. D. Mukerjee, Doctor In-Charge. When she again fell ill, she consulted Dr. R. S. Mehta on 8.1.1994 and it was diagnosed to be malaria and treatment was given for that. 5. It is alleged that due to wrong treatment of Dr. Bandi who removed the drain pipe without ascertaining the cleansing of post-operative debris from the stomach, she had to undergo continued treatment for critical post-operative ailments from 13.12.1993 to 31.12.1993 which further resulted in paralytic attack and brain hemorrhage on 25.1.1994. She remained admitted in the Gita Bhawan Hospital from 26.1.1994 to 14.5.1994. 6. As against this, Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1, Dr. Bandi, argued that the Appellant was operated upon for Laprascopic Cholecystectomy on 10.12.1993 and the drain pipe was removed on 12.12.1993. According to standard practice the drain pipe is not kept for one week after the Laprascopic Cholecystectomy. To support his point Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 produced on record a copy of relevant page of Schakelford’s Surgery. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 further argued that the paralytic attack has no connection with the removal of the drain and the Respondent No. 1 is not guilty of any negligence. 7. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 submits that Appellant was completely cured after surgery. To support his argument he produced on record the report of Sonography dated 6.1.1994 conducted by Dr. Gokhle who opined that “GB Fossa is empty. No fluid collection is seen.” “No pelvic fluid collection.” Hence, the appeal filed by the Appellant is false, unwarranted and speculative and be dismissed with costs. 8. The two issues for decision therefore are: (a) Whether removal of drain pipe within 2-3 days is a negligent act leading to further complications? Gokhle who opined that “GB Fossa is empty. No fluid collection is seen.” “No pelvic fluid collection.” Hence, the appeal filed by the Appellant is false, unwarranted and speculative and be dismissed with costs. 8. The two issues for decision therefore are: (a) Whether removal of drain pipe within 2-3 days is a negligent act leading to further complications? And; (b) Whether there is any nexus between operation and the paralytic stroke which occurred over a month thereafter? 9. We find that both these issues are to be answered in the negative and in favour of the Respondents. A number of authorities have been cited before us in support of the fact that the drain pipe has to be removed within 2-3 days. 10. The text book on medical science “Abdominal Operations” by Rodney Maingot Fourth Edition (P. 708) mentions that “tube is left in situ for 2-3 days.” Similarly, the book “Surgery of the Alimentary Tract” by George C. Zuidema mentions complications of Cholecystectomy. There are two types of complications, one intra-operative and the other post-operative. The intra-operative complication includes Bile Duct injuries, Hepatic Artery injury and injury to the portal vein. The post-operative complications include persistent drainage of bile occurring from accessory duct. Further, it mentions that generally drainage ceases in two weeks, but it may persist for a month. The above literature reveals that after cholecystectomy the above complications may occur. But in this case, there were no complications of the above nature. 11. The Respondent No.1 advised ultra-sonography. The sonography report dated 27.12.1993 revealed that there was minimal right sub-hepatic collection and it has not increased since last study. Pancreas and kidney were found normal and no ascitis was found. A subsequent sonography done on 6.1.1994 shows that GB fossa is empty. No fluid collection is seen. Bile duct is undilated. CBD is clear. Pancreas is of the normal size. This ultra-sonography report reveals that the patient was normal and was therefore advised by the Respondent No. 1 to go home. 12. The Appellant herself admits that she went back to her home town, in the second week of January, which indicates that she was in a good condition and was not having fever etc. Therefore, it cannot be said that the removal of drain pipe in any way complicated her case. 13. 12. The Appellant herself admits that she went back to her home town, in the second week of January, which indicates that she was in a good condition and was not having fever etc. Therefore, it cannot be said that the removal of drain pipe in any way complicated her case. 13. As far as subsequent paralytic attack is concerned, the medical literature does not reveal that the paralytic attack or brain hemorrhage has any direct relation to gall bladder operation. We, therefore, are of the view that there is no connection of paralytic attack or brain hemorrhage, which occurred month later, after the operation for gall bladder. It is unfortunate that the patient suffered a brain hemorrhage and paralysis but it cannot be attributed to any medical negligence. 14. Further. the Appellant is a known diabetic. Dr. R. S. Mehta, whom she consulted later on, mentioned that the fasting blood sugar level was 200 on 6.1.1994 and 168 on 8.1.1994. At the time of discharge from the hospital on 13.12.1993 itself, Respondent No. 1, Dr. K. L. Bandi suggested that it was necessary to have control on the sugar levels and that may be the cause of paralytic attack. 15. In the light of the above discussion, Appeal fails and the complaint is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.