SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(SC) 1460

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi, Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, JJ.
Bhupinder Kaur - Appellant
Versus
Patel Hospital (P) Ltd. and others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11134 of 2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11546 of 2008
Decided On : 13-12-2011

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 17 - Developed nodule in the right lobe of thyroid - Prayed for award of compensation - Alleged negligence of the respondents has been forced to file appeal because - State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission declined to condone delay in filling of the complaint - Appellant developed nodule in the right lobe of thyroid - On being advised by doctors of respondent no. 1-hospital - Appellant underwent certain tests only to learn that there was multiple swelling in thyroid and secondary form of thyroid carcinoma - She was then referred to Mohan Devi Cancer Treatment and Research Centre - appellant was examined by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 at Apollo Hospital another surgery was performed by respondent No.6 - She was discharged Apollo Hospital – Held, She was bed ridden - State Commission was not at all justified in refusing to condone the delay - What is most astonishing is both State Commission and National Commission found it convenient to overlook the fact that neither of the respondents had controverted appellants assertion that she had become paraplegic and was bedridden since – Court may add while dealing with applications for condonation of delay Consumer Foras must not apply hypertechnical rule evolved by Courts many decades ago and should keep in mind the parameters laid down by this Court in Collector - Land and Acquisition SCC - Appeal is allowed

ORDER :

Leave granted.

2. The appellant, who became paraplegic due to the alleged negligence of the respondents has been forced to file this appeal because the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab [for short, 'the State Commission') and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission [for short, "the National Commission") declined to condone the delay in filling of the complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, 'the Act').

3. While she was doing Diploma in Junior Nursing, the appellant developed swelling in the neck. She was admitted in Patel Hospital, Jalandhar (respondent no. 1) in 1998. Respondent no. 2 - Dr. S.L. Sharma, who was working in that hospital performed surgery on the appellant on 7.7.1998. She was discharged from the hospital on 9.7.1998. After about 14 months, the appellant developed nodule in the right lobe of thyroid. On being advised by the doctors of respondent no. 1-hospital, the appellant underwent certain tests only to learn that there was multiple swelling in thyroid and secondary form of thyroid carcinoma. She was then referred to Mohan Devi Oswal Cancer Treatment and Research Centre, Ludhiana. From there, she was sent to PGI Chandigarh. In April, 2000, the appellant was examined by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 at Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, New Delhi. On 11.4.2000, another surgery was performed by respondent No.6 - Dr. Sameer Kaul. She was discharged from the Apollo Hospital on 17.4.2000. On follow up, she was advised to come for whole body scan i.e. scinitgraph which was done by respondent No.7, Dr. Usha Ravishankar on 25.5.2000. She was again admitted in Apollo Hospital on 31.5.2000. This time she was examined by respondent No.8, Dr. Sanjeev Nand. After an unsuccessful surgery, she was discharged on 25.6.2000 in a paraplegic condition. In July 2000, she was admitted in Munilal Chopra Hospital, Amritsar. There she was operated upon by Dr. Raj Kumar. From March, 2003 to April, 2004, the appellant was treated at Munilal Chopra Hospital, Amritsar but there was no improvement in her condition.

4. Having suffered the agony of undergoing various surgeries, which did not improve her condition, the appellant filed complaint under Section 17 of the Act before the State Commission, which came to be registered as Original Complaint No.13/2004. She prayed for award of compensation of rupees one crore by alleging that the respondents were negligent in treating her. Along with the complaint, the appellant filed an application for condonation of delay. In paras 2 and 3 of the application, the appellant made the following averments:

"2. That after complainant was treated in O.P. 1 hospital for the last time in Jan. 2000, where earlier O.P. 2 operated upon her on 7.7.1998 negligently without proper investigations and requisite follow-up, for excision of nodule in her neck, and subsequently after re-occurrence of the same, she again went to O.P.1 where doctors after investigations, diagnosed her to be suffering from malignant disease of thyroid, thus referred her to Mohan Devi Oswal Cancer Treatment & Research Foundation, Ludhiana in Jan., 2000.

From there at Ludhiana, and then at PGI, Chandigarh, from where she landed in O.P.3 on 7.4.2000, where again she was negligently treated till 25.06.2000 by O.Ps. 4 to 8 and other staff of the hospital, when she was discharged in very pathetic bed ridded and crippled condition having paraplegia.

From O.P.3, complainant/applicant was taken in ambulance at Amritsar at Sanjivani Hospital, and then referred to Shri Muni Lal Chopra Hospital on 1.07.2000. Though all the times she is very depressed and bed ridden and catheterized, she was operated on her spine on 2.07.2000 by Dr. Raj Kamal, M.Ch Neurosurgery at Sh. Muni Lal Chopra Hospital, Amritsar and she was discharged on 18.07.2000 in still bed ridden condition, and was having metastatic carcinoma at that stage. Then she was given radiotherapy at Guru Ram Das Hospital at Amritsar where sh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top