Back
KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE
Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.R. Vithal Rao, President &
Mrs. Susheela Cheluvaraju, Member
SMT. ROHINI PRITAM KABADI—Complainant
versus
DR. R.T. KULKARNI—Opposite Party
Complaint No. 204 of 1993—Decided on 30.9.1996
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 17 read with Section 12 Sections 2(1)(g) & 14(1)(d) and 2(1)(0) - Medical negligence - Complainant admitted in opposite partys nursing home - Caesarean operation performed - Delivered male child Complained about severe pain in her abdomen - Medicines prescribed Another doctor advised ultrasono-graph test - Operation performed Metalic tip of suction tube found in abdomen - Complaint - Contention that no fee charged for services rendered as complainants husband happened to be doctor - Cannot be classified as consumer - Denied that metalic tip of suction left in abdoman of complainant while performing caesarean operation - Complainant asserted that her husband paid Rs.1000/- for operation - Services rendered by opposite party for consideration - Complainant consumer - Suffered untold misery and serious mental distress due to negligence on part of opposite party - Complainant awarded Rs. Two lakhs as compensation.
Held: The complainant suffered an untold misery and serious mental distress. as a result of negligent act on the part of the opposite party in performing the operation in leaving the metalic tip of suction tube in the abdomen of the complainant while operating on her on 11-6- 1991. The serious mental distress is a killer ailment and can cause varieties of deadly ailments in human beings which can lead to death.
(Para 28)
We have found that the complainant suffered mental distress and physical suffering due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party which would have been sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature but for the medical assistance she could receive from other sources. (Pam. 29)
These circumstances would clearly go to show that the complainant deserves compensation. The mental agony suffered by the complainant cannot be measured in terms of money. The complainant has claimed a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs as compensation. In our opinion the complainant deserves in all compensation in a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs from the opposite party. (Para 30)
Result: Complaint allowed.
IMPORTANT POINT
The words "users" (in plural) in the phrase -potential users in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act gives an indication consumers as a class are vontemplated.
Mr. Justice D.R. Vithal Rao, President— In this complaint, under Section 17 r/w Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant has sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs from the opposite party.
2. The opposite party is a surgeon having his Nursing Home at Gadag. The complainant— a house-wife, consulted him for her second delivery in the months of March, May and June, 1991. The opposite party admitted the complainant in his nursing home on 10.6.91 for her second delivery. The opposite party performed a second Caesarian operation on 11.6.91 on the complainant and a male child was born.
3. After the said delivery of the child, the complainant suffered urine trouble and severe pain in the abdomen. The opposite party diagonised it as an urine infection and prescribed certain medicines. The complainant also suffered severe fever. The opposite party took an X-ray photo on 14.10.91. Even though the complainant was still suffering pain in the abdomen and urine trouble and temperature she was discharged from the nursing home on 23.6.91. The opposite party informed the complainant as the delivery was a caesarian delivery, it will taken some time to abate the troubles.
4. It is the further case of the complainant that even after the discharge, the complainant continued to experience the pain in the abdomen and also the pain at the time of passing urine.
5. The complainant returned to her husband’s place at Bangalore on 10.9.91 from her parent’s place at Gadag. Her husband being a doctor, administered certain medicines to the complainant to relieve the complainant of her pain and trouble; but the troubles did not subside. The complainant suffered untold misery with these problems till the month of October 1992. When her husband took her to a Gynocologist for better consultation in the first week of October, 1992. The doctor advised ultransonograph of uterus which was taken on 9.10.92 as per Ex. C-2(b). The said report, Ex. C2(b), showed mass adherent to the bladder. Dr. S. Saroj, who had advised her to take ultrasonograph of uterus, asked the complainant to undergo an operation for removal of the said mass.
6. The husband of the complainant thought to have a second opinion in the matter and consulted Dr. A.R. Lalithamma who advised to undergo ultrasonography test which was taken as per Ex. C-2 (a). The said report confirmed the earlier findings, as per Ex. C-2(b). Thereafter the complainant decided to undergo an operation. The complainant was admitted at Zinka Nursing Home, Rajajinagar, Bangalore, on 14.10.92 and Dr. A.R. Lalithamma performed the operation on 15.10.92 on the complainant. A mass, as observed in the reports, was removed, in the said operation, by Dr. A.R. Lalithamma. The mass was opened and a foreign body, that is, a metallic tip of the suction tube was found in the cavity of the mass. After the said operation and the removal of the said mass out of it — the said metallic tip of the suction tube, the complainant was relieved of all the pains and the problems.
7. On getting the information that a metallic tip of suction tube was found in the abdomen of the complainant, the parents of the complainant approached the opposite party on 17.10.92 at Gadag in his Nursing Home. The opposite party gave a letter, as per Ex. C-1, apologising for his negligent operation conducted by him on the complainant on 11.6.92, leaving a metallic tip of the suction tube in the abdomen. The complainant/for this long period of about 16 months from the month of June 1991 till October 1992, suffered untold misery which was the result of the negligent act on the part of the opposite party in performing the ceasarian operation on the complainant on 11.6.91 negligently leaving a metallic tip of suction tube in the abdomen of the complainant.
8. The complainant, on the basis of these averments, sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs from the opposite party for the sufferings undergone by her.
9. The opposite party filed the versio
