IMPORTANT POINT
Utmost care is required while conduction procedure in a critical area of body.

Mrs. M. Shreesha, Member—Challenge in these Revision Petitions under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’) is to the order dated 12.10.2009 in Appeal Nos.457/2006 & 472/2006 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, (in short, “the State Commission”). By the impugned order, the State Commission has concurred with the finding of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, (in short, “the District Forum”) passed in Consumer Complaint No.310/2003 and dismissed the Appeals preferred by both the Complainant (FA No.457/2006) and Opposite Party No.5 - doctor (FA No.472/2006).

2. The brief facts as set out in the Complaint are that Smt. Malviya, (hereinafter referred to as “the patient”) was suffering from diabetes for the past 10-12 years and was also suffering from Nephropathy, anemia and hypertension before her death. On 13.08.2001, blood oozed out of her nose and she went to Dr. Rakesh Gupta, ENT Specialist, who diagnosed that there were polyps in the nose and prescribed medication. In the evening, blood oozed out again from the nose and Dr.Rakesh Gupta packed the nose and told the patient that she should be admitted in a Nursing Home for observation. Hence, the patient got admitted in the First Opposite Party Dr. A.H. Memon’s Nursing Home, where the Doctor gave an injection and the next morning, on 14.08.2001, the patient felt better and went back home. On 15.08.2001, the packing in the nose slipped back into the respiratory track and started causing problem. So she again went to the same Nursing Home where Dr. A.H. Memon took her to the Minor Operation Theatre, pulled out the packing, cleared the nose, medicated it again and admitted her into Room No.101, for observation. It is averred that along with Dr. A.H. Memon, the Second and Third Opposite Parties, i.e., Dr. M.R. Arif Memon and Dr. S. Rathi were also present and were involved in the removal of the packing and the cleaning of the nose. On 16.08.2001, Opposite Party Nos.1 to 4 performed endoscopic examination resulting in bleeding from the polyps present inside the nose. After the Endoscopy, the nose, face and throat of the patient was swollen and she was in great pain for which pain relieving and anti-inflammatory injections were administered.

3. The Complainant pleaded that he had informed Dr. A.H. Memon that the endoscopic examination was conducted without intimating him and only his son and daughter, who could not understand the consequences, were informed. It was averred that the Complainant has specifically asked Opposite Parties 1 to 4 if Expert Examination was necessary and if his wife needed to be shifted to a bigger hospital, he would make the necessary arrangements, but was told that there was no such necessity. He was informed that Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 4 would perform Endoscopic Polypectomy and remove the polyps and the inflammation would gradually be reduced. The Complainant had already complained that his wife was in great pain because of the Endoscopy and was not in a position to undergo the trauma again. He was informed that by way of laser technique, the polyps would be burnt so that bleeding would be minimal as the patient was diabetic. The Complainant averred that he had specifically informed that laser technique, if done, should be performed in the presence of an Expert Anesthetist. On 17.08.2001, the Complainant paid Rs. 3,000/- to Dr. A.H. Memon for the laser operation. At around 12’ noon, on 17.08.2001, despite the patient’s protest, she was shifted to the Operation Theatre and Endoscopic Polypectomy was done without conducting the blood sugar, blood pressure and in the absence of an Anesthetist.

4. The Complainant pleaded that the operation was done without his consent and that the Operation Theatre was very ill-equipped, without any o