Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member and Prem Narain, Member
Jaipur Surgical and Janana Hospital and Anr. —Petitioners
versus
Kaushalya and Ors. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.4201 of 2011
(Against Order dated 19.7.2011 in Appeal No.244 of 2006 of Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission)
Decided on 15.2.2017
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Aditya Nayyar, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2:Mr. Anandan A., Advocate
For the Respondent No.3:Mr. P.K. Seth, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Patient has right to know what treatment has been advised/given to patient and what medicines have been prescribed for further treatment or follow-up.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Medical services—Medical negligence—Gynaecology—Tubectomy—Complications surfaced followed by second surgery—Total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by State Commission—OPs have not denied that no prescription was issued to complainants—This is an issue which is very important from point of view of medical ethics as well as from point of view of patient—Patient has right to know what treatment has been advised/given to patient and what medicines have been prescribed for further treatment or follow-up—However, follow-up by complainants with OPs could also not be confirmed as no proof of evidence has been filed by complainant and OPs have not issued any card so that visits could have been recorded on that card—In this light, medical negligence in the Tubectomy operation is not directly proved—However, negligence in not issuing proper prescription/card showing date of admission, operation details, future medicines to be taken in future and guidance for follow up is clearly proved on part of OPs—For deficiency in not issuing proper prescription slip/card and for not facilitating proper follow up, compensation of Rs. 75,000/- would be reasonable and sufficient—Amount of Rs. 10,000/- awarded as cost of litigation. (Paras 14 to 19)
Result: Revision Petition Partly allowed.
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member—The present revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 whereby the petitioner herein seeks to challenge the order dated 19.7.2011 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 244 of 2006. By way of the impugned order, the order dated 1.12.2005 passed by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Ferozepur (hereinafter referred to as “District Forum”) dismissing the C.C. No. 496 of 2005 has been set aside.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant No. 2 and his wife, complainant No. 1, approached the opposite parties for undergoing tubectomy operation on 2.6.2005. OP No. 2 performed the surgery by way of laparoscopy. Despite assurance from the opposite parties that there would be no pain/problem after the surgery, the complainant No. 1 started to feel pain in her abdomen. OP No. 2 assured complainant No. 1 that there would be relief from pain after some days and he also prescribed some medicines and suggested follow-up on 12.6.2005 and 22.6.2005. It is the case of the complainant that although the complainant No. 1 visited the opposite parties on 12.6.2005 and 18.6.2005, there was no relief in pain and fever. Consequently, on 19.6.2005, the complainant No. 1 was forced to approach Ashirwad Hospital, Sri. Ganganagar. After undergoing series of tests and examinations, the complainant No. 1 was diagnosed to be having peritoneal fluid on account of negligent surgery conducted by opposite party No. 2. Hence, the complainant No. 1 underwent another surgery on 21.6.2005. The complainant also remained in the said hospital under observation from 19.6.2005 to 6.7.2005. Aggrieved by the deficient service rendered by the opposite parties, the complainants approached the District Forum and filed the complaint.
3. The District Forum vide order dated 1.12.2005 dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainants failed to produce any evidence to prove that the complications that developed subsequently were on account of the tubectomy surgery performed by the opposite party No. 2 on 2.6.20005. The District Forum also dismissed the allegation of the complainants that the opposite parties were not competent to perform the said surgery and held that the opposite party No. 2, being MS in Surgery,was qualified to perform such surgeries.
4. Aggrieved by the said order of the District Forum, the complainants preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission wide order dated 19.7.2011 allowing the appeal, ordered as follows:—
“21. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants is accepted and the order dated 1.12.2005 under appeal passed by the majority view of the District Forum dated 1.12.2005, being illegal, is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the appellants/complainants is accepted against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 only and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) as compensation for medical negligence on the part of respondent No. 2 and Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) as medical expenses, attending charges and other misc. expenses including the cost of litigation, to the appellants/complainants within two months from the receipt of copy of the order”.
5. Hence, the present Revision Petition.
6. Heard the parties and perused the records.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 stated that there is no conclusive proof to prove that the complications that developed subsequently were on account of the tubectomy surgery performed on the respondent No. 1 by the opposite party No. 2. The Counsel also argued that the respondent No. 1 was directed to come for the follow-up scheduled for 12.6.2005 and 22.6.2005 and was advised medicines including antibiotics, but respondent No. 1 failed to adhere to these mandatory directions of the petitioners.
8. The Counsel
