M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 9.12.2014 in CC No. 98/55 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra (in short, 'The State Commission'), Opposite Parties 1 and 3 have preferred Appeal Nos. 507 and 521 of 2015 respectively, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, 'the Act'). By the impugned order, the State Commission has partly allowed the complaint directing the appellants, jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs. 18,08,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a., within 60 days from the date of the order till the date of realization, failing which, the rate of interest shall be payable @ 12% p.a., together with costs of Rs. 50,000/-.

2. For the sake of convenience, the complainant is hereinafter referred to as 'the patient'; OP1 as 'the Hospital', OP2 as the 'treating doctor' and OP3 as 'Dr. Agarwala' (the Opposite Parties, as they are arrayed in the Original Complaint). The brief facts as set out in the complaint are, that on 15.2.1996, the patient consulted the treating doctor, with a complaint of pain in her knees at his consulting room at Patel Chambers, Mumbai. After examining the patient, the treating doctor advised her to undergo an operation for replacement of the left knee joint as it was causing severe pain with every movement. On 1.3.1996, an X-Ray of the left knee joint was taken and the same was shown to the treating doctor. The patient and her husband were advised to get the operation done in the first Opposite Party Hospital. They were further informed that as the treating doctor had already performed several such joint replacements, there was no need to be worried and no other prognosis was explained to patient. As the operation theatre of the hospital was available on 29.3.1996, the patient was informed that she needed to be admitted on 27.3.1996 for preoperative investigations. When the patient and her husband asked the treating doctor, details regarding the fee and the postoperative care, they were informed that the hospital had standard charges and that Median, 'A' or special class should be selected.

3. Accordingly, on 27.3.1996, at about 2.00 p.m., a deposit of Rs. 1,30,000/- was made and the patient was admitted in the hospital. All pre-investigative tests viz., X-Ray and E.C.G. were conducted under the directions given by Dr. Chakravarthy. On 28.3.1996, the physician and Dr. Agarwala visited the patient, examined all the pre-investigative reports and reported her fit for surgery. On 29.3.1996, at about 8.30 a.m., the treating doctor assisted by Dr. Agarwala performed the surgery of total replacement of left knee under General Anaesthesia. The left leg was put in a plaster which was removed on 6.4.1996 by Dr. Chakravarthy. During the period from 30.3.1996 to 6.4.1996, it was averred that the patient repeatedly complained of constant pain in the operated area and in the left leg for which Cap. Tramazac, Tab. Voveran, Tab. Famotin, Cap. Becosules, Inj. Voveran, Tab. Raricap, Tab. Durcolax and Inj. Tramazac were given.

4. On 5.4.1996, the patient was made to walk with the help of a walker, despite complaining of pain in the operated area. On 6.4.1996, at the time of removal of the plaster, the patient informed Dr. Chakravarthy and the other doctors that the pain was unbearable, but there was no response. On 8.4.1996, some more tests viz., Urine routine, CBC, Liver Profile and Renal Profile were performed, the results of which were reported to be 'Normal'. It was averred that on 9.4.1996, there was Serosanguineous discharge from the operation wound. It was only on 10.4.1996 that the wound swab was sent for culture and at about 10.00 a.m., dressing was done and the wound was opened by one centimeter to facilitate drainage. It was pleaded that the oozing did not stop and Dr. Agarwala did the dressing once again at 5.00 p.m., as the earlier dressing was soaked due to oozing. The report of the wound swab culture showed th