IMPORTANT POINT
When there is practical and circumstantial evidence to show negligence on the part of doctors in treating the patient, the Hospital and the Doctors are liable to pay the compensation.

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Dharam Pal against the order dated 03.03.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal No.782 of 2013.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.2.2009, Sh. Dharam Pal, S/o Sh. Sikander Lal, R/o Village Buria took his ailing wife to S.P. Hospital where the respondents Nos.2 and 3 diagnosed the ailment to be a Rasoli in her uterus. On 26.02.2009, the patient was operated upon and was sent back home in the evening the same day. The revisionist had to incur expenses to the tune of more than Rs.10,000/- and Rs.1000/- had to be paid for administration of anesthesia. The patient developed severe pain in the stomach next day and she was again brought to the same hospital. In the ultrasound, perforation of the intestine was revealed. On 28.02.2009, the second surgery was conducted and the patient’s condition deteriorated to the extent that she had to be referred to P.G.M. College & Hospital Chandigarh. Accordingly, the patient was taken to P.G.M. College and Hospital on 03.03.2009 and had to undergo another operation this time for perforation. On 04.03.2009, despite the best efforts on the part of the doctors at the P.G.M. College and Hospital, patient Veena Rani, the revisionist’s wife expired. On 09.10.2009, the consumer complaint was filed at District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Yamuna Nagar, (in short ‘the District Forum’). The District Forum after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case vide order dated 30.09.2013, allowed complaint in favour of the revisionist and against the respondents as under:—

“Resultantly, we direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant, as discussed above jointly and severally within 60 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be entitled to recover the same from the respondent jointly and severally alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. In case the respondents fail to comply with the order, the complainant shall be at liberty to initiate action under Section 25 & 27 of the Consumer Protection Act against them. The complaint is decided accordingly. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.”

3. On 28.10.2013, the respondents, being aggrieved from the aforesaid order passed by the District Forum, filed an appeal before the State Commission, vide FA No.782 of 2013. On 03.03.2015, the State Commission passed an order thereby accepting the appeal filed by the respondents and setting aside the order dated 30.09.2013 passed by the District Forum and thereby dismissing the complaint of the revisionist.

4. Hence this revision petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant as well as for respondent No.1 i.e. Insurance Company. Respondent No.2, the doctor and respondent No.3 hospital did not appear inspite of notice having been served upon them and therefore, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 20.2.2017 of this Commission.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant stated that the first operation was performed by the respondent No.2 in the respondent No.3 hospital for fibroids in the uterus. The patient was discharged on the same day. The patient developed stomach pain and she was again admitted in respondent No.3 hospital. Again an operation was performed for sealing the perforation of the intestine. It was argued that two facts are clear from this sequence of events. The first is that the hospital deliberately discharged the patient on the same day as they must have realised that the operation done for the fibroids has resulted in perforation of intestine due to negligence of the surgeon and secondly that the perforation of the intestine resulted purely during the first operation of the fibroid because there was no such pain before the operation was p