ORDER

M. Shreesha, Member - Challenge in this First Appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, 'the Act') by the Complainant, is to the order dated 30.11.2009, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu (for short, 'the State Commission') in Complaint Case No. 186 of 1999. By the impugned order, the State Commission dismissed the Complaint on the ground that the Respondents had not committed any negligence in the treatment of the patient.

2. The brief facts as set out in the Complaint are that Sh. N. Raghavan, the Complainant and his wife, Smt. K.S. Tangam, visited Dr. Revathi Ananthasubramaniam, on 23.9.1997, for treatment of lump in the right breast. Doctor advised series of tests such as CBC Haemogram, X-Ray of the chest and FNAC, etc. After scrutinising the test results, the Doctor confirmed that it was a case of Carcinoma. The Complainant decided to take a second opinion and approached the first Opposite Party, i.e. Dr. P.B. Sadasivan. The Doctor advised him to consult Dr. A.N. Vaidheswaran, who is the third Opposite Party and a Radiation Oncologist and Consultant of the second Opposite Party, Shivasundar Hospital. The third Opposite Party Doctor also confirmed that it was a case of carcinoma and that radiotherapy has to be given. On 30.9.1997, the first Opposite Party advised X-Ray of the Chest, P.A. view, ECG and USG of the Abdomen. The patient was admitted in the second Opposite Party's Hospital on 1.10.1997. On 3.10.1997, further tests TC, DC, F.SR, Blood grouping and Rh Typing were also done. The Complainant averred that the first Opposite Party informed them that surgery was to be performed on the same day. However, since the patient was anaemic and having high percentage of Eosinophils, the Anaesthetist expressed his reservations. The Complainant averred that there was an argument between the operating surgeon and the Anaesthetist, but the surgery was performed on the same day for right simple Mastectomy with Axillary Clearance for Carcinoma Right breast. The patient was also given A+ve blood.

3. It is pleaded that, after surgery, on 3.10.1997, the specimen of the Lymphnodes were sent by the second Opposite Party to the fourth Opposite Party for biopsy. The Excision biopsy report received from the fourth Opposite Party, viz., Tamil Nadu Hospital, revealed the infiltrating ductal carcinoma. A week later, i.e., on 11.10.1997, the patient developed cough and back pain. She was not responding to suppressive medication while being an inpatient in the second Opposite Party. Hospital. The second prescription was given on 1.1197 without any investigation and on 10.11.1997, when the wound still had not healed, a letter was given by the operating Surgeon that the patient had undergone 'Right Simple Mastectomy with Axillary clearance for Carcinoma Right Breast' and that the healing of wound was very slow. It is pleaded that the patient was having persistent yellowish discharge from the surgical wound. Even after a month had lapsed the wound had not healed.

4. It is averred that on 12.11.1997, without consulting a Medical Oncologist, the first Opposite Party decided to give radiation treatment to the patient. The first Opposite Party started Radiotherapy from 17.11.1997 and continued till 18.12.1997. The patient was advised to undergo a whole body Bone Scan and on 24.11.1997 a requisition was given by Dr. A. Tagore of Shivasundar Hospital for doing 'Whole Body Bone Scan'. On 1.12.1997, Dr. A.N. Vidheeswaran, the third Opposite Party requested Tamil Nadu Hospital to perform CBC test barring ESR. It is averred that had ESR been done at that stage, it would have revealed the pulmonary and lumbar secondary and prompted right treatment. On completion of the radiation treatment the patient was discharged on 18.12.1997. She was asked for check-up after a lapse of four weeks. The appointment card was given to the patient by the Tamil Nadu Hospital, the fourth Opposite Party, on