Back
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. Justice A.P. Bhangale, President and Mr. A.K. Zade, Member
ADITYA JYOT EYE HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. - Appellant
Versus
MR. SAMPATH KUMAR - Respondent
Appeal No. A/14 of 741
Decided on : 07-08-2017
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a beneficiary on behalf of a patient can be considered a 'Consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, and medical negligence can lead to liability for compensation.
Headnote:
Medical Negligence - Consumer Dispute - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(d), Section 21 - Section 2(1)(d), Section 21
Fact of the Case:
The appellant contested a consumer complaint regarding medical negligence resulting in the death of the patient, arguing lack of locus standi and failure to prove consideration for the treatment. The forum found in favor of the complainant, holding the appellant liable for medical negligence and awarding compensation for the patient's death.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's contentions were unconvincing, as the complainant had taken the patient to the hospital for treatment and had evidence of expenditure. The court held the appellant liable for medical negligence based on the evidence presented.
Issues: The issues revolved around the appellant's liability for medical negligence, the complainant's standing as a consumer, and the adequacy of evidence regarding the patient's treatment and subsequent death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainant, as a beneficiary on behalf of the patient, fell within the definition of a 'Consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The court also found that the appellant's failure to conduct necessary preoperative tests and provide proper care amounted to medical negligence.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the forum's decision, ordering the appellant to pay costs to the respondent.
ORDER
A.P. Bhangale, President. - This appeal is directed against order dated 1st July 2014 passed by the Central Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum allowing consumer complaint No. 48/2007 and directing the appellant to pay sum of Rs. 1 lakh (Rupees One lakh) together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum to the complainant and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as costs of the proceedings within one month from the date of the order.
2. Facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under:
Complainant is grandson of the Patient Laxmi Sundaram (since dead). He had taken his Grand Mother to the Hospital of OP for checkup of her eyes and the treatment and spent for her treatment in the Hospital. OP No. 1 had diagnosed her for poor vision in the right eye and moderate vision in the left eye. OP No. 2 recommended photodynamic therapy to follow a cataract procedure for the left eye. OP No. 2 told that operation is feasible though she is of advanced age. Laxmi was admitted in the Hospital on 20.09.2006 and necessary tests were carried out. Prior to the operation her blood count was measured and it was found in order. OP No. 2 was to perform surgery but on 21st September 2006, OP No. 3 performed cataract surgery on the left eye of the Patient Laxmi though she was not apprised of the case by OP No. 2. Complainant had no confidence over OP No. 3. The surgery was painful for Laxmi. When the bandage was opened on 21.09.2006, it was found that the left eye was swollen and the patient could not see anything. OP No. 3 told that there was some problem in the blood, which resulted in hemorrhage. Complainant consulted haematologist Dr. M.B. Agrawal, who performed test on 21.09.2006. It revealed that Patient had myeloid leukaemia and blood platelet count was inadequate. It was 30,000 only when minimum required was 1,50,000, while OP No. 1 Hospital had shown the blood platelet count as adequate. Thus, it was revealed that despite the fact that blood platelet count was inadequate, the cataract operation was performed though Patient was medically unfit. OP Nos. 1 to 3 were collectively negligent for the cataract surgery on 21.09.2006 which in fact failed. Complainant had prayed for compensation in the sum of Rs. 5 lakhs (Rupees Five Lakhs) together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 21.09.2006 till payment.
3. The appellant had contested the complaint contending that the Forum below had no locus to entertain the complaint on the ground that the Complainant was grand Son of the Patient and had not furnished copy of the death Certificate or succession certificate or Letters of Administration and that under Hindu Succession Act complainant was not her Class One heir to her movable and immovable assets. It is grievance of the OP Hospital that learned Forum below overlooked these submissions. Further, according to the Appellant the Complainant did not prove that the Patient had availed services of the OP for consideration for the treatment of the deceased. We are not impressed by these contentions as the complainant had taken his Grandmother to the OP Hospital for eye check up and treatment and hired services of the Hospital for consideration. As beneficiary on behalf of the patient, he was well within the definition of the term 'Consumer' as defined under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to raise a consumer dispute. There was evidence of the complainant's bank account showing that he had spent for hospital charges.
4. Both the parties had filed documents/affidavits in support of their contentions and also replies/counters. After considering the material before it, the District Forum came to pass the impugned order. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant is before us.
5. We have heard the learned counsel Mr. S.B. Prabhavalkar for the appellant and learned counsel Smt. Geeta Handa Khanuja for the respondent No. 1/original complainant. With the help of both we have gone through the material on record.
6. The learne
