Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R.K. Agrawal, President and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
Sherly Vasan – Petitioner
versus
Dr. Latha Inamdar and Anr. – Respondents
Revision Petition No.537 of 2020
(Against the Order dated 25/06/2019 in Appeal No.152/2013 of the State Commission Karnataka)
Decided on 4.2.2021
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21 : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58(1)(b)] – Medical Negligence – Disposal of case – Scope – Complainant/petitioner underwent abdominal surgery in year 2005 whereby her left ovary was removed – Again in year 2010, she underwent laparoscopic Right ovarian cystectomy – Allegedly in year 2005, opposite parties failed to remove right ovarian cyst and in year 2010 while performing Right Ovarian Cystectomy the patient suffered perforation of cotton fecal peritonitis and septicemia stock – Rs. 5,00,000/- awarded by District Forum – State Commission set aside order of District Forum and remitted the matter back to District Forum and directed parties to lead additional evidence – Hence this revision petition – Act of 1986 provides for speedy and simple radressal of Consumer Disputes – State Commission passed remand order almost after one decade – Nothing prevented the State Commission to take any additional evidence from the parties – Medical negligence cases need expedition disposal of the case – To avoid further delay in adjudication National Commission found it appropriate to decide the matter on merit – Direction issued – Impugned order of State Commission set aside.
Held: In our opinion, the statement of objects and reasons of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 speaks of speedy and simple redressal to the Consumer disputes. The Consumer Complaint pertains to the year 2010 and we are now in 2021. The State Commission passed the remand Order on 25.06.2019, almost one decade has elapsed.
The First Appeal is a continuation of the complaint case and in Appellate Forum (State Commission) the case has to be appraised on both facts and law, and then decided on merit. Nothing prevents the first Appellate Forum (State Commission) to take any additional Evidence from the parties and call for the record of the forum of Original jurisdiction (District Forum) to decide the matter on merit.
The medical negligence cases need expeditious disposal in the interest of parties on both the sides. In the facts of this case, needless remand, in first appeal, to the District Forum for appraisal and decision afresh, is unnecessary and unwarranted. In the interest of justice and to avoid further delay in adjudication, we deem it appropriate to decide the matter before this Commission on merit.
Based on the foregoing discussion, the Order of State Commission is set aside. Parties on both the sides shall file their additional Evidence if any along with brief synopsis of arguments before this Commission within 3 weeks from today and are directed to argue the matter on merits. List the matter for final arguments on 15.04.2021 either physical or video conferencing. (Paras 9 to 13)
Result: Petition Disposed of.
ORDER
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member.—The Petitioner has filed this Revision Petition challenging the order dated 25th June 2019 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in Appeal No. 152 of 2013 whereby the State Commission set aside the Order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as the “District Forum”) passed in CC No. 2501 of 2010 dated 09.01.2013 and remanded the matter to the District Forum, directing the parties to adduce additional evidence and further directed refund of the deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs to the Respondents.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for both sides. Perused the material on Record.
3. This is a case of medical negligence wherein the facts in brief are that the Complainant / Petitioner Sherly Vasan (hereinafter referred to as the “Patient”) in the year 2005 underwent abdominal surgery as a result of which her left ovary was removed instead of Right ovarian cyst. She again in 2010 underwent laparoscopic Right Ovarian Cystectomy performed by the Opposite Parties Nos. 1 & 2. The Complainant’s allegations are two-fold, one, that in the year 2005 the Opposite Parties removed left ovary and did not remove Right ovarian cyst. Secondly, while performing Laparoscopic Right Ovarian Cystectomy (removal of right ovarian cyst) in 2010 the patient suffered perforation of colon, fecal peritonitis and Septicemic shock.
4. Being aggrieved by the alleged negligence the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before the Bangalore IV Additional District Forum.
5. The District Forum partly allowed the Complaint and awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- with 9% interest per annum and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid jointly and severally by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant.
6. Being aggrieved by the Order of the District Forum, the Opposite Parties filed an Appeal No. 152/2013 before the State Commission, Bengaluru and the State Commission set aside the Order of the District Forum and directed the Parties to lead additional evidence and refund the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- deposited before the State Commission to the Opposite Parties.
7. Being aggrieved by the Order of the State Commission, the Complainant filed the instant Revision Petition.
8. We have perused the relevant medical records of Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital and the other two Hospitals where the patient took the treatment. We have further gone through the expert report dated 20.12.2010 issued by Karnataka Medical Council. Thus, in our view there is no need for additional Evidence as it will only delay the matter.
9. In our opinion, the statement of objects and reasons of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 speaks of speedy and simple redressal to the Consumer disputes. The Consumer Complaint pertains to the year 2010 and we are now in 2021. The State Commission passed the remand Order on 25.06.2019, almost one decade has elapsed.
10. The First Appeal is a continuation of the complaint case and in Appellate Forum (State Commission) the case has to be appraised on both facts and law, and then decided on merit. Nothing prevents the first Appellate Forum (State Commission) to take any additional Evidence from the parties and call for the record of the forum of Original jurisdiction (District Forum) to decide the matter on merit.
11. The medical negligence cases need expeditious disposal in the interest of parties on both the sides. In the facts of this case, needless remand, in first appeal, to the District Forum for appraisal and decision afresh, is unnecessary and unwarranted. In the interest of justice and to avoid further delay in adjudication, we deem it appropriate to decide the matter before this Commission on merit.
12. Based on the foregoing discussion, the Order of State Commission is set aside. Parties on both the sides shall file their additional Evidence if any along with brief synopsis of arguments before this Commission within 3
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
