IMPORTANT POINT
(1) Poor Medical Record – Poor Medical Record maintained by the hospital, itself, was a deficiency in service and failure of duty of care.

ORDER

Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member.—Both the Appeals have been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by two doctors (Appellants) against the Order dated 01.10.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in Complaint No. 2/2006 whereby the Complaint was partly allowed.

2. For the convenience, all the Parties would be referred to the positions they held in the Consumer Complaint No. 2/2006 filed before the State Commission. The facts are drawn from First Appeal No.840 of 2013.

3. The brief facts are that Mrs. Phooli Devi (hereinafter referred to as the “patient”), wife of Mr. Madan Lal Yadav – Complainant was suffering uterine problems about 1 ½ years. One Dr. Sita Ram Yadav (hereinafter referred to as the “Opposite Party No. 2”) visited the Complainant’s house on 13.03.2005 and insisted to undergo operation at Krishna Hospital at village Khejdoli as the operation would cost much less and cheaper than at Jaipur. Being so convinced, the Complainant admitted his wife in Krishna Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the “Hospital - Opposite Party No. 1”) and hysterectomy was done on the same day. It was alleged that soon after the operation, the patient had pain and urine started oozing out continuously. It was brought to the notice of Opposite Party No. 2 and a urine bag was installed. The Opposite Party No. 2 stated that pain will be relieved within few days. On 24.03.2005, the patient got discharged from the Hospital with advice for complete bed rest. However, there was no improvement in her post-operative pain and discomfort and on 28.03.2005, the patient was taken to SMS Hospital, Jaipur. Dr. S.S. Yadav at SMS Hospital examined the patient and told about the cut injury to patient’s urinary bladder during the hysterectomy. She was called for another operation for repair after three months only. Accordingly, the patient was operated at SMS Hospital on 16.09.2005 and discharged on 24.09.2005. Being aggrieved by the alleged gross medical negligence while performing the surgery, patient’s husband Mr. Madan Yadav filed a Consumer Complaint against Opposite Parties before the State Commission to claim Rs. 35,00,000/- as total compensation.

4. The Opposite Party No. 2 filed its reply, but the Opposite Parties Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 & 6 have not filed their replies despite they being served through the newspaper publication in ‘Dainik Bhaskar’. The Opposite Party No. 2 in its reply stated that he was neither a doctor nor manager/administrator of the Krishna Hospital, but he was a Radiographer, running X-Ray Diagnostic Center in one part of Krishna Hospital. As, he was a relative of the Complainant, therefore, he requested the Surgeon, Dr. Sushil Acharya (Opposite Party No. 3) to operate Complainant’s wife without any consideration. The operation was done at free of cost, therefore, the Complainant was not a consumer. He further submitted that the treating doctors saw the post-operative oozing of urine and opined that, it was a possible complication after long standing Pelvic Inflammatory Disease (PID).

5. After hearing the parties, the State Commission partly allowed the Complainant and directed the Opposite Parties Nos. 1 to 5 to pay lumpsum amount of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest of 6% per annum to the Complainant. The Complaint against Mr. Girdhari Lal Yadav (Opposite Party No. 6) was dismissed.

6. Being aggrieved, only two of the five original Opposite Parties i.e. Surgeon, Dr. Sushil Acharya (Opposite Party No. 3) and Dr. Jagdeesh Lalwani (Opposite Party No. 4) have preferred separate First Appeals before this Commission.

7. Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties. Perused the material on record and gave our thoughtful consideration.

8. The affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No. 2 before the State Commission clearly states that all the Opposite Parties were jointly managing the hospital. Moreover, there was criminal proceeding