ORDER

Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member.—The instant Revision Petition was filed under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order dated 20.02.2013 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred to as ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 104/11 whereby the Appeal filed by the Complainant was dismissed.

2. The main grievance of the Complainant that she had problem at D-5 level, however the opposite parties wrongly performed operation at L-4 and L-5 level and removed portions of the vertebra causing injury to nerves which resulted paralysis below the hip. It was alleged that the Opposite Parties Nos. 1 & 2 were not qualified to do neurosurgery. Thereafter, the prolonged Physiotherapy was not fruitful. She consulted a Neurosurgeon at the Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, who diagnosed a cyst at D5 level and removed the cyst by operation. Being aggrieved by the negligent treatment by the Opposite Parties Nos.1 & 2, the Complainant filed a Complaint before the District Forum, Pathanamthitta.

3. The District Forum dismissed the Complaint. The Complainant challenged the dismissal by filing first Appeal before the State Commission. The Appeal was also dismissed. Hence, this Revision Petition.

4. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the sides. Perused the entire material on record inter-alia Orders of both the fora.

5. The District Forum passed the following Order. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced as below:

13. On the basis of the contentions of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on records. There is no dispute regarding the treatment of the complainant at the 3rd opposite party hospital by the opposite parties. The only point to be considered is whether the treatment of opposite parties was negligent and improper. According to the complainant, all complications including the paralysis of the complainant was due to the improper diagnosis and improper surgery and the treatment by unqualified doctors at hospital having no facilities to do a surgery like the surgery performed to the 1st complainant. From the available evidence, Ext. B2 to B5, it can be seen that the 1st opposite party is a qualified surgeon in orthopedics. So the allegation that the doctor who had performed the surgery is not a qualified person is not sustainable. It is also seen that the surgery was done by the opposite party on the diagnosis based on Ext. A2 scanning report brought by the complainant. Ext.A2 scanning report shows that degeneration of L34 and L4-5 in the vertibral disks and mild bulging annulus of L3-4 and L4-5 intervertibral disks causing compression over the existing nerve root bilateral and indentation over the thecal sac. According to the opposite parties, they have performed the surgery on the basis of the above scanning report and the surgery was successful. But there is no evidence to prove that the diagnosis and the surgery was wrong and improper. The main allegation of the complainant is that all the complications of the complainant including the paralysis was due to the negligent and improper Surgery by the opposite parties and the 2nd surgery was necessitated due to the 1st surgery. The available evidence shows that the two surgeries were done at different portions of the vertibra of the complainant based on two separate MRI scanning reports obtained at a gap of 7 months. The two scanning reports discloses different diseases at different portions of the vertibra. So it cannot be said that the 2nd disease revealed from Ext. A3 scanning report is an after effect or the consequence of the 1st surgery.

14. In this case, from the side of the complainant an expert witness was examined as PW2. PW2 is a Professor of Neuro Surgery. But the complainant failed to brought any evidence for supporting his case through PW2. The complainant had even failed to establish his case even by using the treatment records of the complainant brought from the 3rd