IMPORTANT POINT
Negligence - Negligence cannot be attributed to the treating doctors. The complainant has not filed any cogent evidence or expert opinion to prove his case.

ORDER

Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member.—The instant Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 29.11.2010 of the State Commission, Hyderabad in First Appeal No.879 of 2008 whereby the appeal preferred by the Complainant/Petitioner against the Order of District Forum dated 30.11.2007 was dismissed.

2. Brief facts that; Anitha Singh the wife of petitioner (herein referred to as ‘Patient’) underwent Caesarian Operation at about 11 p.m. on 19.10.1997 and delivered a female baby. It was performed by Dr. Dr. Rooma Sinha / Respondent No.2 under General Anesthesia. It was alleged that after the operation her condition became critical and she was kept in ICU. She remained unconscious on ventilator for 90 days, but there was no improvement. The hospital authorities refused to consult some specialist in Pulmonary medicine and Cardiology. Lastly the OPs informed that patient may not recover.

3. Being aggrieved the complainant/ petitioner filed Consumer Complaint No.7/1998 before the Consumer Forum-I, Hyderabad and prayed compensation and sought the directions to the respondents to shift the patient to any other hospital.

4. The District Forum dismissed the Complaint vide order dated 27.10.2003 with the following observations:

“18. Both from the factual narrations of the opp. parties and as well the evidence of opp. party no.2 it is very clear that ever since the patient has developed ARDS on the operation theatre, in no time the patient was started with emergency treatment by monitoring her taking all precautions. There is no rebuttal evidence to state that the line of treatment which skill and knowledge. The testimony of DW.1 coupled with the history sheets covered by Ex.B1 establish that the patient was very well taken care right from the time of her admission till discharge. In the absence of any expert evidence on behalf of the complainant no negligence or deficiency in service could be found against them and cannot be found fault. This aspect was made clear in Mrs. Kiran Bala vs. Christian Medical College and Others II (2002) CPJ National Commission. The complainant has totally failed to show or prove medical negligence against the opp. parties. Through the evidence of DW-1 and with the medical record the opp. parties have proved that they acted in accordance with the general and approved practice something went wrong by the sudden complication of ‘ARDS’ which had occurred to the patiently, the doctors cannot be made liable for mis-change or mis-adventure or even for an error of judgement has been laid in Master Suban Kasyap Vs. Dr. Mrs. Sarala Madakar 1 (1991) CPJ 505.

19. Thus on an overall consideration and evaluation of the evidence on record we hold that the complainant miserably failed to establish the allegations of the medical negligence against the opp. parties and on the other hand from the medical record covered by Ex.B1, it is abundantly clear that every sincere effort was made to save the life of the patient when she had suddenly developed ARDS on the operation table subsequent to caesarian operation. It is not known why the complainant has not produced the discharge summary of the NIMS Hospital. PW-1 admitted that the even in NIMS weaning of ventilator was done and gradually the patient had a sudden development of ARDS and the reasons for sudden ARDS could not be known. The patient had to be kept on ventilator 89 days in the hospital, which was taken advantage to attribute medical negligence towards the opp. parties, in the light of the decision of the National Commission in Jagdish Kumar Bajpai Vs. Union of India IV (2005) CPJ 197 (NC). In the absence of any expert evidence to prove negligence the opp. parties cannot be found fault at all.

20. In the result, the complainant is dismissed with costs of Rs.2000/- to each of the opp. parties.”

5. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed the First Appeal F.A. No.879/2008 before the A.P. State Commission. It was dismissed with the following observations:-

“13. The complai