ORDER

Sudip Ahluwalia, Member—This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Complainant against Respondent No.1/ Opposite Party No.1 and Respondent No.2/ Opposite Party No.2 challenging the impugned Order dated 25.06.2019 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru, in Appeal bearing No. 152 of 2013. Vide such Order, the State Commission had allowed the Appeal while setting aside the Order dated 09.01.2013 passed by the Bangalore IV Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bangalore, in Consumer Case No. 2501/2010.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant is a qualified Clinical and Pathologist who was running a clinical Laboratory namely, ‘Sri Lakshmi Clinical Laboratory’. It was the case of the Complainant that she had undergone Laparotomy for Cystectomy about 5 years earlier and there is a vertical punctured scar. The Complainant had started feeling pain in the abdomen off and on since October, 2009 and in April, 2010, the pain became severe and she therefore approached the Opposite Party No.1, Dr. Smt. Latha Inamdar, a renowned Gynaecologist, running a Nursing Home called ‘Trupti Nursing Home’. The Complainant was examined by the Opposite Party No.1 and a growth/Cyst on her right ovary was diagnosed. Consequently, the Opposite Party No.1 advised her to undergo Laparoscopy for the removal of the Cyst and it was also said that the Opposite Party No.2, a qualified Laparoscopic Surgeon would be conducting the Laparoscopy and the procedure would take around 30 minutes to maximum one hour. It was further contended that the Complainant was admitted in Opposite Party No.1’s Hospital on 29.04.2010 and was discharged on 02.05.2010. On 04.05.2010, she developed uneasiness, breathlessness and distension of abdomen and pain, and her stomach had swollen so heavily that she was unable to even sit or move. She was rushed to Opposite Party No.1’s Nursing Home and was checked by Opposite Party No. 2 after which it was represented that it was merely gastric and no other problem. However, the condition of the Complainant became worse. Consequently, she was shifted to Panacea Hospital, Basaveshwara Nagara, Bangalore.

3. It was further the case of the Complainant that the Doctors at Panacea Hospital advised her to undergo scanning and subsequently, it was diagnosed that there was a tear on the anterior wall of the colon measuring 4-5 cm. Dr. Anand Kumar at Panacea Hospital on observing the Scan Report stated that the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 had committed negligence while performing Laparoscopy on the Complainant, as the Opposite Parties had punctured the intestine (Colon) and consequently the faeces had spread to the stomach and other areas resulting in septicaemia. The Complainant therefore underwent an emergency ‘Exploratory Laparotomy’ at Panacea Hospital for closure of ‘Sigmoid Perforation’ and ‘Diversion ileostomy’ on 04.05.2010. It was further contended that the Complainant was kept in the ICU and was on ventilator, and she was also administered antibiotics, antacids, analgesic IV fluids, Inotropes, and various other drugs/treatments. It was further claimed that as result of ‘Exploratory Laparotomy’, the faecal outputs were collected in a Colostomy bag connected to the right side of the stomach and the Complainant had to change the said bag every now and then.

4. It was further claimed by the Complainant that she had to engage the services of a qualified Clinical Pathologist for running her laboratory. She was again admitted to Ananya Hospital from 13.09.2010 till 21.09.2010 and was under treatment till the filing of the complaint. The Complainant further stated that before conducting the ovarian Cystectomy, the Opposite parties ought to have considered the risk factors for intestinal injury. It was further claimed that since the Complainant had earlier undergone Laparotomy for Hysterectomy, there was every chance of the organs getting damaged in the Cystectomy