IMPORTANT POINT
Pathological report - The veracity or otherwise of the pathological report should have been considered and examined by the State Commission which it failed to do.

ORDER

The present revision petition has been filed under section 21 (B) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’) against the judgment dated 01.11.2018 of the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna (‘in short, the State Commission’) in Appeal no.870 of 2006.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner’s wife Anandi Devi complained of some pain and problem in the stomach for which she was advised by the local doctor at Gopalganj, Bihar to consult a good surgeon at Patna, Bihar. Accordingly, the petitioner along with his wife (now deceased) came to Patna and consulted the respondent herein, Dr Ramesh Prasad Singh of Sharada Seva Sadan, opposite Kendriya Vidyalaya, Kanakarbagh, Patna. The said doctor examined the wife of the petitioner on 29.03.2003 and after examination the doctor advised the some tests to arrive at a definite conclusion and a correct diagnosis could be done. Pathological tests for blood and urine were conducted on 29.03.2003. An ultrasound was also conducted on 31.03.2003. On perusing the pathological tests and ultrasound, the respondent advised the patient to get the gall bladder removed.

3. After necessary formalities the wife of the petitioner was admitted for necessary operation of Gall Bladder on 01.04.2003 at Sharda Seva Sadan, Kankarbagh, Patna. The gall bladder was removed by laparoscopy operation by the respondent doctor. For this surgery the respondent doctor charged a sum of Rs.12,000/- from the petitioner which was deposited before the operation on 01.04.2003. After the operation the wife of the petitioner complained of breathlessness and her stomach was swelling slowly due to which she was not feeling well and the matter was reported to the respondent doctor. Despite the complaint of uneasiness and breathlessness on 01.04.2003, the respondent doctor came to examine the wife of the petitioner only on 02.04.2003. After examination, the doctor prescribed some medicines and also opined and advised that due to mistake it appears that stitches inside the stomach were not done for which reason the problem was still persisting He advised that the patient would have to be operated again. Accordingly, the wife of the petitioner was again operated on 02.04.2003. It was stated that the Despite the two operations, the situation did not improve and it went from bad to worse and ultimately, the wife of the petitioner died on 03.04.2003 at Sharda Seva Sadan due to negligence and deficiency in service of the respondent doctor. The petitioner submits that the age of the wife of the petitioner was 45 years and while operating the patient for such symptoms the respondent should have taken care of her breathlessness and for normal functioning of the heart, the however, the same was not done by the respondent doctor. It is evident from the prescriptions dated 02.04.2023 and 03.04.2023 that the wife of the petitioner was suffering from breathlessness since last four years and she was taking medicine ‘Befrulon’ and some other medicines. The State Commission is stated to have erroneously not considered the petitioner’s contentions in Complaint no.65 of 2004. The petitioner therefore, prays the following:—

(a) To set aside the order dated 01.11.2018 passed by the State Commission, Bihar in Appeal no. 870 of 2006 and allow the present revision petition;

(b) To pass an order thereby remanding back the present case to the District Forum or to the State Commission, Patna in order to place the affidavit of Dr Suresh Prasad;

(c) To pass an order thereby granting the compensation as prayed for by the petitioner in the complaint filed before the District Forum; and

(d) To pass such other and further order as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

4. The petitioner had filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patna (in short, ‘the District Forum’) being CC no. 65 of 2004. The respondent doctor filed an