IMPORTANT POINT
Protection of Life – OPs failed to bring on record that inherent infrastructure and expertise to protect the life of deceased who was admitted.

ORDER

The Appellant filed the instant Appeal under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (in short “the Act”), against the Order dated 11.12.2017 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (the “State Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No. 58 of 2001, wherein the State Commission partly allowed the Complaint filed by the Complainant (Respondent herein) against the Opposite Parties (Appellants herein).

2. There is 7 days delay in fling the present appeal and for the reasons stated the same is condoned.

3. For Convenience, the parties in the present matter are being referred to as position held in Consumer Complaint before the State Commission. Sh. Ram Bali (since Deceased) is identified as the Complainant who was the Husband of Smt. Kamla alias Kamlesh Kushwaha (patient or the deceased). Dr. Savita Luthra and Dr. SK Luthra are identified as OP-1 & OP-2 respectively (OPs).

4. In the present case, the Complainant’s wife sought medical attention at Suraj Nursing Home with the complaint of abdominal pain, operated by Dr. Smt. Savita Luthra (OP-1) on 29.04.2000. Upon admission and depositing an initial amount of Rs. 500, she was assured by OP-1 and her husband, Dr. S.K. Luthra (OP-2), that they would completely cure her condition. Despite the lack of investigation or X-ray examination, the doctors informed the Complainant that his wife’s intestines were severely damaged, necessitating immediate surgery to prevent potential fatality within a day or two. Acting on doctors’ advice, he deposited an additional Rs. 750 and, later, on 30.04.2000 he deposited Rs. 3,500. However, no X-ray report was provided. On 01.05.2000, the Complainant again deposited Rs. 2,629 without any receipts. By 04.05.2000, a total of Rs. 6,879 was paid by him. However, from the evening of 03.05.2000, the patient’s condition deteriorated, and despite the Complainant’s pleas, the doctors were not available at the Nursing Home. Despite repeated requests, none attended to her and her condition worsened. On 04.05.2000, around 1:30 AM oxygen was administered to the patient by the nurse and yet doctors remained absent despite his requests. Tragically, she passed away around 3:00 AM on 04.05.2000, due to the doctors’ negligence and absence, leading to inadequate treatment. No X-ray reports or receipts were provided and the nature of illness was not informed and no second opinion was taken. He attributed the death of his wife to the negligence of the doctors, leaving the entire family devastated. Being aggrieved, he filed CC No. 58 of 2001 before the learned State Commission seeking compensation of Rs.20 Lakhs with 24% interest.

5. In Reply, OPs contended that the Complainant’s wife was admitted in an extremely serious condition with symptoms of acute abdomen pain with distention and low general condition. They informed him of the gravity of the situation and the need for urgent operation. Contrary to his claims, no assurance of complete recovery was given. He was charged nominal fee of Rs. 50 against standard fee of Rs. 2,000, purely on humanitarian grounds. Further, necessary examinations, including X-ray were conducted. The reports revealed signs of perforation and the severity of her condition warranted immediate surgery, which was explained to the Complainant, and his consent was obtained as per standard protocol. He made no payment of Rs.2,629 to OPs the Complainant may have utilized it for buying medicines elsewhere. They denied any negligence or malpractice and emphasized providing best possible professional service and post-operative care. Even after diligent efforts medical attention her unfortunate demise occurred. They underscored risks inherent and high mortality rates in such complex cases, citing medical literature. They performed surgical procedure, including creation of a transverse colostomy to aid healing. OPs the claim of withholding receipts was false. They challenged the Complainant’s assertions of negligence