IMPORTANT POINTS :
(1) Pre-operative Investigations – It is considered a “judgment of error” and deficiency in service if a doctor proceeds with an exploratory laparotomy (surgery) without conducting proper prior investigations, such as a C.T. Scan, which results in the surgery being abandoned midway and necessitates a second surgery for the patient.
(2) Impleadment of Parties at Appellate Stage – An application to implead a third party (in this case, an Insurance Company) cannot be entertained at the appellate stage, especially when no information regarding professional indemnity was provided before the District Commission during the original proceedings.

ORDER :

Dr. Monika Malik, Member.—This appeal by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) is directed against the order dated 28.12.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Neemuch (for short ‘District Commission’), in complaint case No.49/2009, whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed her.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 21.8.2008, the complainant got admitted in the hospital of opposite parties regarding surgery of abdomen. Rs.25,000/- were deposited by her in this regard. The complainant alleged that on 22.8.2008, the Opposite Party No.1-doctor, though incised her abdomen but closed it without removing the stiff mass, regarding which operation was performed. She was also referred to Ahmedabad for further treatment. The complainant was subsequently treated in Rajasthan Hospital, Ahmedabad, where again surgery was done and stiff masses, which were present in her abdomen, were removed. The complainant incurred Rs.60,000/-, as treatment expenses. She, therefore, alleged deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties.

3. The opposite parties resisted the complaint on the ground that upon incising abdomen of the complainant, it was observed that the mass was attached to posterior wall and was highly vascular in nature and there was risk of severe blood loss, if it was taken out. It was therefore, agreed that an investigation be done before removal of said mass and she be referred to higher centre. The consent of complainant and her relatives were also obtained in this regard, who were interested in taking the complainant to Ahmedabad for further treatment. Therefore, there has been no negligence or deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties.

4. The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-, with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 3.7.2009, till payment with costs of Rs.5,000/-.

5. Heard and perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the District Commission did not take into consideration an important aspect that two surgeries were required to be performed regarding removal of masses, which were present in complainant’s abdomen. Had the opposite parties removed said masses, the complainant could be saved from undergoing another surgery, regarding which she had to spend Rs.70,000/- The bills regarding treatment were presented by the complainant and this fact was also brought in knowledge of the District Commission that the complainant suffered immensely on physical and financial counts but despite that the District Commission has granted nominal compensation. He, therefore prayed that the complainant be compensated with Rs.5 lakhs, with another sum of Rs.1 lakh, towards mental agony along with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-. He referred judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jyoti Devi vs. Suket Hospital and Ors., dated 23.4.2024, to support of his arguments.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties/respondents argued that counsel appearing on their behalf before the District Commission gave no information in respect of professional indemnity policy. However, after passing of the award by the District Commission, the opposite parties instituted complaint case against the Insurance Company, who has paid the amount awarded by the District Commission. He argued that an Interim Application has been moved by the opposite parties regarding impleadment of Insurance Company. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, he prayed that the I.A. be allowed and the Insurance Company be impleaded as party to this appeal.

8. On merits, he argued that as was submitted by the opposite parties before the District Commission, upon incision it was found that the masses were adhering to adjacent tissues and were highly vascular. Since there was possibility of profuse bleeding when they could be