Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7297
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Judge Unknown, J
Dr. Sunita Verma – Appellant
Versus
Sangeeta Dubey – Respondent
Revision Petition No. RP/1648/2015 | Revision Petition No. RP/3121/2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Unknown
For the Respondents: Unknown
Medical professionals must adhere to established standards, and negligence can lead to liability for damages.
Headnote:The court analyzed the consumer grievance under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, involving allegations of medical negligence against medical professionals post-surgery, primarily focusing on whether proper standards of care were met. The findings highlighted deficiencies in service led to the claim for compensation. Key issues revolved around the qualifications and actions of the medical practitioners involved in the case, and the court acknowledged previous judicial pronouncements regarding medical liability. The final ruling directed the opposing party, Dr. Sunita Verma, to compensate the complainant with a specified amount within a defined timeframe.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. patient experienced complications post-surgery. (Para 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. arguments regarding the qualifications of medical professionals. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 3. assessment of service standards and negligence. (Para 13 , 15) |
| 4. final direction for compensation and dismissal of the appeal. (Para 16) |
1. The two Petitioners have filed the present Revision Petitions against the impugned order dated 8.4.2015 passed in Appeal No. FA / 13/213 and FA / 13/184 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Pandri, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commissionâ€).
2. For the convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their original position in the Complaint, i.e. Dr. Sunita Verma as the Opposite Party No. 1, Dr. V.K. Dikshit as the Opposite Party No. 2 and New India Insurance Co. Ltd. as the Opposite Party No. 3.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant Sangeeta Dubey (for short ‘the patient’) underwent hysterectomy operation in Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences (CIMS) at Bilaspur on 22.8.2005 and discharged on 31.8.2005. It was performed by Dr. Sunita Verma, the Opposite Party No. 1. The Complainant alleged that after the operation, the patient was passing urine from her vagina, but the patient was discharged without attention and told that it will be cured automatically. On 2.10.2005, the patient again came to the Opposite Party No. 1 with the Complaints of increased flow of urine. The Opposite Party No. 1 inserted a catheter and called her after one week. The Complainant noticed that the urine was not coming from the Catheter and therefore, approached the Opposite Party No. 1 on next day 3.10.2005, who examined her and found urinary examination bladder was damaged and suggested to consult another expert doctor, thereafter, she denied further treatment. The patient approached Dr. S.M. Dubey and then to Dr. D.R. Patle. Lastly, the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party No. 2, Dr. V.K. Dixit, who examined the patient and X - rays and advised 2 operation. It was alleged that the Opposite Party No. 2 was not qualified Urologist, but he performed the 2 nd operation “Ureteroneocystostomyâ€. Due to the negligent act, the Complainant incurred financial loss, physical and mental agony. Being aggrieved a complaint was filed before the District Consumer Forum, Bilaspur.
4. The District Forum held the Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 2 liable for deficiency in service and medical negligence. It ordered to pay jointly and severally Rs. 1 lakh towards compensation and Rs. 75,000 towards financial loss. It was also allowed Rs. 20,000 for physical and mental agony and Rs. 3,000 as a cost of litigation.
5. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed Appeal No. FA / 13/219 for enhancement of the compensation, whereas the Opposite Parties Nos. 1 & 2 filed Appeal No. FA / 13/213 & FA / 13/184 for setting aside the order of the District Forum.
6. The State Commission partly allowed the Appeal (FA / 13/219) filed by the Complainant and modified the compensation to pay Rs. 75,000 instead of Rs. 20,000 for mental agony. The remaining part of the Order of the District Forum remained unaltered. The two Appeals filed by the doctors were dismissed.
7. Being aggrieved, both the Opposite Parties filed the instant two Revision Petitions.
8. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Parties. Perused the material on record inter alia the Orders of both the Fora.
9. There was huge delay of 484 days in filing the Revision Petition No. 3121 of 2016 by the Petitioner Dr. Sunita Verma. The reasons stated for the delay that the Opposite Party No. 1 wrongly approached the High Court to file Revision against the Order of the State Commission. Thus, the time was spent there. Therefore, to provide fair opportunity to the petitioner and to dispose the matter on merit, the delay is condoned.
10. On merit, the learned Counsel for Opposite Party No. 1 submitted that Dr. Sunita Verma was MD Gynec, and working in
