Date of filing :09.05.2024 Date of order :31.07.2024 MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 12 OF 2024

1. Shivdas Shekhu Thakare, …COMPLAINANTS (Adv.A.T.Kanwade)

2. Mrs.Usha Shivdas Thakare, Both residing at post Wari, Tq.Kopargaon, Dist.Ahmednagar.

VERSUS

1. Dr.Sanjay Kisan Mahajan, …RESPONDENTS

2. Mauli Surgical Hospital, Both address Dharangaon Road, At Post Tq.Kopargaon, Dist.Ahmednagar.

CORAM : Milind.S.Sonawane, Hon’ble Presiding Member.

Nagesh.C.Kumbre, Hon’ble Member J U D G M E N T (Delivered on 31/07/2024)

Per Nagesh.C.Kumbre, Hon’ble Member.

The complainant filed this consumer complainant under section 45 read with section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

2019 ( in short the C.P. Act)

1. It is the case of complainant that, they are residing at Wari Tq. Kopergaon Dist.Ahmednagar and opponent No.1 is medical practitioner, practicing at his clinic named Mauli Surgical Hospital at Ahmednagar i.e. opponent No.2. The Complainant had only single issue, daughter named Sheetal who had completed her double graduation and was serving as laboratory assistant and also conducting private tuitions and only earning member for her family.

2. In March 2021 Sheetal notices a small bump on one of her breasts and thereafter she with complainant no.2, her mother went to hospital of opponent for checking. After medical examination opponent informed to Sheetal and her mother that bump needs to be removed by surgery and if delayed it will be endanger to the life of Sheetal. On the same day opponent referred Sheetal to Dr.Megha Gaidhani for pathological test. After receipt of report, opponent insisted Sheetal and her mother that he will remove the bump immediately on the same day. It is the contention of complainant that opponent without following the mandatory standard, protocols of pre-intra and post surgery and without obtaining the consent, negligently conducted the surgery on the person of Sheetal. After surgery patient was not kept under medical observation and asked the patient to come after 8 days for removal of stitches. The charges of treatment Rs.7,000/- has been given by complainant to opponent but opponent has not issued any receipt of the payment. Due to such improper and negligent surgical intervention patient suffer from adverse reaction and the condition of patient became critical. Complainant rushed to the hospital of opponent and thereafter to Mule hospital, Sainath hospital Shirdi, and lastly at Govt. hospital Ahmednagar for treatment but sheetal was died on 22.03.2021. Sheetal lost her life within 3 days of her operation and due to negligence of opponent. As such complainant filed this consumer complaint claiming compensation of Rs.1,10,00,000/- along with interest at the rate 10 %from the date of death of Sheetal and cost of litigation.

3. On perusing the complaint and documents filed by complainant the following points arise for our determination. We have noted them along with our findings against it for the reasons follow.

REASONS As to point no.(I):

4. The learned Adv.K.N.Bhosle holding for adv. A.T. Kanawade with authority letter submitted that this Commission is having the pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain this complaint as the claim of complainant for compensation is Rs. 1,10,00,000/- with 10 % interest from the date of death till its realization and cost of litigation. As such complainant has sought the relief worth more than Rs. 50 lakh which is within the pecuniary limits of this Commission.

5. However we don’t agree with the submission made by adv. Bhosle for complainant. Section 47 (1) (a) (i) of C.P. Act read with Central Government circular dated 30.12.2021, stipulates that, State Commission would have to entertain the complaint where the value of goods or services “paid as