M.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

APPEAL NO. 843/2015 M.D. Rathore S/o late N.S. Rathore R/o House No. 283 Rachna Nagar, P.O. Govindpura Bhopal (M.P.). ... Appellant VERSUS.

1. Mangesh Uro Centre Parul Hospital Through Dr. S.M. Parulkar Address – E71/92, Arera Colony Bhopal (M.P.)

2. New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Divisional Office – 11 Malviya Nagar Bhopal (M.P.) ... Respondent BEFORE;

HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

SHRI SAURABH RATHORE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT SHRI RAVINDRA TIWARI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.1.

DR. S.M. PARULKAR IS ALSO PRESENT IN PERSON.

SHRI MAHAVIR BHATNAGAR, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.2.

O R D E R

( 16.10.2025 )

The following order of the Bench was delivered by Dr.

Monika Malik, Member.

This appeal by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’), is directed against the order dated 8.7.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal (for short ‘District Commission’), in complaint case No. 627/2008, whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by him.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that the complainant had approached the opposite party No.1 on 11.4.2007, since he was observing difficulty in urination. He was advised surgery for prostate and the said operation was conducted on 16.4.2007 by the opposite party No.1-Dr. S.M. Parulkar. He alleged that while urinating blood was coming along with urine and the opposite party No.1 created stricture in his urethra. The complainant alleged that due to the aforesaid, blood got clogged in veins of his left leg and he developed ‘Deep Vein Thrombosis’ (DVT). There were swelling in his left leg and there was great difficulty in walking. The complainant therefore had to go to Bhopal Memorial Hospital and Research Centre (BMHRC) on 3.5.2007, where Dr. S.K. Trivedi treated him. He alleged that earlier in opposite party No.1’s Hospital he spent Rs.42,959/- and in BMHRC Rs.56,000/- were spent in his treatment. He alleged that due to negligent treatment offered by the opposite party No.1, the complainant had suffered immense physical and financial losses and therefore, approached the District Commisson, seeking relief.

3. The opposite party No.1 in his reply before the District Commisson submitted that when the complainant had approached him his prostate gland was enlarged. He had Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia with stricture Urethra. He was advised certain medications but since there was no relief, he was advised surgery. Due precautions were taken, while performing surgery. Pathology tests were also done and biopsy report revealed that there was ‘Benign Hyperplasia Prostate with Chronic Prostatitis.’ It was found that there was infection in the prostate gland. After surgery when complainant approached him again on 2.5.2007, the complainant was having DVT and he was therefore, referred to BMHRC as the said condition is related to vascular system. He was given proper treatment there and he recovered from that also. Therefore, there has been no negligence or deficiency in service on part of the opposite party No.1.

4. The opposite party No.2/Insurance Company in its reply before the District Commisson submitted that the Insurance Company has issued professional Indemnity policy in the matter for Dr. S.M. Parulkar and not for Mangesh Uro Centre i.e. the Hospital. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to cover damages only if Dr. Parulkar is found deficient in service. It was prayed that the complaint deserves to be dismissed, as it is filed on frivolous grounds.

5. Heard. Perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for complainant argued that due to negligent treatment offered by opposite party No.1, the blood got clogged in left leg of the complainant. There was excessive swelling in his leg and he was unable to walk, as he developed DVT. In fact the opposite party No.1 in his pre