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

APPEAL NO. 408/2022 Smt. Krishna W/o Suresh Kumar Nagar R/o House No.14, Limbodi District Indore (M.P.) ... Appellant VERSUS.

1. Dr Pramod Sharma R/o 09, Vishnupuri Bhavarkua Chouraha Medisquare Hospital A.B. Road, Indore (M.P.)

2. Dr. Geeta Sharma R/o 09, Vishnupuri Bhavarkua Chouraha Medisquare Hospital A.B. Road, Indore (M.P.) ... Respondents BEFORE;

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

SHRI VIVEK ANAND NEMA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT. SHRI DEEPESH JOSHI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS.

O R D E R

( 20.01.2026 )

The following order of the Bench was delivered by Dr.

Monika Malik, Member.

This appeal by the appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) is directed against the order dated 18.4.2022, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission No.1, Indore (for short ‘District Commission’), in complaint case No. 626/2014, whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by her.

2. Case of the complainant is such that she observed pain in her abdomen and had therefore, shown to the opposite parties/doctors. She was admitted in their hospital on 16.1.2013, regarding removal of masses which were there in her abdomen. She alleged that after surgery she felt distension in her abdomen. On 23.1.2013 C.T. Scan was conducted and it was observed that intestines of the complainant got entangled in the surgery performed by the opposite parties/doctors. The opposite parties/doctors insisted on performing another surgery, which was done on 26.1.2013. The complainant was subsequently discharged on 6.2.2013. The complainant alleged that despite the second surgery, she observed no relief in the abdominal distension and she observed severe pain in her abdomen. The opposite parties/doctors thereafter referred her to Dr. Amitabh Goyal at Choithram Hospital. Despite everything, the complainant observed no relief in her symptoms and is still consuming medicines. The complainant alleged that nearly than Rs.4/- lakhs were spent in the entire course of treatment and alleged that the opposite parties/doctors were negligent in performing their duties. She therefore, approached the District Commisson, seeking relief.

3. The opposite parties/doctors before the District Commission submitted that the complainant had ovarian cyst when she approached the opposite parties. Hysterectomy on her was performed 13 years back. The opposite parties/doctors accordingly performed surgery and outcome of the surgery were explained to the complainant and her husband. Proper consent was obtained before surgery. She had history of prolonged illness. Her ovary was removed and sample was immediately sent for biopsy. It is further submitted that when the complainant again complained regarding pain and distension in abdomen, it was observed that there were adhesions in the intestines. Since the complainant wanted to show herself to Dr. Amitabh Goyal, she was referred to him accordingly. The summary sheet of Choithram Hospital also suggests that the complainant was fairly well at the time of admission in the said hospital. It was, therefore, prayed that since there has been no negligence or deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties/doctors, the complaint be dismissed.

4. Heard. Perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the District Commission has committed manifest error of law by completely ignoring the order of the Medical Council of India, whereby the opposite parties/doctors were held guilty of medical negligence and professional misconduct and were consequently suspended from medical practice for a period of one year. Their names were removed from Indian Medical Register for one year. Failure of District Commission to consider and appreciate these statutory disciplinary findings vitiates the impugned order and renders it legally unsustainabl