##PAGE1##

M.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)

APPEAL NO. 420/2016

Dr. Nanda Samandar

W/o Vikas Samandar

R/o 99, L.I.G. Colony

Dhar (M.P.) ... Appellant

VERSUS.

1. Pappu

S/o Ramesh Dabi

R/o Village Jeerapur

Post Lunhera

Tahasil Dharampuri

District Dhar (M.P.)

2. Director

Patidar Hospital

Mandu Road

Dhar (M.P.) ... Respondents

APPEAL NO. 437/2016

Pappu

S/o Ramesh Dabi

R/o Village Jeerapur

Post Lunhera

Tahasil Dharampuri

District Dhar (M.P.) ... Appellant

VERSUS.

1. Dr. Nanda Samandar

Patidar Hospital

District Dhar (M.P.)

3. Director

Patidar Hospital

Mandu Road

Dhar (M.P.) ... Respondents

: 2 :

BEFORE;

HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT

HON’BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

SHRI NITIN PANDIT, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT – PAPPU

MS. KHWAHISH YADAV, LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARS ON BEHALF OF

SHRI AKASH TELANG, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1

DR. NANDA SAMANDAR.

SHRI AJAY DUBEY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR OPPOSITE PARTY NO.2-

PATIDAR HOSPITAL.

O R D E R

( 28.01.2026 )

The following order of the Bench was delivered by Dr.

Monika Malik, Member.

This order will govern disposal of above mentioned two

appeals No. 420/2016 (filed by opposite party No.1-Dr. Nanda

Samandar) and 437/2016 (filed by the complainant-Pappu) as

both the appeals arise out of a common order. However, for the

purpose of convenience facts are taken from appeal

No.420/2016, unless otherwise stated.

2. These appeals are directed against the order dated

29.2.2016 passed by the District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission, Dhar (for short ‘District

Commission’), in complaint case No. 131/2012, whereby the

: 3 :

District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the

complainant-Pappu (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) and

has directed the opposite party No.1-doctor to pay Rs.25,000/-

to the complainant towards treatment expenses, with another

sum of Rs.25,000/- towards medical negligence along with

compensation of Rs.1 lakh towards mental agony, within a period

of one month, failing which the aforesaid amount is directed to be

paid with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of order, till

payment. In addition complainant has also been awarded

Rs.1,000/- as cost.

3. The case of the complainant is such that his wife-Sarju

Bai (hereinafter referred to as ‘patient’), was admitted in the

hospital of the opposite parties regarding hysterectomy.

Rs.9,000/- were spent in the treatment. After surgery the patient

was kept in ICU for two days and it was informed that another

surgery is required. It is alleged that after second surgery, health

condition of the patient deteriorated extremely and therefore, the

complainant got her discharged from the opposite party/hospital

and took her to Indore, where she was admitted in M.Y. Hospital

on 4.5.2012. Another surgery was performed and it is alleged

that thick fluid was extracted from the intestines of the patient.

: 4 :

After getting discharged, the patient observed pain in her

abdomen and was therefore, re-admitted in the hospital of the

opposite party No.2. On 29.5.2012, the patient died. The

complainant, therefore, alleged deficiency in service against the

opposite parties.

4. The opposite party No.1-doctor resisted the complaint on

the ground that the patient was treated as per medical norms.

No postmortem was conducted in the matter, which could reveal

cause of her death and the same was deliberately not got done

by the complainant. It was prayed that there is no evidence to

prove any negligence on part of the doctor and therefore, the

complaint be dismissed.

5. The opposite party No.2-Hospital before the District

Commission submitted that the patient was given proper

treatment and the doctor was authorised to perform surgery. No

negligence or deficiency in service is proved on part of the

opposite parties and therefore, the complaint be dismissed.

6. Heard. Perused the record.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.1-doctor

argued that the patient presented herself for consultation on

22.4.2012 with c