IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 05.01.2018 Date of Hearing: 03.04.2025 Date of Decision: 15.05.2025 COMPLAINT CASE NO.- 26/2018 IN THE MATTER OF SHEELA DEVI, W/O ANIL KUMAR, R/O 1577, BRAHMAN STREET, CHULKANA, DISTRICT PANIPAT, HARYANA.

(Through: Mr. Hanit Sachdeva, Advocate)

…Complainant VERSUS

1. SAROJ SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL, SECTOR 14 (EXTENSION), INSTITUTIONAL AREA, NEAR MADHUBAN CHOWK, ROHINI, DELHI (Through: Harshit Goel, Rajesh Kumar, Advocates)

2. DR. ANIL HANDA (MS)

DEPARTMENT OF ENT, SAROJ SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL, SECTOR 14 (EXTENTION), INSTITUTIONAL AREA, ROHINI, DELHI (Through: Shrestha Kumar, Advocate)

3. DR. ANIL K. MONGA (ENT)

SR. CONSULTANT, ENT SURGEON & COCHLER IMPLANT SURGEON C/O SIR GANGA RAM HOSPITAL C/O H-251, ASHOK VIHAR PH-I DELHI- 110052 (Through: Rajendra Arora, AR)

…Opposite Parties CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT HON’BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Present : None for Complainant.

Mr. Sandeep Vishnu and Ms. Suwaleha Siddiqui, Counsel for the OP No. 1 (Enrl. No. D/2954/2009, Mobile: 9818038564, Email: sandeepvishnu2008@gmail.com)

Mr. Bhupender, AR of the OP No. 1.

Ms. Jyoti Kashyap, proxy counsel for Mr. Shreshta Kumar (Enrl. No. D/4195/2024, Mobile: 9650473808, Email: jyotikashyap.jy@gmail.com), Counsel for the OP No. 2. None for OP No.3 PER :HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by the Complainant before this Commission alleging medical negligence and deficiency in service along with by the Opposite parties and has prayed the following:

a) A sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- in lieu of expenses incurred by her in treatment b) A sun of Rs, 20,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and trauma which has been faced by her and which she is still facing c) A sum of Rs, 50,000/- towards litigation charges d) Interest @12% P.A on the aforesaid amounts from the date of filing of this complaint till its realization e) Any order relief which this commission may deem fit and proper, in facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present complaint are that the Patient-Complainant was suffering from pain and discharge in her left ear. Consequently, the Complainant visited Opposite Party-1 Hospital on 21.06.2017 wherein she was consulted by Opposite Party-2. On 28.06.2017 the Complainant again visited the Opposite Party-1 Hospital and was again consulted by Opposite Party No.2-Dr. Anil Handa and was prescribed some medicines. Further, on 05.07.2017 the Complainant was consulted by Opposite Party-2 wherein she was advised to undergo Endoscopic Tympanoplasty under local anesthesia and the same was scheduled for 08.07.2019. Following the same the Complainant developed facial palsy and since her face was bandaged, she was unable to realize the magnitude of the problem. Thereafter, the husband of Complainant contacted Opposite Party-2 wherein he assured that there is nothing to be worried about. Subsequently, the Complainant visited the Opposite Party- 2 for removal of bandages wherein she was informed that another surgery would be conducted for correction of facial palsy and Complainant deposited Rs. 40,000/- for the same but no procedure was conducted and t Rs. 36,341/- was refunded after deducting the consultation charges. Thereafter, the Complainant was taken to Opposite Party-3 at Ganga Ram Hospital by Opposite Party-2 wherein she was advised for emergency facial nerve decompression with radical mastoidectomy under GA. Subsequently, she was also informed that she would be treated at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital but the procedure was conducted at Uday ENT Hospital, B-

7, Derawal Nagar, New Delhi 110009.

3. The Complainant has alleged medical negligence on part of Opposite Party-1 and 2 during the Endoscopic Tympanoplasty due to which she developed facial palsy.

4. Opposite Party No.3 is proforma party as no negligence has been alleged against Opposite Party No.3-Dr. Mo