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

APPEAL NO. 728/2017

1. Bhumika W/o Pankaj Patil

2. Pankaj Patil S/o Ramkrishna Patil Both R/o – Village Talaavdi Post Sirpur Tahasil Khaknar District Burhanpur (M.P.) ... Appellants VERSUS.

1. Dinesh S/o Ratilal Shah Manager/Chairman Smt. Bhagabai Balkishandas Seth Aarogya Seva Mandal Matra Seva Sadan Hospital Rastipura Burhanpur (M.P.).

2. Dr. Sanjeev Kapadia R/o Itwara Burhanpur (M.P.)

3. Dr. Urmila Nanavti R/o Vasudhara Aparment Rajpura Burhanpur (M.P.)

4. Dr. Kirtika Tarwala Radheshyam Hospital Infront of Shanvara Seva Sadan College Burhanpur (M.P.) 5. Dr. S.N. Shrof Kiran Pathology, Rajpura Burhanpur (M.P.)

6. Dr. Ramesh Chandra Dalal Through Chaporkar Pathology Near Girls School Burhanpur (M.P.).

7. Dr. Rajendra Chaporkar Near Chaporkar Girls School Burhanpur (M.P.)

8. Dr. H.S. Dawood Sugandhi Pathology, Didar Tower Gandhi Chowk Burhanpur (M.P.)

9. Vinod Sugandhi Through Sugandhi Pathology Didar Tower Gandhi Chowk Burhanpur (M.P.) .... Respondents :

BEFORE;

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

MS. MONA PALIWAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS.

SHRI RAVINDRA TIWARI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS.

O R D E R

( 17.02.2026 )

The following order of the Bench was delivered by Dr.

Monika Malik, Member.

This appeal by the complainants/appellants (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainants’), is directed against the order dated

22.2.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Burhanpur (for short ‘District Commission’), in complaint case No. 134/2015, whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by them.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 27.6.2015, the complainant No.1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘patient’) had approached the opposite party No.1 with reports of certain tests, which were prescribed and when she thus approached the opposite party No.1 with reports, she was admitted in the opposite party No.3-Hospital and the opposite parties N. 1 to 4 performed surgery. They alleged that the opposite parties, without careful observation of the reports, initiated surgery out of ill intention and thus the condition of the patient became critical. She was therefore, referred to Jalgaon but before referring 5 bottles of blood were transfused. They alleged that her life could be saved after performing three surgeries in Jalgaon. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties, the complainants filed complaint, seeking relief.

3. Heard.

4. Learned counsel for the complainants argued that the District Commission did not take into consideration the fact that the opposite parties did not carefully observe the pathology reports, prior to starting operation. She also alleged that the pathology of the opposite parties is not running as per Government norms. Also, no informed consent was obtained from the patient or her relatives. The opposite parties also charged fees from the complainants, whereas since the opposite parties/organization is a charitable hospital, fees should not have been charged. Learned counsel also submitted that no medical documents were provided to the complainants. Since the opposite parties were negligent in performing surgery, the condition of the patient became extremely critical . The District Commission despite the aforesaid has concluded in the impugned order that no negligence or deficiency in service is established on part of the opposite parties. On these grounds, she prayed that the impugned order be set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that against the allegations of the complainants, no fees was obtained from them. Only nominal registration charges were obtained. The receipts which are available on record are in respect of the bottles of blood, which were required to be procured from outside. The patient had tried to conceal this fact that she was also receiving treatment from Dr. Vija