Date of filing : 22/10/2008 Date of order : 20/11/2025 MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, PUNE CIRCUIT BENCH AT PUNE Mr.Prashant Yadavrao Kukde ....Complainant R/o. C-21, Nikash Skies, (Adv.D.G.Sant)

Someshwarwadi, Pashan, Pune 411 021.

At Present R/at : United Kingdom VERSUS

1. Jeevandeep Medicare Centre .…Opponents Niranjan Complex, 121/1, (Adv.Rahul Gandhi)

Sus Road, Pashan, Pune 411 021.

2. Dr.Mrs.Deeplaxmi Ragade, Jeevandeep Medicare Centre Niranjan Complex, Pashan, Pune 411 021.

CORAM : Milind.S.Sonawane, Hon’ble Presiding Member.

Nagesh C. Kumbre, Hon’ble Member O R D E R (Decided on 20/11/2025)

Per Mr.Milind S. Sonawane, Hon’ble Presiding Member This is a complaint filed under S.17 r/w. S.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘the C.P.Act’ for short).

2. In short, it is the case of the complainant that, his wife, Rupali was pregnant and under the treatment of opponent no.2 in her hospital, which is opponent no.1. His wife was under the treatment of the same opponent at the time of her first child. Since she was having history of caesarian section at the time of first child, she was to undergo for another caesarian section for second child. On 08.08.2008 at about 11.30 a.m., she was admitted in opponent no.1 hospital. She was getting labour pains. At about 12.00 noon, she was taken to operation theatre, but she was not brought out of it by 4.15 p.m. When she was brought out, she was semi conscious. During she was in operation theater between 1.30 p.m. to 2.00 p.m., the screaming voice of her was heard outside the operation theatre. The reason of it was learnt to be that, while suturing after delivery by caesarian section, it is noticed that, one towel (gauge) was left inside her body, thus sutures were to be reopened for removing the same. The spinal anesthesia was given to her, but it was not effective. Therefore, general anesthesia was given and after removing gauge, suturing was made again. Dr.Daga (who was originally arreyed as opponent no.3 and since he passed away during the pendency of the complaint, his name is deleted) left the operation theatre about 2.15 p.m. and about 4.00 p.m., his wife suffered a cardiac arrest. The complainant alleged that the revival procedure has not been carefully followed by the opponents. Opponent no.2 was not present when his wife suffered cardiac arrest. In short, it is alleged by the complainant that, after the caesarian section, subordinates of opponent no.2 were only present, who were unaware of the revival procedure.

When her wife did not get conscious, the anesthetist Dr.Daga was called. He came at 4.00 p.m., but left in 15 minutes only. He was evasively answering the queries asked by the complainant. It is also revealed to his mother that the body of her wife was not even covered by piece of cloth in the operation theatre after the surgery.

3. In above circumstances, he and her relatives requested for second opinion. Accordingly, Dr.Parag Vaste visited at 6.00 p.m. and advised to shift his wife to better equipped I.C.U.unit at Ratna Hospital. Opponents discharged his wife, but not provided the Discharge Card and other necessary papers and gave them belatedly on 19.09.2008. On 08.08.2008 at 7.30 p.m., his wife was admitted to Ratna Hospital till she was discharged therefrom on 12.08.2008. It was diagnosed that she suffered from Hypoxic Encephalopathy. On 12.08.2008, she was shifted to Dinanath Hospital. She went into Coma and ultimately died on

01.05.2011. During the entire period, she was in coma.

4. The complainant further alleged that, it is only because of post operative negligence on the part of the opponents, he lost his wife. He had lodged police complaint against the opponents. During the investigation of the same, all the case papers were seized and sent to the expert committee of the Sasoon Hospital by the police. After examining all the clinical case reports and statements given by the relatives, doctors and nurse the committee drawn the conclus