STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/959/2015 DR SANTHA MOHANAN PRESENT ADDRESS - ALFA HOSPITAL KOTTAKUNNU SULTHANBATHERY WAYANAD ,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus MINI SHAJI PRESENT ADDRESS - MOONNUPLADKAL HOUSE VALANCHERY KOLERY P O SULTHAN BATHERY WAYANAD,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NEMO DATED: 21/01/2026

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL No.959/2015 ORDER DATED : 21.01.2026 (Against the order in C.C.No.71/2014 on the files of DCDRC, Wayanad)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER APPELLANTS:

1. Dr. Santha Mohanan, Alfa Hospital, Kottakunnu, Sulthan Batheri, Wayanad

2. Managing Director, Alfa Hospital, Kottakunnu, Sulthan Batheri, Wayanad (by Adv. M.C. Suresh)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Mini Shaji, W/o Shaji, Moonnuplackal House, Valanchery, Kolery P.O.,

Sulthan Bathery, Wayanad

(by Adv. B. Jayasankar)

ORDER

SRI. AJITHKUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties in C.C.No.71/2014 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Wayanad (for short, the District Commission).

2. The complant was filed under Section 12 (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging medical negligence against Dr. Santha Mohanan, Alfa Hospital and the hospital represented by its Managing Director.

3. It is alleged that on 28.06.2013, the complainant was admitted in the hospital for conducting hysterectomy as multiple fibroid was detected in the uterus. The surgery was conducted on 02.07.2013 and the complainant was discharged on 09.07.2013. After the discharge, the complainant could notice urine leakage and abdominal pain. When she contacted the first opposite party, medicines were prescribed. But the ailments did not subside. The abdominal pain and urine leakage got increased. Ultimately, the first opposite party had referred the complainant to the Medical College Hospital for further treatment. In view of the reference letter, the complainant got admitted in the Medical College Hospital and undergone treatment in the Urology Department. According to the complainant urine leakage occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the first opposite party in conducting the surgery. On 15.10.2013, the complainant had undergone a further surgery for stopping the urine leakage. She had to spend Rs.75,000/-(Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) for her further treatment. She had already spent Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) for the surgery conducted by the first opposite party. The complainant would allege deficiency in service and sought for an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,25,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand only) as the expenses incurred for her treatment and Rs.3,50,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) as compensation with respect to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

4. The first opposite party had filed a written version with the following contentions:

The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. There is no negligence or deficiency in service as alleged. The complainant had purposefully suppressed the real facts. The complainant had consulted the first opposite party on 07.06.2013 with complaints of lower abdominal pain, abdominal distention and weight bearing feeling. On clinical examination, the uterus of the complainant was found 12 to 14 weeks size and per vaginally cervix was found broad with fullness of left fornix suggestive of multiple fibroid uterus. The first opposite party had advised USG examination and the report revealed multiple fibroid uterus with cervical polyp. Accordingly, she was advised total abdominal hysterectomy with right salpingo-