O R D E R

( 11.03.2026 )

The following order of the Bench was delivered by Dr.Monika Malik, Member.

This complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), is filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties in his treatment.

Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant was a diagnosed case of Intestinal obstruction with adhesions and he was earlier operated for the same in the years 1962, 1964 and 1992. It is submitted that all the previous surgeries were carried out by opening the abdomen. On 27.12.2007 the complainant consulted opposite party No.2/Doctor for symptoms of swelling in umbilical region since 4 months and mild tenderness. The opposite party No.2/Doctor diagnosed the complainant as (?) Obstructed Umbilical Hernia and advised hospitalization at the opposite party No.1/Hospital with an intention to operate upon the patient next day, without making any attempt to confirm the said diagnosis. On the instruction of opposite party No.2/Doctor the complainant was admitted in opposite party No.1/Hospital on 27.12.2007. The complainant informed the opposite party No.2/Doctor about his earlier surgeries and the same was recorded in the discharge card also. Despite the significant surgical history, opposite party No.2/Doctor proceeded to operate upon the patient laparoscopically on 28.12.2007 at about 5.15 P.M. During laparoscopic procedure opposite party No.2/Doctor encountered multiple intestinal adhesions inside. It is stated that no detailed information regarding risks, complications or alternative modes of treatment was explained to the complainant prior to surgery. It is submitted that despite encountering dense adhesions, opposite party No.2/Doctor continued with blind adhesiolysis, during which he perforated the coils of the intestines leading to seepage of intestinal contents into the abdominal cavity resulting in perforation peritonitis. The complainant was again posted for a repeat surgery on 31.12.2007 due to the intestinal perforation caused during the first surgery for closure of the perforation and during second surgery also the opposite party No.2/Doctor adopted the laparoscopic approach instead of open laparotomy. It is submitted that due to repeated negligent procedures the complainant’s condition further deteriorated but the opposite parties did not seek consultation from any senior or experienced surgeon.

On 13.1.2008, the complainant was referred to Jaslok Hospital, Mumbai, where he was admitted under the care of Dr. S.K. Bhansali, who on examination opined that when previous surgeries where done by open laparotomy, subsequent surgeries should not have been performed laparoscopically and that too, twice. The patient developed intestinal fistula post- operatively. The complainant was discharged on 6.5.2008 with an open abdominal wound. The complainant was readmitted in Jaslok Hospital on 11.7.2008 due to discharge coming out of the wound. He was managed conservatively and was discharged on 17.7.2008. The complainant’s condition again worsened and he was again admitted on 10.9.2008 with a foul- smell coming from infected wound and mesh. The mesh was removed on 13.9.2008 and the complainant was discharged on 12.10.2008. It is submitted that during follow- ups, the doctors at Jaslok Hospital informed the patient that no further surgical intervention was possible and that he would have to remain on liquid diet for life and that all complications had occurred solely due the laparoscopic surgeries conducted by the opposite party No.2/Doctor. It is submitted that the complainant consulted specialist doctors at different Hospitals, who also confirmed that laparoscopy should not have been performed and that the complainant would require lifelong liquid diet. The complainant returned to Indore in a permanently disabled physical and mental condition. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties, the