IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 20.04.2023 Date of hearing: 01.12.2025 Date of Decision: 17.04.2026 FIRST APPEAL NO.- 166/2023 IN THE MATTER OF

1. DR. RAJNISH SHARMA, S/O SH. K. C SHARMA, B-37, EAST JYOTI NAGAR, LONI ROAD, SHAHADARA, DELHI-110093.

2. MANAGEMENT, K K SURGICAL & MATERNITY HOSPITAL, B-37, EAST JYOTI NAGAR, LONI ROAD, SHAHADARA, DELHI-110093.

(Through: Mr. Bineet Pandey, Advocate)

…… Appellants VERSUS MOHD. SAMEER, S/O MOHD. JAMIL, R/O H. NO.: 56-A, GIRI MARKET, LONI ROAD. GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH, (Through: Mr. Sadiq Ali, Advocate)

…Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)

Present: Mr. Bineet Pandey, Counsel for the Appellant.

None for the Respondent.

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:

“The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986 against Opposite Party No.1 i.e. Dr. Rajnish Sharma, the surgeon and the proprietor of K.K. Surgical & Maternity Hospital i.e. Opposite Party No.2. 1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant was diagnosed Ureteric Calculus of right side kidney after KUB and X-ray on 10.04.16 and after various tests, the complainant was advised for open Ureter Lithotomy Surgery in GTB hospital but due to non-availability of decided to get treatment at surgeon in GTB hospital, the DISP Opposite Party hospital. The complainant further that the Opposite Party asked Rs. 32,000/- from Complainant and on 11.07.16 the surgery was performed. Allegedly, instead of Ureter Lithotomy Surgery, the Opposite Party No:1 had implanted RT DJ stenting and informed the complainant that it was a guaranteed method of stone removal, The Complainant was discharged on D 13.07.16 and asked for second observation on 12.08.16. On 12.08.16, when the Complainant visited Opposite Party hospital, after examination and second KUB X ray Complainant was asked to deposit Rs. 3,500/- and he was admitted again. The Opposite Party performed second surgical process and discharged Complainant on next day. The opposite party informed the complainant that since the stone was little bigger so the second operation was necessary. The Complainant was asked to revisit on 23.08.16. On 23.08.16, when the Complainant visited the hospital Opposite Party No.1 removed all the stents implanted and asked him to revisit on 15.09.16. Accordingly, on 15.09.16, the Complainant revisited hospital and reported to the opposite party that he did not felt any relief even after second operation. The complainant was told by the Opposite Party No. 1 that it will take time. The Complainant further submitted that as he did not find any relief, he consulted another doctor and ultra sound and KUB X ray were conducted again. After comparing the new tests with the old reports, the Complainant was informed that stones have not been removed and it has been enlarged and grown in size. When the ES REC Complainant again visited the Opposite Party No.1, he was told that his operation was a successful operation and the opposite party 1 had removed the existing stone completely. The complainant was further told that he was already warned of re-occurrence of stone and this stone of 17.5 mm has re occurred in the span of just four months. The Complainant was asked to deposit Rs. 40,000/- again so that second operation of lithotomy RT can be done. The Complainant stated that he had borrowed money for his first operation and he had no more ore recourses left for their demand and he is suffering from severe pain due to his health conditions. Hence this show deficiency on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for non-performance of appropriate surge and Rs. 2,00,000/- for mental harassment. He has also prayed for Rs. 25,000 as litigation charge