ORDER

1.       The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 30.08.2017 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 579 of 2014 in which order dated 11.09.2014 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Nellore (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no 28 of  2012 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting the orders of the State Commission and District Forum and to pay compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- alongwith costs.

2.       While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Appellant and the Respondents (hereinafter also referred to as OPs ) were Respondent in the said FA 579 of 2014 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was Complainant and Respondents were Opposite Parties before the District Commission in the CC no. 28  of  2012.  Notice was issued to the Respondents on  01.02.2019. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 24.11.2018 and 05.04.2023 respectively.

3.       Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that  Complainant feeling pain in hepatic region met respondent no.1 herein Dr. K. Rupa Kumar on 14.04.2011,  got her tested and ultrasound report was got done.  It was noticed that complainant was suffering from formation of stones in the gall bladder and she was diagnosed to be suffering from ‘symptomatic cholilithasis’.  She was advised laproscopic cholecystectomy and after explaining the complainant the various surgical options and risk involved, the procedure was done on 26.04.2011.  She was discharged from the hospital on 28.04.2011 as no post operative complications were found.  On 03.05.2011 i.e. seven days after the surgery, ultrasound was done and there was no evidence of any complication.  However, she was examined again on 06.05.2011 she was found with mild jaundice.    The ultrasound done on her revealed proximal dilated bile duct (CBD) with IHBD with abrupt ending at mid section i.e. narrowing of the duct.  The respondent no.1 referred the complainant to Gastroentologist, Narayna Medical College, Nellore.  However, the Complainant did not go to the said medical college and chose to go to Vijaya Medical and Educational Trust Hospital at Chennai.  At Vijaya Medical and Educational Trust Hospital, she was diagnosed with CBD stricture and received treatment as in patient from 09.05.2011 to 13.05.2011.  She improved symptomatically with medication and was discharged and was advised to be on medication with Pantocid capsule.   On being complained of pain again, she was admitted in the hospital on 18.05.2011 and after treating her with antibiotics, she was discharged on 26.05.2011 with advise to be on prescribed medication.  She again went to the same hospital for the third time after complaining loss of appetite with pain and abdominal distension for the past four days and continuous vomiting.   Since her condition was critical, infected bile was drained through the procedure of drainage tube inserted in the right hypochondirum and in the LIF.  The complainant was managed in mechanical ventillators for two days and her condition improved with medication and she was discharged on 08.06.2011.  However, after few days, there was fluid collection in the anterior perihepatic region and surgery was conducted on her to remove puss collection.  She was discharged on 08.08.2011.   Complainant filed a CC before the District Forum which was dismissed.  Aggrieved by the decision of the District Forum,  the Complainant filed Appeal before the State Commission which was also dismissed. Hence, the Complainant / Petitioner is  before this Commission now in the present Revision Petition.

4.       Petitioner has chal