DARSHNI DEVI vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. , Kamal Bhushan Jain

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner who was original complainant before the District Forum, against the order dated 21.2.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (''State Commission'', for short).

BRIEFLY stated, the petitioner had filed a complaint before the District Forum (Complaint No.415 of 2006) relating to alleged medical negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the respondent No.1/OP-1 while conducting surgery on the petitioner at Surya Hospital, Karnal. The District Forum disposed of the complaint by granting the following reliefs:- "....We direct OP-1 to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant and on account of his insurance, OP-2 has vicarious liability to pay the said amount to the complainant. The order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order. This complaint stand disposed of in terms of this order."

NOT satisfied with the aforesaid relief granted by the District Forum, the petitioner went to the State Commission by filing an appeal for enhancement of compensation. The State Commission by its impugned order dismissed the appeal of the petitioner both on ground of limitation and on merits and upheld the order of the District Forum and hence the revision petition.

WE have heard Ms. Avnit Bhardwaj, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Besides dismissing the application of the petitioner for condonation of delay of 40 days in filing the appeal for which the State Commission did not find sufficient reasons to condone the delay, the State Commission has recorded the following reasons in support of the impugned order on merits:- "We have given thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case are that in the absence of any material showing how much due care of the complainant was taken by opposite party No.1 after her operation, an adverse interference is drawn against him. The complainant says that the postoperative complications arose due to surgical wound while opposite party No.1 says that it was due to wound infection but in support of his contention, opposite party No.1 has not produced any record. At the same time, we do not also deny this fact that causing of infection in the wound is beyond the control of human agency and effect of medicines varies from person but still it was the moral duty of opposite party No.1 who is well qualified and experienced doctor to properly diagnose the cause of postoperative complications of the complainant instead of referring her to PGI, Chandigarh. Under such circumstances, opposite party is found negligent in not giving proper postoperative care and treatment to the complainant. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and findings recorded by the learned District Forum we have no reason to differ with the view taken by the Forum. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and as such no interference in the impugned order is called for. So, the complainant is not entitled for any further compensation."

WE also do not see any substance or merit in the revision petition since nothing has been placed before us which would persuade us to differ from the concurrent orders of the Fora below. Revision petition, therefore, stands dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.