KIRAN AGRAWAL & ANR. vs GEETA KHALKHO

The petitioners being aggrieved of the concurrent findings of the fora below holding them guilty of medical negligence and directing them to pay to the respondent-complainant a sum of Rs.2,30,093/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum thereon from the date of filing of the complainant till the realization of the amount have preferred this revision petition.

The facts as revealed from the pleadings and record are that the respondent-complainant filed a consumer complaint against the petitioners-opposite parties alleging medical negligence in

her treatment at the time of delivery of her child on 12-05-2010. The basis of the allegation of medical negligence as it appears from the record is that the opposite party No.1-doctor while conducting cesarean delivery left a surgical mop inside the abdomen of the complainant which had to be later removed by a subsequent surgery on 13-09-2010 at Arihant Hospital at the expense of Rs.30,093/-.

Both the fora below on consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that the opposite parties were guilty of medical negligence as opposite party No.1 while doing cesarean section, left a surgical mop within the abdomen of the complainant which resulted in pain and suffering to the complainant.

Learned counsel, Mohd. Anis Ur Rehman for the petitioners has submitted that the fora below have committed a material irregularity in appreciating the evidence. Expanding on the argument learned counsel submitted that the fora below have failed to appreciate that the respondent-complainant had failed to prove that opposite party No.1 had left surgical mop in her abdomen. In support of this contention it is argued that complainant has not adduced evidence of Dr. Anju Goel, who only could have proved that she removed surgical mop from the abdomen of the complainant. It is argued that even the surgical mop which was removed has not been produced as evidence. Thus, in absence of any cogent evidence the Fora below have committed a grave error in returning the findings of fact against the opposite parties.

We do not find merit in the above contention. A perusal of the record of the District Forum, which has been requisitioned, would show that it contains copy of discharge card of the complainant issued by Arihant Hospital where the second surgery of the complainant was conducted by Dr. Anju Goel. On reading of the aforesaid document we find that the complainant was admitted in Arihant Hospital on 13-09-2010 and was operated upon. In the details of treatment given in the discharge card it is clearly mentioned that during surgery a surgical mop was recovered within the body which was sealed and handed over to the relation of the deceased. From this document it is established that surgical mop was actually left within the body of the complainant. It may be noted that on 07-09-2010 the complainant underwent CT scan abdomen at Raghunath District Hospital Ambikapur. On perusal of the copy of the CT scan report on the record, we find that report records as under: "A hyperdense soft tissue lesion is seen in the right lumbar and iliac regions. This may represent a retained foreign body. Moderate pelvic ascites is also seen. No other significant abnormality is seen."

The CT scan report coupled with the above discharge summary of Arihant Hospital leaves us with no doubt that the petitioner opposite party had committed medical negligence in leaving surgical mop in the abdomen of the complainant. Thus, the findings of the Fora below cannot be faulted. No jurisdictional error has been shown by the petitioners which may call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

The revision petition is accordingly dismissed.