Ritu Gupta vs Rajdhani Hospital

THIS present Revision Petition is filed under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 24.8.2012 passed in First Appeal No. 431/2008 by the Hon''ble State Consumer Redressal Commission (hereinafter ''State Commission''), Circuit Bench No. 2, Jaipur at Rajasthan. The State Commission allowed the Appeal filed by the Petitioner setting aside the order dated 7.2.2008 in Consumer Complaint No. 1296 of 2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (hereinafter ''District Forum'', Jaipur, Rajasthan. This is a case where the Petitioner/Complainant has undergone pain, agony and physical and mental agony because of sheer medical negligence on the part of the Dr. S.S. Sharma of the Respondent Hospital, while operating the Complainant for the removal of stone from bile duct, her Duodenum was perforated/punctured and the fluid became poisonous and spread in the body of Petitioner causing serious threat to her life. Consequently, the Petitioner was treated and operated in the Santokba Durlabhji Hospital for gall bladder stone and repair for perforated duodenum was done. After the operation she had 37 stitches on her stomach and she had to be feed for about 46 days through a feeding tube in her stomach. She stayed in the Hospital (OP) for about 25 days.

COMPLAINAN T filed a complaint 1296/2007 before District Forum, Jaipur, alleging medical negligence. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Complainant filed First Appeal No. 431 of 2008 before the State Commission, Jaipur, Rajasthan. After the detailed arguments on the Appeal the State Commission allowed the appeal, passed an order and granted a total sum of Rs. 37,000 towards the costs of second operation, mental and physical harassment and costs.

AGGRIEVED by the order of State Commission this present revision. The Petitioner''s main issue of filing this revision petition is the compensation awarded by State Commission is at lesser side at Rs. 37,000 which is the cost of second operation only including a mental and physical harassment and costs. The State Commission has while awarding has not considered the negligence of OP during first operation and her sufferings thereafter and prolonged hospitalization, etc.

WE have heard the Counsel for both the parties. It is a clear case of medical negligence. The Counsel for OP admitted that there was negligence by doctors of OP in treatment of complainant by operation. The main question to decide in this Revision Petition is whether the State Commission allowed the appeal with lesser award. On perusal of the records of the file and evidences, we find that the State Commission has allowed the appeal. The State Commission order runs as follows: "The respondent is directed to pay to the Complainant Rs. 26,000 towards cost of the operation done again, Rs. 10,000 for mental and physical agony and Rs. 1000 as costs of litigation total amount of Rs. 37,000 within 60 days, otherwise are liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the order."

As per the Hospital records the Complainant is about 29 years old lady having a child which is on breast feeding. Due to negligence of OP she has suffered intestinal perforation and different complications. Her hospitalization was prolonged due to correction of complication which arose by the doctors of OPs. She was under treatment for a long period from 4.10.2002 to 3.11.2002 and further follow up was done till 25.11.2012. Further follow up and regular dressing was continued till 7.12.2012. Hence, it is clear that complainant had sufferings for more than 2 months after negligently performed operation of removal of gall stones. Therefore, it can be ascertained that the Complainant and her family members has suffered physical and mental trauma, subsequently, financial loss also. It is also pity that due to ill health of the Complainant and hospitalization her new born baby girl child was deprived of precious nutrients from regular breast feeding which is also an additional mental agony.

CONSIDERIN G those facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the State Commission applied a miser view in awarding compensation. The Complainant has prayed for Rs. 9,61,000 from the OP under different heads; but the prayer of Complainant appears to be inflated one. The Complainant has not placed the bills, details of expenses incurred on treatment and operation as she has claimed at Rajdhani Hospital for Rs. 1,75,000, at Santokba Durlabhji Hospital about 2.3 lacs and at Kota, about 1.5 lacs.

THE State Commission relied upon the bill of total amount of Rs. 26,000 which was spent at Santokba Durlabhji Hospital. Therefore, it will not be proper to award such unjustifiable compensation in this case on hand. Therefore, the complainant deserves for higher compensation by considering entirety of this case of a medical negligence by OP which led to sufferings, incur expenses and undergone for second operation at Santokba Durlabhji Hospital. Even her new born baby girl child has also suffered. Therefore, we set aside the order passed by both Fora below and feel that in such medical negligence it will be just and proper to award total sum of Rs. 2,00,000 with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e., 27.9.2004. This order should be complied within 60 days otherwise it will carry the interest of 9% p.a. till the payment. No order as to cost.