Sura Rama Chandra Rao vs Modern Gynaec And Maternity Hospital

K .S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member These revision petitions arise out of a common order; hence, decided by a common order.

THESE revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 6.6.2012 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 1384/2010 - Sura Rama Chandra Rao Vs. Modern Gynaec & Maternity Hospital and Appeal No. 501 of 2011 - Sura Rama Chandra Rao Vs. Modern Gynaec & Maternity Hospital by which, while dismissing appeal of the complainant for enhancement, appeal filed by OP was accepted and order of District forum allowing complaint was set aside. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner ''s wife approached OP/respondent on 11.4.2006 for her gynaec problem and OP after check -up suggested for operation. OP was asked to conduct biopsy first, but OP conducted operation on 25.4.2006 and after that his wife ''s condition worsened. Soon after operation, OP proceeded on camp and discharged patient on 30.4.2006. Due to deficiency in operation, patient was attacked with paralysis and she was admitted in Simhadri Corporate Hospital at Visakhapatnam, who opined that due to the negligent operation by OP, patient suffered. Ultimately, complainant ''s wife died on 2.5.2006. It was also alleged that operation was conducted without conducting prior tests like sugar, biopsy, etc. that too without any consent. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint to award of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/ - OP resisted complaint and submitted that patient was discharged on 29.4.2006 and not on 30.4.2006. It was further submitted that only after obtaining consent, operation was conducted. It was further submitted that only after going through investigations reports, operation was conducted and surgery was successful. Patient was discharged on 29.4.2006 with direction for post -operative care, but later on she never turned up. It was further submitted that complainant or his wife not paid any amount for surgery and it was conducted free of cost on the recommendation of a known person and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed compliant partly and directed OP to pay Rs.1,00,000/ - as compensation and further awarded Rs.5,000/ - as cost and Rs.1,000/ - as legal expenses. Both the parties filed appeal and learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed appeal of the complainant for enhancement of compensation, but allowed appeal of OP and complaint was dismissed against which, these revision petitions have been filed.

HEARD learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of proof of negligence on the part of OP in conducting operation, learned State Commission committed error in dismissing appeal; hence, revision petition be allowed and compensation awarded by learned District Forum may be enhanced. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law and further submitted that complainant did not fall within purview of consumer as no consideration was paid; hence, revision petition be dismissed. Complainant nowhere in the complaint has submitted that any consideration was paid by the complainant for taking services of OP. OP in paragraph 7 of its written statement specifically mentioned that surgery was conducted free of cost on the recommendation of known person and complaint was not maintainable and there was no consideration between the parties. Section 2 (d) (ii) provides that a person is treated as consumer only when he hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised. As complainant has neither adduced any oral evidence nor any documentary evidence to prove that any consideration was paid by complainant or his wife for availing services of OP, complainant did not fall within purview of consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and complaint was not maintainable and learned District forum committed error in entertaining and in allowing complaint.

COMPLAINANT has submitted in his complaint that operation was conducted without prior tests like sugar, biopsy, etc. and that too was conducted without obtaining consent and she was discharged on 30.4.2006. All these facts are apparently wrong. As per record, operation was conducted after obtaining consent from complainant ''s wife as well patient ''s relative. Not only this, apparently, operation was conducted after going through investigation report dated 11.4.2006 and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that operation was conducted without investigations. As far biopsy is concerned, biopsy is done only after operation and biopsy could not have been done before operation. Perusal of discharge summary also reveals that patient was discharged on 29.4.2006 and not on 30.4.2006 and in such circumstances, it can be inferred that complainant has unnecessarily mentioned wrong facts in the complaint and has not come with clean hands and on this count also complaint was liable to be dismissed.

AS far deficiency in conducting operation is concerned, perusal of record does not reveal any deficiency in conducting operation. Learned State Commission rightly observed as under: ''''In the absence of any expert opinion, that there is nexus between the hysterectomy operation and the subsequent haemorrhage, and also taking into consideration that the patient was discharged on 29 -4 -2006, and never went back to the same opposite party doctor but died in Simhadri hospital on 02 -5 -2006 due to haemorrhage and cardiac arrest, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to establish any negligence on behalf of the opposite party doctor in the conduction of the hysterectomy operation on 25 -4 -2006 or in his line of post -operative treatment from 25 -4 -2006 till the discharge i.e. 29 -4 -2006. There is no documentary evidence to substantiate that the opposite party did not act as per standards of medical parlance as stipulated by the Apex Court in the aforementioned judgements. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the complainant failed to establish that there is any negligence on behalf of the opposite party doctor '''' and rightly came to the conclusion that complainant failed to prove any negligence on the part of OP in conducting operation and learned State Commission has not committed any error in allowing appeal of OP and in dismissing complaint.

We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and both the revision petitions are liable to be dismissed.

CONSEQUENTLY , revision petitions filed by the by the petitioners against the order dated 6.6.2012 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 1384/2010 - Sura Rama Chandra Rao Vs. Modern Gynaec & Maternity Hospital and Appeal No. 501 of 2011 - Sura Rama Chandra Rao Vs. Modern Gynaec & Maternity Hospital are dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.