CHARAN SINGH Vs. HEALING TOUCH HOSPITAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This appeal under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter the "National Consumer Forum") dated 9th August, 1999 dismissing a complaint filed by the appellant, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, but granting liberty to the appellant to "make a realistic claim" and move the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be in accordance with law. The National Consumer Forum further directed that time spent before it, should be taken into account for purpose of computing period of limitation by the appropriate forum where the appellant moves his complaint.

(2.) With a view to dispose of this appeal, we would refer only to minimal relevant facts as emerge from the record before us.

(3.) In 1993, according to the appellant, he went to the Healing Touch Hospital, respondent No. 1 for treatment of stomachache and burning sensation while passing urine. He was examined by respondent No. 2, Dr. A.J.S. Juneja, who admitted him in respondent No. 1 hospital on 12-1-1993 for an operation for removal of "stone from the Urethra." At the time of operation, it was respondent No. 4 Dr. Sunil Seth, who administered spinal anesthesia to the appellant. Operation was performed. Certain complications, according to the appellant, arose on account of negligence of respondent No. 1 hospital and its team of doctors, both in the administration of spinal anesthesia and performing the operation. According to the appellant, he was paralysed on the right hand side of his body. He complained and was prescribed some medicines and discharged from the hospital. Despite taking the prescribed medicines, there was no improvement. He also started passing blood along with urine. On 1st February, 1993 the appellant again went to respondent No. 1 hospital and met respondent No. 2, Dr. Juneja, who once again admitted him to the hospital. On 9th of February, 1993 the appellant was advised to undergo another operation to stop passing of blood with urine. The appellant claims that he was taken to the operation theatre and after administering anesthesia to him, when he was in a drowsy state, respondents Nos. 2 and 3, obtained his signatures on some papers. On 10-2-1993 after the appellant regained consciousness, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 told him that he would be discharged from the hospital within a couple of days. The right side of his body was, however, still paralytic and he complained about it to the doctors at the hospital. According to the appellant, on 18-2-1993 he was discharged from respondent No. 1 hospital in the same paralytic condition. He was prescribed some medicines which he kept on taking. Since, paralytic condition continued, the appellant went back to respondent No. 1 hospital where respondent No. 2 asked him to go away and not to return to the hospital ever again. Appellant claims that, he, thereafter went to Medical Diagnostic Centre, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. On examination of his discharge slip and after undertaking certain other tests, the appellant was told by the Diagnostic Centre, that his left kidney had been removed. The appellant was shocked to hear this and went back to respondent No. 3 in the hospital, who told him to meet respondents Nos. 2 and 4. He asked them how they had removed his left kidney during the second operation without his knowledge or consent. Nobody was willing to talk to him in the hospital and he was made to go from one doctor to another. Finally, he was turned away from the hospital without providing any explanation. According to the appellant, as a result of the negligence of doctors at respondent No. 1 hospital, he has become disabled and handicapped with his right side being paralysed, for which has to use crutches. His kidney has also been 'illegally' removed. He states that, as a result, he also lost his job with M/s. Durga Lakshmi Builders where he was serving prior to his operation. He states that he had to spend a fortune for paying the exhorbitant bills of the doctors and the hospital besides medicines. tests and for his upkeep. The appellant, thereupon, filed a complaint in the National Consumer Forum and claimed Rs. 34 lakhs by way of compensation from the respondents in 1993 on various grounds, under different heads.