STATE OF M.P. Vs. LATTORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the complainant, aggrieved by the order dated 15.2.2008, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satna in CC No 403/07.

(2.) The brief facts of the case, as depicted by the appellant, are that she suffered from stomach ache for which she consulted respondent no 1, Dr R.K. Agrawal, (hereinafter referred to as the doctor), on 16.5.06. He took Rs 450/- and conducted a sonography. He informed her that there was a tumour in her uterus, which could be cancerous. He advised surgery and took Rs. 13000/- for performing a laproscopic surgery. After the surgery he showed her husband the uterus which he had removed and he took a further amount of Rs. 450/- for the histopathology report. She was admitted in his hospital from 17.5.06 to 20.5.06. The doctor told her that the pain would decrease slowly. On 26.5.06 she again had pain and consulted the doctor. He advised a second surgery and asked for Rs. 3000/-. She gave Rs. 1000/- and a second surgery was done on 26.5.06 She was discharged on 29.5.06 and was told that the pain would go away in 2 months. On 23.6.06, she again had unbearable pain and consulted respondent no 2, Dr Mahendra Singh, who also advised sonography and charged Rs. 750/-. He told her that her uterus had not been removed but only the tumour had been removed and the uterus had been stitched as a result of which there was pus. He also prescribed some medicines. However, the drugs gave her no relief so she consulted respondent no 3, Dr Snehlata Gulati, who told her that her uterus was infected. She gave treatment after which the appellant got relief. Alleging deficiency on the part of the doctor, she has prayed for compensation.

(3.) The respondent no 1 doctor states that the appellant had severe cervicitis and a Laproscopic Assisted Vaginal Hysterctomey (LAVH) was done on 17.5.06. The appellant was discharged after 4 days on 20.5.06. The surgery was successful and the uterus was sent for histopathology. The second time on 25.5.06, she was admitted for fever, weakness and pain in abdomen. She was given treatment of malaria. There was no vaginal bleeding or discharge. No surgery was done the second time. The complete uterus from the fundus to cervix had already been removed. All papers of discharge and other reports were given to the appellant.