CHANDRA BHUSHAN MISHRA Vs. RAJ KRISHNA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present cross Appeals are filed by the Appellants under Section-19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the Chhattishgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Complaint No.33/2013 dated 12.05.2017. First Appeal No.1650/2017 has been filed by the Complainants/Appellants with a delay of 5 days and First Appeal No.1856/2017 has been filed by the Opposite Parties with a delay of 89 days. For the reasons stated in both the applications and in the interest of justice, delay condoned.

(2.) Complainants are legal heirs of the deceased Smt. Shubhlaxmi, who died on 13.10.2012. On complaining of pain in the stomach, Gynaecologist Dr. Suchitra Tripathi advised Sonography on 06.02.2011. Sonography was conducted at Vidya Sonography Clinic, Raigarh where her medical condition was diagnosed as twisted ovarian cyst. The Gynaecologist further advised to consult Radiologist Dr. Alok Kediya, who after conducting ultrasonography found solid cystic lesion (11.5 cm x 8.4 cm) in the pelvis? Etiology and advised FNAC. Thereafter, Complainant No.1 took his wife to Opposite Party No.1 Dr. Raj Krishna Sharma of the Metro Hospital, Raigarh on 09.02.2011, who got the patient admitted and excised the cyst and sent it to Opposite Party No.3 for biopsy. The patient was discharged from Opposite Party No.2 Hospital on 13.02.2011. For further complaint of pain in the stomach, the patient was prescribed medicines. According to the Complainants, Opposite Parties 1 & 2 told them that the specimen was sent to Mumbai and there was no abnormality in the histopathology report. Thereafter, in the month of July, 2011, the patient got pregnant. They were again advised by the Gynaecologist Dr. Suchitra Tripathi to consult Dr. Kedia. Dr. Kedia advised FNAC/biopsy of the lesion & MRI of the abdomen. The Complainants took the patient to Gynaecologist Dr. Veena Panda at Bhubaneswar and on her advice the patient was taken to Kalinga Hospital on 07.12.2011, where she was found to be suffering from Cancer. CA-125 test done on the patient revealed that she was in stage III-IV of Cancer. The patient was later admitted in AIIMS, Delhi for treatment. The Doctors at AIIMS sought to see the documents and slides pertaining to the treatment undergone at Opposite Party No.2 Hospital, but the Opposite Parties did not make them available to the Complainants, despite repeated requests. The patient was administered chemotherapy and the patient ultimately died due to medical negligence of the Opposite Parties. A complaint case was therefore filed before the State Commission with the following prayer: -

(3.) The case was contested by the Opposite Parties by filing their written version. The Opposite Parties 1 & 2 contended that the patient was brought with complaint of stomach pain. As the reports of Radiologist Dr. Jyotsna Mishra and Dr. Alok Kedia were different, Opposite Party No.1 conducted laparoscopic surgery on the patient urgently, as the patient was in no proper condition to undergo FNAC test and there was apprehension of spread of the disease due to FNAC. The patient was operated on 10.02.2011 and cyst removed and sent for examination to Opposite Party No.3. The patient was discharged on 13.02.2011. Opposite Party No.3 did not find any malignancy in the tumour. The documents pertaining to the operation/surgery conducted at Opposite Party No.2 hospital were given to Complainant No.1. Merely because no receipt was taken, Complainant No.1 was harassing them, deliberately seeking the same. The patient was also advised not to get pregnant. Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 were not responsible for the histopathological report and the same could be ascertained from Opposite Party No.3. All proper procedures and treatment were followed and there was no medical negligence whatsoever. If the operation was not to be conducted immediately, there could have been serious damage to the patient. Hence, the Complaint be rejected.