D D TRIKHA Vs. DEVINDER MAHANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was the complainant. He is aggrieved of the order of the State Commission by which order State Commission affirmed the award of the District Forum. Complainant alleged negligence by doctors attending him who are three in number. State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum that only first opposite party Dr. Devinder Mahant was negligent and award of Rs. 20,000/- as damages was made against him and in favour of the petitioner-complainant. Both the complainant and Dr. Mahant filed separate appeals in the State Commission. Both these appeals were dismissed by the impugned order of the State Commission.

(2.) Main grievance of the complainant before us is that award of damages of Rs. 20,000/- is abysmally low. That concurrent finding of negligence against Dr. Mahant, the first opposite party cannot now be questioned before us in this petition under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act.

(3.) Complainant had difficulty in passing urine. While at Amritsar he consulted Dr. Mahant who advised test by ultrasound and urine test. After examining the reports Dr. Mahant advised that due to enlargement of prostate glands, complainant was having trouble in passing urine. He advised catheterisation. Dr. Mahant did catheterisation but there was no relief and throughout the night of 2nd/3rd July, 1990 urine did not pass in requisite quantity and rather blood was found coming in the catheter. On 4.7.1990 Dr. Mahant removed the catheter with the result that there was profuse bleeding which was uncontrolable. Condition of the complainant became serious and he was shifted to hospital of the 3rd opposite party where second opposite party Dr. P.K. Jain performed operation. The condition of the complainant did not improve rather worsened. Urine started coming out through rectum. After few days blood also started coming through rectum. Sufficient bottles of blood and glucose were injected in the body of the complainant. He was brought to Chandigarh and was admitted in the PGI Hospital. Here again he went into operation. It is not necessary for us to go into the treatment which complainant had to undergo except to note that on account of negligence of Dr. Mahant in the process of catheterisation he caused a rant in the wall of the bladder making a hole to the rectum inside. It is something which doctor in PGI could not cure. Now the result is that the complainant throughout his life had to live with a bag attached to his back where the refuse of the body will accumulate. For all this trouble which the complainant underwent and which he has to suffer throughout his life, he has been awarded a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- by the District Forum which State Commission also thought to be quite adequate. We do not agree. Apart from the sufferings the complainant had to undergo, he had to incur great deal of expenses. He is yet to incur more expenses throughout his life. Negligence has been only attributed to Dr. Mahant. We enhance the compensation to Rs. 1,20,000/- (Rupees one lakh twenty thousand only) which the first opposite party Dr. Mahant shall pay with interest @ 12% per annum from 21.2.1994, the date of filing the complaint. If the amount as ordered by the District Forum and affirmed by the State Commission had already been paid only the balance amount will carry the interest. Petitioner shall also be entitled to cost which we quantify at Rs. 2,000/-. Ordered accordingly.