MAHENDRA PANCHAL Vs. HEMABEN SANJEEVKUMAR KANODIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal seeks to challenge the order dated 18th of October, 2007 passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (for short the State Commission) in Complaint No. 119 of 2000 directing the appellant-opposite party No. 1 to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,35,000 to the respondent-complainant with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the complaint within a period of 30 days from the passing of the order, holding the appellant-opposite party No. 1 medically negligent, inasmuch as an instrument had been left in the stomach of the respondent-complainant at the time of conducting a caesarian operation. A cost of Rs. 10,000 too has been imposed.

(2.) Facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent-complainant was admitted in the hospital of the appellant-opposite party No. 1 on the 14th of May, 1999 for the safe delivery of her child. However, a caesarian operation had to be performed to deliver the child. The mother with the child was discharged from the hospital on the 22nd of May, 1999. Allegedly, the respondent-complainant had to foot the bill of Rs. 2.00 lakh as the fee/expenses to the hospital. The respondent-complainant thereafter experienced pain in her stomach and went for a checkup but was informed by the doctor that the pain was because of the appendix and prescribed some pain killers. The pain, however, did not subside and she had to visit the appellant-opposite party No. 1-doctor repeatedly. The doctor finally advised the respondent-complainant to carry out a sonography test which was got conducted at Nanavati X-ray and Sonography Laboratory Clinic of Dr. D.N. Nanavati; opposite party No.3, who is claimed by the respondent-complainant to have informed her that a scissor was found in the stomach but did not hand over the report thereof and directed her to come after some time. It is the allegation of the respondent-complainant that Dr. Nanavati, opposite party No. 3, informed the appellant/ opposite party No. 1 about the scissor in the stomach of the respondent-complainant and in connivance with the appellant-opposite party No. 1 to cover up the folly he informed the respondent-complainant that she was suffering from appendix pain. Suspecting some foul play, the respondenti-complainant went to Mumbai and consulted Dr. Bimal Shah, who admitted her on the 22nd of August, 1999 in Bhakti Vedant Hospital. The sonography test and x-ray conducted on the respondent-complainant revealed the existence of an instrument (scissor) in the stomach, which was taken out after another operation. Alleging deficiency in service and serious medical negligence, the complaint was filed before the State Commission.

(3.) Before the State Commission, the appellant/opposite party No. 1 while denying that there has been any deficiency on his part, however, admitted that "there was sudden electric power failure" when he was in the process of suturing the uterine wound after the delivery of a baby girl and in the prevailing uncertainty of restoration of electricity by the standby generator, which takes about 3 to 5 minutes, he continued to complete the operation with the help of torch light to minimize the blood loss to the patient. It was claimed that in the aforesaid delicate moments all care and caution were taken as a doctor of reasonable prudence. It was also claimed that he had a long experience of running the maternity hospital and carrying out deliveries over more than two decades and if something has gone wrong it cannot be said to deficiency in service.