D PAMPA PATHI Vs. H V DAYANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant to challenge the order dated 30.08.2005 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore ('State Commission' for short) by which the State Commission dismissed the complaint no. 17/1997 filed by the him under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction against OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 9,80,000/- with interest @ 15% p. a. to the complainant. In view of the death of the appellant during the pendency of the appeal, the names of his legal representatives were brought in to pursue the appeal. Respondents herein were OPs before the State Commission.

(2.) The case of the appellant/complainant is that he was suffering from a slipped disc over a long period of time for which he went to Bapuji Hospital at Davangere where Dr. Krishnamurthy, a Neurologist examined the complainant during the months of April/May 1995 and advised him to undergo a neurosurgery. In the meantime, on hearing of Respondent no. 1, the complainant/appellant consulted him for a second opinion presenting before him the reports of Bapuji Hospital. Respondent No. 1 after seeing the medical reports of the appellant, told him that there was no need to go to any Neurosurgeon for Neuro surgical consultation as he himself would operate and relieve him from pain and suffering. Accordingly, Respondent No. 1 operated on the appellant at Respondent No. 2 Hospital on 21.5.1995 to cure the deformities. After the operation, the complainant/appellant developed certain complications and difficulties such as severe urine retention problem, constipation etc. To ease the pain, catheter was inserted, laxatives were administered and enema was also given. It is stated that thereafter neurogenic bladder and rectal problems arose. There was involuntary passing of stool and urine as the rectal passage was completely open. Resultantly, there was also continuous soiling. It is the case of the complainant/appellant that all these complications were caused due to improper and wrong diagnosis, treatment and attention by the OP doctor. The OPs did not take reasonable and proper care and did not treat the patient even though he repeatedly requested as his condition worsened day-by-day. OP/Respondent No. 1 thereafter referred the complainant/appellant to approach an Urologist and hence he was under urological treatment of Dr. M. Mamani from 26.6.1995 to 10.7.1995 as an in-patient in Bapuji Hospital. However, there was no improvement in the condition of the appellant. The complications developed post-surgery continued even upto 1997 despite the appellant visiting doctors for treatment. The continuous dribbling of urine, involuntary passing of stool, improper and uncontrolled bowel movements continued. Further, appellant also developed septic spondylities and spondylosis. It is the case of appellant that all these complications arose due to the negligent act of Respondent No. 1 and further by attempting to conduct neurosurgery despite Respondent No. 1 being an Orthopedic surgeon, the respondent was negligent in rendering services to the appellant because of which, he suffered immensely. The consumer complaint in question, therefore, was lodged by the complainant/appellant before the State Commission on 17.2.1997. The complainant filed his affidavit in support of his submissions and he was also cross-examined. He also produced Exhibits C-1 to C-28 in support of his claim. The OPs/respondents filed their version and denied all the allegations made by the complainant in the complaint. OP/Respondent No. 1 filed his affidavit of evidence and was cross-examined. He did not file any documents. On appraisal of the issues and the evidence adduced by the parties, the State Commission by its impugned order held that there is absolutely no evidence on record to show or suggest that the OPs/respondents were negligent in conducting the operation or the OP doctors were guilty of negligence in performing or discharging their professional duties. The State Commission, therefore, dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the State commission, the present appeal has been filed by the complainant on the following grounds:-

(3.) In view of the aforesaid reasons, the appellant has prayed for setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.