RITA VIRMANI Vs. WOODSTOCK NURSING HOME PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 17.11.2006 rendered by State Consumer Disputes redressal Commission, Delhi (in short 'the State Commission') in complaint case No. 198/1995. The appellant is the original complainant. By the impugned judgment and order, the complaint was partly allowed. The appellant was granted compensation of Rs. 2.50 lakh from original OP Nos. 1, 3.

(2.) The grievance of the appellant is that the State Commission erroneously exonerated OP No. 2, Dr. S.K. Nijhara and that he too is jointly and severally liable to indemnify her. It is also her grouse that amount of compensation awarded by the State Commission is palpably low and deserves to be enhanced to the extent of the amount claimed in the complaint, i.e., Rs.20 lakh. In addition, the complainant has now joined the respondent No. 4 in the appeal and came out with a case that the respondent No. 4 is the insurer of the respondent No. 1 hospital and as such is liable to pay the compensation to her.

(3.) Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that she consulted the respondent No. 2 in the last week of February 1994 due to acute pain in her ankle of the right leg. The respondent No. 2 gave conservative treatment but the pains did not recede. The opponent No.2 gave opinion that her medical problem was due to compression in L-4 and L-5 of the lumber region and the spinal cord. The respondent No.2 referred her to respondent No. 3 Dr. Virender Mohan (since deceased). The deceased respondent No. 3 advised her to get another CT Scan of L-4 and L-5. The respondent Nos. 2, 3 administered pain-killing injections and directed her to undergo various tests including X-ray examination from time-to-time, and lastly opined that she needed to undergo operations of L-4 and L-5 of the lumber region and the spinal cord for reduction of the pain. She was put to fear that if the operation was not carried out immediately, she was likely to get attack of paralysis. The respondent Nos. 2, 3 conducted operation on her lumber region in the hospital of the respondent No. 1 in the first week of July 1994. She was heavily charged for the medical treatment, operation charges, room rent, etc. The respondent Nos. 2, 4 informed her that the operation was successful. She was advised to take treatment of physiotherapist and to do certain exercises. She was unable to, however, move without difficulty and the pain continued. She was bed-ridden for about two months.