ELDHO DAVID Vs. DENNY P. KUTTIKKAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Complainant/Petitioner (Eldho David) under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned Order wherein the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") allowed the appeal and set aside the Order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam (hereinafter referred to as the "District Forum") in Consumer Complaint No. 250 of 2010.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 22.02.2010 the Complainant's daughter (hereinafter referred to as the "patient") was taken to the casualty at Carmel Hospital, Aluva (hereinafter referred to as the "Opposite Party No. 2") for severe abdominal pain. It was diagnosed as acute appendicitis and advised immediate surgery. On 23.02.2010, Dr. Denny P. Kuttikkat (hereinafter referred to as the "Opposite Party No. 1") performed laparoscopic appendectomy and after two days the patient was discharged. The patient continued taking medicines but there was no relief from pain. On 26.02.2010, again she was taken to the Opposite Party No. 2 Hospital and on 29.02.2010 the Opposite Party No. 1 referred the patient to PVS hospital for C.T. Scan and further treatment. The doctors at PVS hospital operated her and removed the pus from the abdomen. She was discharged on 12.03.2010. The Complainant alleged that it was deficiency in service of Opposite Party No. 1, therefore his daughter lost her one academic year. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint No. 250 of 2010 before the District Forum and claimed a compensation of Rs. 2,45,000/- from the Opposite Parties.

(3.) The Opposite Parties filed their written version and denied the allegations. It was submitted that the patient was examined in casualty by Dr. George Mathews and diagnosed as acute appendicitis. The Opposite Party No. 1 on clinical examination and based on relevant blood and urine investigations confirmed the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. The treatment was started with proper antibiotics, IV fluids and other medications. The relatives were informed about the condition of patient and the need for urgent surgery. On 23.02.2010, the Opposite Party No. 1 performed laparoscopic appendectomy. The appendix showed features of mild inflammation and there was no evidence of local or generalized peritonitis. No free fluid or pus in the peritoneal cavity. The fallopian tubes and ovaries look normal. On 24.02.2010, the patient complained of mild pain in the umbilical port site which was treated symptomatically and the patient was discharged with follow-up advice. The patient was treated with utmost care and caution, there was no negligence.