KAMALNAYAN BAJAJ HOSPITAL Vs. JYOTI DHANANJAY AKUDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This common Order shall decide both the Revision Petitions arising against the Order passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in First Appeal No. 583/2008 wherein the Appeal was partly allowed and the Order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'District Forum') is set aside.

(2.) The brief facts are drawn from RP 979 of 2013. The Complainant Jyoti Dhananjay Akude (hereinafter referred to as the 'patient') was operated for her left leg deformity in her childhood at the age of about 1 1/2 years by Dr. Iyer at Solapur. At the age of 14 years, she noticed that her left leg was shortened by 6 inches and she was treated by Dr. Milind Chaudhary (hereinafter referred to as the 'Opposite Party No. 3') at Akola for correction of her left leg. However, after the operation, she could not bend her left leg, unable to sit cross-legged. Then she approached Dr. Shivkumar Santpure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Opposite Party No. 2') at Aurangabad. It was alleged that he advised to remove the patella of left knee and to implant artificial steel patella, for that the Complainant did not agree. In November/December, 2002, the Complainant read an advertisement in the local newspaper given by the Opposite Party No. 2 and it was assured that with the help of the operation there will be 100% recovery from the disability of the Complainant. Therefore, she approached the Opposite Party No. 2 with her parents and accepted for the surgery; but refused for removal of patella from her left leg. However, the Opposite Party No. 2 assured that the patella will not be removed but only the overgrown bone will be removed and a small device would be installed between two bones of left leg. Therefore, the Complainant gave the consent and on 13.02.2003, the Opposite Party No. 2 performed the operation in Kamal Nayan Bajaj Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the 'Opposite Party No. 1'). After 15 days of hospitalization, she was discharged and called for monthly follow-up. The patient was unable to walk feeling painful and also unable to bend the leg inside. The Opposite Party No. 2 time and again gave painkillers for two years; however, there was no relief. Therefore, she approached Dr. Milind Joshi at Solapur who examined the patient on 07.03.2005 and informed that already her patella has been removed and the previous treatment and operation was defective.

(3.) The Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 2 filed their written version and denied the negligence. They pleaded deficiency in service on the party of Dr. Milind Chaudhary. Therefore, he was impleaded as the Opposite Party No. 3. He remained absent and the matter was proceeded ex parte against the Opposite Party No. 3.