S. MANIKANNAN Vs. DR. T. PANDIARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order dated 17.10.2014 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in F.A. No. 483/2012 wherein the State Commission dismissed the Appeal filed by the Complainant and upheld the Order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Theni in C.C. No. 82 of 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the "District Forum") wherein the Complaint was dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Complainant S. Manikannan (hereinafter referred to as the 'patient') consulted a physician - Dr. Muthuramalingam on 05.06.2007 for stomach pain for which he was advised to take abdomen scan. The abdominal ultrasound (USG) was performed by Dr. T. Pandiaraj, Radiologist (hereinafter referred to as the "Opposite Party No. 1"), who reported it as retro-cecal appendicitis. However, the Physician was not satisfied with the said report, and again advised to repeat the USG with the Opposite Party No. 1. On 07.06.2007, USG scan was repeated and reported as being suggestive of 'appendicitis'. The Physician, being not satisfied with the USG findings, referred the patient to Dr. Sakthivel, the Surgeon for further treatment. On 07.06.2007, after examination, Dr. Sakthivel advised another USG from Dr. G. Rajkumar at Vikram Scan and Diagnostic Centre (hereinafter referred to as the "Opposite Party No. 2") and the report suggested possibility of "sub-hepatic appendicitis". Based on the reports, the patient was operated by Dr. Sakthivel on 08.06.2007 and suspected tuberculosis in the abdomen and biopsy of Omentum was taken for Histopathological examination (HPE). The HPE revealed "no evidence of tuberculosis or malignancy and it was fibrosis with chronic non-specific infection". The Surgeon Dr. Sakthivel told that it was the infection in the large intestine causing the pain and the same was removed by surgery. The Complainant, however, alleged that it was a failure on the part of the Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 2, who negligently gave wrong report of appendicitis and because that he had to undergo unnecessary operation. The operation could have been avoided and the pain could have been cured by medicines only. Due to unnecessary operation Complainant suffered physically, financially and he could not carry out his work efficiently. Being aggrieved, Complainant filed a Complaint before the District Forum, Theni and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 lakh.

(3.) The District Forum dismissed the Complaint by holding that the scan reports of the Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 2 were only suggestive in nature and not confirmatory. Aggrieved by the said Order, the Complainant filed an Appeal before the State Commission, Madurai which was dismissed on the ground that the Complainant failed to prove by expert opinion or medical literature any negligence. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed the instant Revision Petition.