R K JAIN Vs. KAMLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dr.R.K.Jain & Ors. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellants') have filed F.A. No.168/2007 being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in Complaint No.C-266/1997 which was decided in favour of Smt.Kamla Devi, Complainant before the State Commission and Respondent herein who has also filed F.A. No.600/2007 against the same order being aggrieved by the lesser compensation awarded by the State Commission. Since the two appeals have arisen from the same order of the State Commission, it is decided to dispose of these appeals by a common order by taking the facts from F.A.No.168/2007.

(2.) In her complaint before the State Commission, Respondent had stated that on 13.11.1995 she was admitted in Sunder Lal Jain Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant/Hospital) with complaints of pain in the abdomen and vomiting where she was under the treatment of Dr.R.K.Jain (Appellant No.1 herein) and Dr.S. Mehta (Appellant No.2 herein). She was operated upon on 15.11.1995 and discharged on 20.11.1995. However, even after the surgery Respondent continued to be in severe pain and therefore on the advice of Appellant No.1, she was re-admitted to the Appellant/Hospital on 23.11.1995 where she was operated for burst abdomen on 24.11.1995 and discharged on 04.12.1995. Following the second surgery, Respondent's condition deteriorated and she continued to suffer from severe pain and felt very weak. She visited the Appellant/Hospital for the next two days where another operation was advised by Appellant No.1. However, since Respondent had lost faith in the Appellant/Hospital, on the advice of her family members, she went to Mumbai on 18.01.1996 where she was admitted in Ashish Maternity & Nursing Home where she was found to have Gauze/F.B.(MOP) in her operated wound which had become infected. Respondent was operated for removal of the said Gauze and thereafter discharged in a satisfactory condition on 25.01.1996. Dr.Bhansali Hemant who examined and treated the Respondent at the Nursing Home in Mumbai informed her that the infection was caused because of the Gauze/F.B.(MOP) and once this was removed, her medical condition became satisfactory. However, since she had to suffer a lot of pain and agony due to the rash and negligent acts of the Appellants/Doctors at the Appellant/Hospital which included two unnecessary surgeries, Respondent apart from filing a criminal case which is pending decision in the concerned Court, also filed a complaint before the State Commission on grounds of medical negligence and deficiency in service and requested that Appellant/Hospital and Doctors be directed to jointly and severally pay her Rs.15 lakhs as compensation along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint.

(3.) The Appellants challenged the above allegations and stated that the Appellant/Hospital is a well-equipped hospital providing excellent indoor and OPD facilities for treatment. It is a fact that Respondent had visited the Appellant/Hospital for treatment on 13.11.1995 with complaints of non-passage of flatus, distension of abdomen and vomiting and after conducting the necessary clinical and diagnostic tests, since her condition had not improved through the conservative treatment, she was advised surgery on 15.11.1995 after obtaining due consent. During the surgery a stricture in the proxymul ileum was found which was rectified by performing stricturoplasty and the Respondent was discharged in a satisfactory condition on 20.11.1995. Admittedly, the second surgery was performed on 24.11.1995 following complaints of loose motions and vomiting but during the second surgery the abdomen was not opened and only the earlier wound was resutured. The allegations of presence of a foreign body(Gauze) in the abdomen is totally false and not borne out by the evidence on record because following the first surgery, an X-ray was done wherein it was clear that there was no presence of any foreign body or any other abnormalities. After the second surgery, where only the wound was resutured, according to the Respondent, Dr.Bhansali Hemant had noticed strands and fibres of gauze during the examination of the wound. However, this contention of Dr.Bhansali is not corrected as confirmed by photographs which were filed in evidence. It was further contended that the possibility of the Respondent having sought treatment in some other hospital following her discharge in a satisfactory condition from the Appellant/Hospital where this lapse could have occurred cannot be ruled out because she went to Mumbai for further treatment after about 45 days of her discharge from the Appellant/Hospital.