LAWS(NCD)-2012-2-34

RAJ KUMAR GARG Vs. CHANDER PRAKASH SHARMA

Decided On February 14, 2012
Raj Kumar Garg Appellant
V/S
Chander Prakash Sharma Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions have been filed by Dr.Raj Kumar Garg & another (R.P.No.3536/2007) and Dr.Harsh Sharma & others (R.P.No.3464/2007) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioners') being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in F.Appeals No.1725 and 1750 of 2006 wherein Chander Parkash Sharma and other were Respondents.

(2.) Since the facts and the cause of action in both revision petitions are similar and they were disposed of by a single order of the State Commission, we also propose to dispose of these by one common order by taking the facts from R.P. No.3536/2007.

(3.) Respondent/complainant in his complaint before the District Forum has stated that his wife, Smt.Pushpa Rani (hereinafter referred to as the 'patient') had been suffering from abdominal pain and after diagnostic and clinical/laboratory tests she was advised to undergo Hysterectomy for which she contacted Petitioner No.1 (Dr.Raj Kumar Garg) and on his assurance to provide the best medical services got herself admitted in the Petitioner's hospital on 01.06.2003. She was operated on 02.06.2003 and was told that the uterus has been successfully removed and she was charged Rs.30,000/ - for the medical services provided. However, after the operation, the patient complained of unbearable pain, uneasiness, weakness, nausea and loss of appetite which was brought to the notice of the Petitioner/doctor who assured that these are normal post -operative symptoms and there was no cause for worry. However, after 5 days, the situation worsened and patient started vomiting black liquid and also discharged 'black rotten blood' from the vagina. On 13.06.2003, Petitioner No.1 informed the Respondent that another abdominal operation was required which was performed at 4.30 pm after arrangement of blood and further payments and other doctors were also associated with the second operation which according to the Respondent was conducted to rectify the mistake in the first operation when the abdomen was not stitched properly because of which the intestine had been affected and internal bleeding had started. Even after the second operation, the patient's condition became critical and on 14.06.2003, Petitioner No.1 quietly referred her to PGI Hospital/Government Medical College, Chandigarh for further treatment. According to the Respondent, the doctors at Government Medical College, Chandigarh scolded Petitioner No.1 for performing a negligent operation because of which the patient had developed Septicemia and Renal failure and she passed away on 23.06.2003. Alleging medical negligence because of the faulty surgery resulting in internal bleeding, intestinal damage and renal failure, Respondent sent a legal notice to Petitioners seeking compensation of Rs.20 lakhs. Since there was no response from Petitioners, Respondent filed a complaint on grounds of medical negligence and deficiency in service before the District Forum and sought a compensation of Rs.20 lakhs for the expenses incurred and for the suffering and mental agony etc. along with litigation costs.