SURLATA HOSPITAL Vs. SARASHEEJ SAHEBRAO SHATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Appeal is preferred by the Appellants under Sec. 19(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") against the impugned Order dtd. 29/10/2015, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission"), wherein the Complaint was allowed and the Appellant was directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,00,000.00 with interest at 9% p.a., failing which the interest will be 12% p.a. and the Appellant was also directed to pay Rs.25,000.00 as costs.

(2.) For the convenience, the Parties are being referred to, in the instant Appeal, as the position held in Consumer Complaint before the State Commission. Brief facts that the Complainant Sarasheej Sahebrao Shate (hereinafter referred to as the "Complainant No. 1") took his wife Sunita (hereinafter referred to as the "patient") for second delivery to Surlata Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the "Opposite Party No. 1") of Dr. Sharad Gogate (hereinafter referred to as the Opposite Party No. 2) at Mahim, Mumbai. The Complainants alleged that the patient was enrolled on 13/6/2000 during pregnancy. She regularly visited the Opposite Party No. 1 for ante-natal check-up (ANC). It was alleged that the Opposite Party No. 2 advised that the child in the womb was overweight and may require caesarean sec. and the delivery would be on 1/10/2000. On 21/9/2000, the patient experienced unusual pain in abdomen and immediately she was admitted to the Opposite Party No. 1 Hospital. Though the patient was getting labour pains, the Opposite Party No. 2 did not pay proper attention to perform caesarean sec. , but he left the patient to the care of nurses and "Aayas" and was told to wait for normal delivery. On the next date i.e. 22/9/2000, the patient was shifted to delivery room, accompanied by one "aaya" only and without a doctor. At about 4.30pm, the patient started vomiting and her condition got deteriorated. The "aaya" was requested to call the doctor but to no avail. She told there was no need to call the doctor. It was alleged that though Dr. Gogate was staying on the second floor of the same building, he refused to come down, saying that the delivery would be normal. At his usual time, he came at 6.30pm but till then the patient became critical and had suffered irreparable loss. At 7.30pm, to help Dr. Gogate, two doctors namely Dr. Sunil Gokhale - the Physician (Opposite Party No. 3) and Dr. Prakash Ambardekar " the Anaesthetist (Opposite Party No. 4) came to the hospital but the patient had her last breath. However, the Opposite Parties kept on telling that they were trying their level best. At about 8.00pm, Dr. Gogate informed the Complainant that the patient and the baby in the womb had passed away. Being aggrieved, the Complainant No. 1 filed a police complaint against the treating doctor for the alleged negligence, causing death of his wife and baby. Also, filed a Consumer Complaint against the Opposite Parties in the State Commission for the alleged medical negligence vis-"-vis deficiency in service and sought compensation of Rs.20.00 lakh with interest @ 15% per annum.

(3.) The Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 2 filed their written statement and denied any negligence during the patient care. The Opposite Party No. 2, Dr. Sharad Gogate submitted that he is a practicing gynecologist for 28 years and performed more than 5500 successful deliveries. His hospital had adequate nursing care with qualified nurses and "aayas" / "bais". The patient"s family was known to him and previously she took the treatment from his hospital. The Complainants suppressed various facts. The Complaint is false and frivolous without any merit.