BHAGIRATHI DEVI Vs. ANUP KUMAR SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioners under Sec. 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against the impugned Order dtd. 4/3/2013, passed by the Jharkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in First Appeal No. 234/2010, whereby the Appeal filed by the Respondent No. 1 was dismissed and the Order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as the "District Forum") was modified.

(2.) Facts in short that on 5/5/2005, the Complainant Smt. Bhagirathi Devi (hereinafter referred to as the "patient") was operated by Dr. Anup Kumar Sahu (hereinafter referred to as the "Opposite Party No. 1") in his Sahu Nursing Home for removal of kidney stone. It was alleged that Opposite Party No. 1 assured to perform the operation by laser method. After the operation, a bandage was seen on the waist region, therefore on enquiry learnt that the operation was performed by Puncture surgery. The Opposite Party No. 1 tried to convince the patient and assured about no harm. The patient was discharged on 8/5/2005. Again after three days the patient started getting severe pain. Therefore, on 18/5/2005, the Opposite Party No. 1 operated her again and removed few small stones, which were present in the urinary tract. The Complainant alleged that before operation the Opposite Party No. 1 did not confirm the location of stones by Intravenous Pyelography (IVP) study, but performed the Puncture Operation and failed to insert catheter for appropriate drainage of material. Even then, after 2 nd operation, there was no relief and therefore she took treatment at the Apollo Hospital from 26/5/2005 to 31/5/2005. The problems continued and from January, 2006 the patient took treatment at Kolkata from Dr. B. K. Biswas, but at the end her right kidney was removed on 4/4/2006 at Gamma Century Health Care Pvt. Ltd. Thus, being aggrieved by the alleged careless treatment from the Opposite Party No. 1, she filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ranchi, Jharkhand praying for compensation of Rs.5,35,000.00.

(3.) The Opposite Parties in their written version denied the negligence during treatment. It was submitted that the patient was explained about entire procedure for removal of stone by Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy (PCNL). She gave informed consent. During the procedure Retrograde Pyelography (RGP) was done. On 18/5/2005, the patient was brought again to the hospital and based on the condition of the patient RGP was done again. The PCNL was performed on 20/5/2005 and the urine output found to be more than 1000 ml, which was indication of a good kidney function. The patient was discharged on 22/5/2005 with advice to come for reconstructive surgery after one month, but the patient never turned up. After lapse of several months, patient's right kidney was removed at Kolkata.