MOOLA RAM Vs. SINGHAL MEDICAL SURGICAL MATERNITY CENTRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 30.8.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (hereinafter referred as 'the State Commission') in Moola Ram v. Singhal Medical Surgical Maternity Centre and others, First Appeal No. 3135/2007, vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul on 21.8.2007, dismissing the Consumer Complaint No. 18/2006, filed by the present petitioner was upheld. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant was stated to be suffering from acute appendicular lump coupled with left Renal Calculus of 2.5 cms. He was under treatment from Bhandari Hospital and Research Centre, Jaipur, where he was admitted on 31.7.2005 and was discharged on 5.8.2005. The complainant alleged that thereafter, he contacted the opposite parties/respondents and they wrongly advised him on 14.8.2005 for surgery, saying that it was required to save his life. The complainant was operated upon on 15.8.2005 for appendicectomy. He had shown all the papers of Bhandari Hospital to the opposite parties. After the operation, the complainant developed post -appendicectomy fiscal fistula, which was detected on 18.8.2005. The complainant then went to the SDMH, Jaipur for better management, where he was treated as indoor patient from 20.8.2005 to 31.8.2005 and from 22.9.2005 to 25.9.2005. He was forced to spend Rs. 1.5 lakh for his treatment as indoor patient and medicines, etc. The complainant filed a consumer complaint against the respondents, but the same was dismissed by the District Forum vide order dated 21.8.2007. An appeal was filed against this order before the State Commission, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 21.8.2007. It has been stated by the State Commission in their order that the complainant did not appear before the State Commission at the time of hearing.

(2.) ON the request of the petitioner, Mr. Vikas Nautiyal, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae to contest the case. At the time of hearing, learned Amicus Curiae has drawn our attention to the assessment made by Dr. KM. Bhandari of Bhandari Hospital in which, it has been stated that the operation is usually done after 4 to 8 weeks in the condition in which the petitioner was there. He has also drawn our attention to the statement of Dr. Rajesh Bhojwani, of SDMH, Jaipur saying that the complainant was admitted in their hospital from 20.8.2005 to 31.8.2005 and then again from 22.9.2005 to 25.9.2005. The doctor has stated that he could not tell, how the fistula had developed. He further stated in response to a question that when pain is continuing in the case of appendicular lump, the operation was justified. The learned Counsel has also invited our attention to the reply to the complaint filed by the opposite parties, in which they have stated that the patient left the hospital against medical advice on 18.8.2005, and his condition at that time was 'stable and good'. According to the learned Counsel, there was an apparent contradiction in the stand taken by respondents/opposite parties in the written statement.

(3.) IN the present case, it is clear that while applying the standard of ordinary skilled man, the action taken by the opposite parties does not lead us to believe that there has been any medical negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. We, therefore, find that there is no infirmity, illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission. The revision petition is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.