GRACE HOSPITAL Vs. M. JAYAPRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed under Sec. 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, 'the Act') against the order dtd. 28/2/2020 of the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (in short, 'the State Commission') in First Appeal no. 146 of 2016.

(2.) The brief facts of the case as stated by the petitioner are that the wife of respondent no.1 and the mother of respondent nos.2 and 3 was admitted to the petitioner's hospital for delivery. As per the advice of the petitioners, the wife of respondent no.1 was to undergo elective laparoscopic sterilization operation within two days of the delivery. Though the wife of respondent no.1 was in good health and gave birth to a healthy child, after performance of sterilization surgery, she died. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the hospital, respondent nos.1 to 3 filed a complaint (CC no. 57 of 2014) before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tiruvallur (in short, 'the District Forum') praying for compensation of Rs.19,59,000.00 for mental agony and deficiency in service and along with Rs.25,000.00 towards the cost of filing of the complaint.

(3.) The petitioner herein in their written version before the District Forum has stated that the wife of respondent no.1 was taken to the operation theatre at 05.15 p m on 22/5/2014 and when the petitioners were preparing for anaesthesia and surgery, the patient developed convulsions and became restless leading to fits. At about 05.45 p m the patient's BP was 230/130 mm/hg. The hospital authorities immediately informed the respondent no.1 and her mother in law who were waiting outside the theatre about the patient's condition and the patient was referred to a higher centre for intensive care and ventilator support. The hospital also took the support of a consultant physician. At about 07.15 pm on the same day, the patient's BP dropped and she went into cardiac arrest. However, with the constant care and diligence on part of the petitioner the patient was revived and her BP picked up to 80/60 mm/hg. The patient's revival to normalcy after cardiac arrest was due to diligence and efficiency of petitioners. It is therefore, stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners. However, the patient died in the hospital of respondent no.5 on 22/5/2014 at 12.45 p m.