THIRTHANKAR SUPERSPECIALITY HOSPITAL Vs. MANZOOR HUSSAIN NADEEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed under Sec. 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') in challenge to the Order dtd. 8/8/2017 of the State Commission in complaint no. 01 of 2012, whereby the complaint of the complainant was partly allowed and the appellants - opposite parties were directed to pay jointly and severally a compensation of Rs.20,00,000.00 with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. from 5/1/2012 till payment along with cost of Rs.10,000.00 to the complainant.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellants - hospital and doctors and the learned counsel for the respondent - complainant and perused the record including the State Commission's impugned Order dtd. 8/8/2017 and the memorandum of appeal.

(3.) The facts of the case are that Ms. Huma, the 27 years old daughter of the complainant (herein after referred to as the 'patient'), whose only one right side kidney was functioning and her left side kidney was not functioning since birth, was leading normal life. She was suffering from fever one month prior to her death. Initially, she was treated by Dr. S. M. Agarwal at Akola. Dr. Agrawal advised various tests including sonography to the patient and the same were got done. After considering tests reports including sonography report, Dr. Agarwal advised her to consult Dr. Prasanth Mulawkar, opposite party no. 2, who has his own hospital at Akola. On 26/7/2010, after examining the patient and considering all the reports, Dr. Mulawkar stated that the right side kidney of the patient is affected due to problem of urinary bladder and prescribed some medicines from time to time. She remained hospitalized for 02 days. As the patient did not feel any relief, she again went to the Dr. Mulawkar on 14/8/2010 and at that time on pathological tests, when it was found that her serum creatinine was slightly more than normal limit, Dr. Mulawkar advised her to undergo minor operation of right side kidney called as stanting of the kidney. It is alleged that before conducting the operation, Dr. Mulawkar informed the complainant and his wife that the said operation is not complicated one and the surgery is risk free and there will be no danger to the life of patient and that the patient will be discharged from the hospital after operation in a day or two. Therefore, the complainant and his wife agreed to get his daughter operated and the patient was admitted in the hospital of Dr. Mulawkar, opposite party no. 2 on 16/8/2010. It is further alleged that Dr. Mulawkar informed that he had to perform 09 operations during that day and the patient would be third in sequence and accordingly on 16/8/2010 at about 11.00 a.m. the patient was taken to the operation theatre. The opposite party no. 3 administered anesthesia to the patient before operation and the operation was conducted successfully. After the operation the patient was taken to the post operation care room for keeping her under observation.