J.D. BAGREE HOSPITAL Vs. VANDANA GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two cross-appeals have been filed under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 12.01.2009, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in Consumer Complaint No. CC/11/2007, vide which the complaint filed by Smt. Vandana Goyal in this case of alleged medical negligence was partly allowed and the OPs were directed to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs. 5 lakh to the complainant, besides a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation. The OPs, J.D. Bagree Hospital and Dr. M.M. Bagree have filed FA No. 58 of 2009, seeking dismissal of the consumer complaint, whereas the complainant Smt. Vandana Goyal has filed FA No. 106 of 2009, seeking enhancement of the compensation as per that demanded in the complaint.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Smt. Vandana Goyal, r/o Bikaner, Rajasthan, felt sudden pain in her stomach on 18.01.2006 and she was unable to pass stools properly. The husband of the complainant took her to the OP Hospital where she was admitted on 18.01.2006 and advised a small surgery to remove sticking of some part of intestines. The surgery was conducted on 20.01.2006 by Dr. M.M. Bagree in the OP 1 Hospital. It has been alleged that the said Doctor performed hysterectomy (removal of uterus) also without her consent, during the said surgery. The complainant was discharged from the hospital on 26.01.2006 but she had to be admitted again just after two days on 28.01.2006 with complaints of unbearable abdominal pain and vomiting. It has been alleged in the complaint that during treatment in the OP-1 Hospital, blood was supplied to the complainant and water was removed from her stomach, but her condition kept on worsening day by day. She also suffered from jaundice and her problem of gas in the stomach, regular stoppage in urine excretion and constipation still persisted due to lack of attention and carelessness on the part of OPs.

(3.) As per the clinical notes contained in the 'case summary' maintained by OP-1 Hospital, it has been stated as follows:-