ASHOK B. PATEL Vs. MANSURI KASAMBHAI FAKIR MOHAMMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition has been filed before this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 15.5.2008 in Appeal No. 1131 of 2006 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, 'State Commission'). The State Commission dismissed the Appeal filed against the order in Complaint No 102 of 2001 dated 13.10.2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short, 'District Forum').

(2.) This is a case pertaining to allegations against a Gynaecologist, who was found to be negligent in taking care of the patient/ Complainant, during pregnancy and during the post-delivery period. Smt. Sahidaban, wife of the Complainant, Mr. Mansuri Kasambhai Fakir Mohammed was pregnant under the supervision of Dr. Ashok B. Patel (the OP-1). On 1.10.2000 she started getting pains and was admitted to Mamta Gynec Hospital of OP-1. In the morning around 6.00 a.m. a male baby was born, thereafter, the OP-1 left for his home. The patient started bleeding; OP-1 did not take proper care after the delivery. The compounder in the hospital told her that there was nothing to worry; he called the OP-1, who came after 1 hour. After examination, the OP-1 advised for immediate operation for removal of uterus (hysterectomy). Blood was not arranged. OP-1 removed the uterus, but bleeding continued. The OP-1 informed the Complainant to arrange 4-5 units of blood and asked the Complainant to shift the patient to Ahmedabad Civil Hospital. Unfortunately, the patient died, on the way to Ahmedabad Civil Hospital. The post-mortem was performed at Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, which revealed that the patient was anaemic because of profuse bleeding. Hence, due to deficiency of service and lack of proper care, OP was negligent. The Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum.

(3.) The District Forum allowed the Complaint and directed the OP to pay Rs. 2,42,000 with 6% rate of interest and also awarded Rs. 1,000 as costs. Against the order of the District Forum, OP preferred an appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed.