RAGHAVENDRA RAO Vs. SANTOSH J.KARMARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 25.03.2009 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in Consumer Complaint No. 22/2005, "Raghavendra Rao versus Dr. Santosh J. Karmarkar & Anr." vide which, the said consumer complaint, alleging medical negligence on the part of the OPs was ordered to be dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant Raghvendra Rao had been suffering from urinary incontinence, i.e., continuous flow of urine since birth. He got himself treated from various hospitals during the previous years, i.e., 1983 and 1988 etc. As stated in the complaint, when he decided to approach the OP Doctor, he had complaint of numbness in the legs below ankles only, otherwise, although handicapped, he was carrying on with his normal activity and he had also attended a three-year degree course at Chennai, conducted by the Madras University from 1999 to 2002. He approached the OPs with the intention of getting treatment for further improvement in his general condition and to have the level of his disability reduced. The OP-1 Doctor working at OP-2 Hospital advised him that it was possible to have control over automatic flow of urine by conducting bladder augmentation with appendicular vesicostomy operation. The complainant along with his mother went to the Hospital on 23.09.2002 for medical check-up where certain clinical tests were conducted upon him. As advised, he got himself admitted in the OP Hospital on 05.11.2002 for the surgery as stated above.

(3.) It is also stated by the complainant that OP-2 Hospital was a paediatric Hospital meant for treatment of children upto 15 years of age but OP-2 Hospital gave special permission for carrying out the surgery upon him by the OP-1 Doctor.