R. MUJIBUR RAHMAN Vs. S. RAMKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the 'Act') against impugned order dtd. 17/8/2010, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu ('for short 'State Commission') in First Appeal No. 225/2006. In this appeal, the Respondent / OP's Doctor appeal was allowed, thereby setting aside the Order dtd. 10/3/2006, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal, Forum, Theni ('District Forum') in Consumer Complaint No. 21 of 2003, wherein the Complaint filed by the Complainant was partly allowed.

(2.) For convenience, the parties in the present matter are denoted as per their positions in the Consumer Complaint before the District Forum. R. Mujibur Rahman (Since deceased) is identified as the Complainant. Meanwhile, Dr. S. Ramkumar (Since deceased) is referred to as Opposite Party (OP).

(3.) Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that on 10/10/2000, the Complainant sought medical attention from OP due to severe abdominal pain. Upon examination, the OP diagnosed the Complainant with a 'left inguinal hernia' and recommended surgical intervention. Consequently, he was admitted in OP Hospital namely Mani Hospital, operated upon on 15/10/2000, and was discharged on 18/10/2000 with prescribed medication and post-operative instructions. Despite regular follow-up visits to the OP hospital, he continued to experience abdominal pain and muscle protrusion at the surgical site. Subsequently, on 17/11/2000 and 20/11/2000, the Complainant underwent further treatment by the OP, during which it was revealed that fluid accumulated at the surgical site. Although medication was prescribed, no measures were taken to drain the fluid or address the muscle protrusion issue, allegedly leading to deficiencies in treatment and negligence on the part of the OP. As his condition did not improve, he consulted the OP again on 5/2/2001. Despite complaining of back pain during urination, the OP overlooked this symptom. Dissatisfied with treatment received, he sought medical assistance in Madurai, where it was determined that the hernia surgery had been improperly performed, resulting in inflammation of the prostate gland due to infection. Meenakshi Mission Hospital recommended corrective surgery, estimated at Rs.37,000..00 The Complainant, having endured significant physical and mental distress due to OP's failure to accurately diagnose and treat his condition, filed CC No. 21 of 2003 before the District Forum seeking compensation of Rs.12,00,000,.00 comprising Rs.9,00,000.00 for mental anguish and Rs.3,00,000.00 for deficient service.