APOLLO HOSPITAL Vs. NAGORAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition has been filed under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the 'Act') against the Order dtd. 1/9/2017, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Telangana ('State Commission') in FA No. 380/2014 partly allowing the appeal of OP 2, while modifying the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-III, Hyderabad ('District Forum') order dtd. 14/5/2014 in CC No. 469/2008.

(2.) For the convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

(3.) Brief facts of the case, as per complaint, are that complainant no. 1 suffered from throat pain and approached OP-1, an ENT specialist at Nanded, for treatment. On investigations, OP-1 opined that he was suffering from throat cancer and advised him to consult OP-2 for further treatment. After conducting investigations, OP-2 recommended surgery on the complainant's throat. Following this advice, he, along with complainants 2 to 5, provided consent for the surgery. In 1997-98, specialist doctors at OP-2 hospital performed the surgery, after which he remained hospitalized for three months. Upon discharge, OP-1 advised him to undergo regular treatment and periodic check-ups. However, in 2006, the complainant experienced stomach pain and approached OP-2 again. After investigations, OP-2 performed another surgery, during which a feeding tube was erroneously inserted into his lungs instead of his stomach. After discharge, when the complainant consumed meals or liquids, the food entered his lungs, causing severe complications. He was immediately re-admitted to OP-2's hospital in the emergency ward. Due to this wrong treatment, his right lung was completely damaged, along with his respiratory tract and esophageal tube. To rectify these, the complainant had to undergo four additional surgeries, including pharyngocutaneous fistula repair, esophageal perforation repair, jejunostomy and procedures to address hematoma in the neck wound and dehiscence of the abdominal wound. Despite these surgeries, he needed continued treatment for rest of his life. Thus, the complainant prayed for compensation of Rs.2,00,000.00 for future treatment and Rs.6,00,000.00 as damages for past and future treatment. During the pendency of the proceedings, the complainant passed away on 9/4/2009. His legal heirs, complainants 2 to 5, were added as his legal representatives vide order dtd. 5/8/2009 in I.A. No. 187/2009.