HANS MATERNITY HOME & ANR. Vs. DALJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 08.10.2013 passed by the Punjab tate Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 1639 of 2010 Mrs. Daljit Kaur Vs. Hans Maternity Home & Anr. by which, while allowing appeal, order of District forum dismissing complaint was set aside.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent aged 45 years was admitted with OP No. 1/Petitioner No.1 under the control of OP No. 2/Petitioner No. 2 for TAH (Total Abdominal Hysterctomy) i.e. removal of uterus and ovaries surgically per abdominal incision) with a diagnosis of ulterine Fibroids. The complainant was operated by the opposite party on 19.3.2007 to undergo TAH and Bilateral (both sides) Salpingo oophorectomy (removal of both sided ovaries with Fallopian Tube) and she had paid Rs. 12,000/- to the opposite party but opposite party had refused to issue the receipt. She has also purchased medicines from the Drug Store worth Rs. 10,000/- and also spent about Rs. 22,000/- for treatment, hospitalization and admission with OP No. 1 from 19.3.2007 to 20.3.2007. After the operation, it was the duty of the Ops before closing abdomen to check whether major and minor blood vessels (arteries, capillaries etc.) have been closed and no bleeders (bleeding vessels) remain un-stitched. The complainant was an old patient of depression. After 10-12 hours of the surgery, the complainant had a complaint of dis-comfort abdomen i.e. abdomen distension, FIRST APPEAL NO. 1639 OF 2010 3breathlessness, anxiety and restlessness. The symptoms got severe and the opposite party could not understand or diagnose the reasons for discomfort and other post-operative complications, therefore, she was referred to Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana(in short "DMC, Ludhiana') for further management and she was admitted thereon on 20.3.2008 in Gynecology Unit headed by Dr. Kumkum Avasthi. She was diagnosed to be the case of post trans abdominal hysterectomy, hypotension (low BP), case of abdominal distension. She was further observed to be going into post-operative shock with blood loss and was also observed to have suffered post-operative (TAH) intraperitoneal Hemmorrhage (Bleeding Inside Peritoneum abdomen cavity). The complainant was operated upon in DMC, Ludhiana and bleeding was found to be oozing from Infundibular Pelvic Ligament a tissue in pelvis, which was repaired and closed. While operating the Doctors found that the blood was oozing from vaginal vault, bleeding from right infundibular pelvic pedicle (Small and Large gut were intact), clots were removed. The complainant was given two units of blood and other post-operative measures were taken and the complainant had to spend Rs. 1 lac for treatment, hospitalization and purchase of medicines and other expenses. The complainant remained on leave for more than one month and for that period she was not paid salary being a Government Teacher. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District Forum.

(3.) Ops resisted complaint and submitted that the allegations made by the complainant are vague, indefinite and lack material particulars and does not disclose any deficiency in services on the part of the OP; the complainant is estopped by her act and conduct to file the complaint; the complicated questions of law and facts are involved in the complaint, therefore, it requires to be relegated to the Civil Court. The complainant has failed to disclose as to what ought to have been done and what has not been done by the opposite party; there is no basis of alleged damages claimed by the complainant and the same are highly exaggerated and inflated. On merits, it was admitted that the complainant was got examined by OP No. 2 on 19.3.2007. It has been denied that the complainant had paid Rs. 12,000/- to the opposite party for admission, hospitalization and operation or that the Ops had refused to issue the receipt. It has also been denied that she spent Rs. 22,000/- for treatment, hospitalization and medicines with Ops. The complainant had purchased the medicines from the Drug Store directly and that they paid Rs. 800/- as fee to the Anaesthetist. As per the practice of the opposite parties, the charges for admission, hospitalization and operation were charged at the time of discharge of the patient. Therefore, there is no question to make any payment of Rs. 12,000/- to the opposite party. It has been admitted that the complainant was operated on 19.3.2007. The Ops had performed their duty while FIRST APPEAL NO. 1639 OF 2010 5conducting the operation and closed all major and minor blood vessels. The complainant was advised to take medicines of depression as prescribed by the psychiatrist. After the operation, the complainant was progressing well but after a gap of 10 hours the complainant complained regarding breathlessness only. There was no abdominal distension at that time, there was no anxiety and restlessness as alleged by the complainant. Oxygen mask was provided to the complainant. The medicines for subsiding pain, sedation were also given to the complainant. It has been denied that the OP could not understand or diagnose the reasons of discomfort. The complainant had complained of difficulty in breathing at 7.00 a.m. on 20.3.2007 for which she was provided oxygen mask. She complained about distension of the abdomen at about 10 a.m. on 20.3.2007 for which there are multifarious reasons or multifarious causes and ultimately, the patient was referred to DMC Hospital, Ludhiana for further management. The certificate attached by the complainant along with the complaint was not issued at that time but on a later date, as complainant submitted that the same is required by her for producing the same before the Employer. It has been further stated that Ops have taken the complainant in their Ambulance to DMC, Ludhiana on 20.3.2007 and OP No. 2 had discussed the entire case with the attending Doctors in the DMC. The complainant might had reactionary haemorrhage. The complainant was operated upon in DMC Hospital, Ludhiana. It has been denied that bleeding was found to be oozing from the Infundibular Pelvic Ligament a tissue in pelvis which was repaired and closed. It has also been denied that the blood was oozing from vaginal vault, bleeding from right infunbibular pelvic pedicle (Small and Large gut were intact), clots were removed. It has been denied that two units blood were given to the complainant. It was also denied that the complainant spent Rs. 1 lac for the treatment, hospitalization and for purchase of medicines at DMC. It was also denied that the complainant is still under treatment with DMC Hospital, Ludhiana. It has been denied that post-operative complication and oozing of the blood was due to the negligence and carelessness of the opposite party. The complainant is not consumer and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. Complainant filed appeal before learned State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order allowed appeal and directed OPs to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of negligence and Rs.10,000/- on account of mental tension and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses against which, this revision petition has been filed.