SHALAN SHRIRANG JADHAV Vs. PRAKASH CHOUKWALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved by the judgment and order of dismissal passed by District Consumer Forum, Satara in Consumer Complaint No. 03/06 decided on 29. 6. 2006, the org. complainant has filed this appeal challenging dismissal of her complaint.

(2.) THERE is delay of 30 days in filing the appeal. Therefore, appellant has made an application for condonation of delay. It is stated in para 5 of the delay condonation application that her financial condition was too much bad and she was not aware about the further procedure of law. We are not satisfied by the explanation resorted to. Just and sufficient cause has not been made out in the application for condonation of delay. Therefore, we are not inclined to condone the delay.

(3.) BRIEFLY case of the appellant/org. complainant is as under: complainant is a widow having a disabled son and minor daughter. Her husband was serving at Mumbai. In the year July 2002, he met with an accident and he was admitted in the Sancheti Hospital at Pune. There he was operated. He was having blood sugar and by taking medicine he had controlled sugar level in the blood. Therefore, complainant and her husband shifted to Satara. On 6. 1. 2004, complainant's husband had some pain on the right side tooth. He, therefore, called Dr. Choukwale/the respondent herein at his residence. Dr. Choukwale came to his house on 6. 1. 2004 and examined him and gave him some treatment. Again the complainant approached the opposite party in his hospital and on examination, the opposite party told him that concerned tooth will have to be extracted. Accordingly on 8. 1. 2004 at about l0. 00 a. m. , complainant and her husband went to dental clinic of opposite party and informed him that he was already suffering from diabetis. However, without bothering of the said ailment the opposite party has started extracting the tooth and while extracting the tooth her husband was having pain. Any how he extracted the tooth. After removal of tooth there was bleeding. Opposite party-doctor put some cotton squab at the site of extracted tooth. He gave some medicine and sent her husband back to home. However, on the following day again her husband/shri Shrirang R. Jadhav approached opposite party-doctor and told him that the bleeding was not stopping and there was swelling in his mouth and again some medicine was given by Dr. Choukwale. Even thereafter, injury at the site of extracted tooth and swelling in the mouth had not receded. Therefore, she took her husband to Dr. Shah on 11. 1. 2004. At that time opposite party-doctor was also present. Dr. Shah asked her husband to get admitted and told that without any test of blood and urine, it was not proper to give any treatment. When this was asked by Dr. Shah, opposite party-doctor was also present and he told him that he had not tested his blood and urine before giving any treatment to complainant's husband. Thereafter, her husband was admitted in Jeevanjyot Hospital on 12. 1. 2004. Her husband's blood and urine was checked and Dr. Sathe then started treatment. However, patient's condition did not improve and Dr. Sathe directed that the patient should be taken immediately to Pune or Miraj. The opposite party then admitted Shri S. Jadhav in the Surgical and Politrama Hospital at Satara on 13. 1. 2004. Dr. Bagwan started treatment and since, there was injury at the right site of extracted tooth, he performed minor operation and continued to give treatment upto 14. 1. 2004. Even thereafter, condition of her husband did not improve, but became more critical. Hence, she took her husband in Wanless Mission Hospital at Miraj. Dr. Bidari conducted various tests and started giving treatment, but on 15. 4. 2004 at about 12. 30 p. m. to 1. 00 p. m. her husband expired. According to the complainant, since the opposite party-doctor has not conducted preoperational blood and urine tests before extracting the tooth, her husband expired. According to the complainant, her husband died because of negligence of opposite party-doctor. The complainant states that this became clear from the certificate of Dr. Bidari of Wanless Hospital and also from the certificate issued by Surgical and Politrama Hospital, Satara. Thereafter, she filed consumer complaint in the police station against Dr. Choukwale on 2. 2. 2005. According to the complainant, she had spent lot of monies on the treatment of her husband and at the time of extraction of tooth, her husband was 54 years old and he would be survived for another 8-10 years and, therefore, she has claimed an amount of Rs. 7,00,000 under various heads. She had sent notice through her Advocate on 25. 10. 2005 and despite the notice the opposite party did not bother to give her compensation and, therefore, she has filed consumer complaint for an amount of Rs. 7,00,000 as damages along with interest @ 12% p. a. . She has also claimed Rs. 5,000 towards cost of the complaint.