R G THANKI Vs. GOPALBHAI KANUBHAI GURJAR & ORS ; SALIP P KHAROD; MANISHBHAI R PANDYA; P N KHAROD; ANIL K MEHTA; M T NATHAWANI; P D KARIAYA; NATIONAL INSURENCE COMPANY LTD ; REKHABEN S JHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "the Act"), is to the order dated 17.06.2011, passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short "the State Commission"), in First Appeal Nos. 170 of 2006 and 19 of 2007, preferred by the Complainant and the Insurance Company and the fifth Opposite Party respectively. By the impugned order, the State Commission has partly allowed the Appeal preferred by the Complainant and fastened the liability additionally on the first Opposite Party also, while confirming the liability of Opposite parties 5 and 10. The District

(2.) Briefly put, the facts material to the case are, that the Complainant's wife late Naynaben (hereinafter referred to as "the patient") after having given birth to two children became pregnant again and wanted to terminate the pregnancy. A neighbour, took the patient to the first Opposite Party who accepting the payment of Rs. 200/-, performed the sterilization and discharged the patient after an hour. Thereafter, the patient suffered severe pain in the naval region and as the pain continued till morning, the Complainant took her to the second Opposite Party who conducted a sonography and informed them that a second operation was required. It was averred that after sometime, the second Opposite Party denied treating her and referred her to the third Opposite Party. The third Opposite Party examined the patient, prescribed some medicines and as another operation was required to be performed, advised admission in the Hospital of the fifth Opposite Party, who is the father of the third Opposite Party. The Complainant, as advised, admitted the patient in the Hospital, where she was rendered treatment from 12.04.1996 to 17.04.1996. It was pleaded that though they were informed that surgery was required, it was not performed and only blood and glucose together with some medicines were administered to the patient. The patient's health condition deteriorated and she was referred by Opposite Party No. 5 to Opposite Party No. 6.

(3.) It was averred that the patient was admitted in Opposite Party 6 Hospital on 18.04.1996, at about 6 p.m., and some investigations were performed. On 20.04.1996, Opposite Parties 7 and 8 performed the surgery on the patient and informed the Complainant that it was on account of the fault of the first Opposite Party that there was a perforation in the Intestine and is had been damaged. On 23.04.1996, the patient's health become serious and she expired. It was pleaded by the Complainant that the patient was only 30 years old at the time of her death, earning Rs. 1,000/- per month doing labour work and that she had expired only on account of the negligence of the doctors, who had treated her. A legal notice dated 15.06.1998, was issued calling upon the doctors to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-, to which there was no response. Hence, the Complainant approached the District Forum seeking direction to the Opposite Parties to pay an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- together with other reliefs and costs.