RASHMI B FADNAVIS Vs. MUMBAI GRAHAK PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First Appeal No. 612 of 1993 has been filed by Dr. Mrs. Rashmi B. Fadnavis & Dr. Bhalchandra Fadnavis (appellants No. 1 and 2 respectively) against the order dated 2.8.1993 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Case No. 282 of 1991. The appellants herein were opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 in the original petition while respondent No. 1 (Mumbai Grahak Panchayat) and Respondent No. 3, (Dr. Mrs. S.S. Kalelkar, Anaesthetist) were respectively the petitioner and opposite party No. 3 in that case. In the appeal. Registrar, Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was mentioned as respondent No. 2.

(2.) The present appeal earlier came up before this Commission for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The delay was sought to be explained by the fact that the appellants had preferred a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature of Bombay on 17.9.1993 against the impugned order of the State Commission. The High Court ordered them to prefer the appeal before the National Commission. The appellants requested us for the exclusion of the period between the date of writ petition and the date on which the said order was passed by the High Court from the period of limitation in respect of the appeal before us. Since we were not satisfied with this explanation, the above appeal was dismissed barred by time. Against this order of dismissal, the appellants went in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court who, after taking into account the facts and circumstances explained by the appellants, condoned the delay subject to the appellants paying costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 - petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of their order and directed that this Commission would dispose of the matter on merits according to the law.

(3.) Accordingly, Appeal No. 612 of 1993 was taken up for hearing on 14.5.1998. Facts of the case may be noticed briefly - Mrs. Meena Pilankar, wife of Mr. Vinayak Pilankar was examined by opposite party No. 1-appellant No. 1 on 24.1.1991 at Jeeven Vikas Kendra Hospital in Andheri, where the latter was attached as Honorary Gynaecologist, for excess discharge, excess bleeding and white discharge during her monthly periods. Ultra sonography was done and the report of the ultra sonography was scanned. On the same day, blood was checked for haemoglobin percentage and blood sugar (random), and the results were 11.4 per cent and 138 mg/dl respectively. On the next day (25.1.1991) D&C was done and the report which was available on 2.2.1991 said "No evidence of granuloma or malignancy". On 28.1.1991, the following tests were carried out as suggested by appellant No. 1 - namely (i) X-ray Chest PA view, (ii) ECG (iii) Blood sugar F. pp, (iv) Blood VDRI, (v) SGOT, SGPT (vi) Serum Creatinine, (vii) Blood group. On 29.1.1991, Dr. Shekhar Ambardekar (Cardiologist) was; consulted alongwith a letter given by appellant No. 1 requesting him to be available during the operation for monitoring the patient. After checking the ECG, blood pressure. X-ray, pulse and the chest. Dr. Ambardekar certified that the patient is completely fit and normal. On 31.1.1991, Dr. Rashmi Fadnavis (appellant No. 1) again met Dr. Ambardekar with a request for taking the X- ray in a different manner and carrying out the blood sugar test (two hours after food). These tests were carried out on 2.2.1991 and after they both showed normal. Dr. Ambardekar recorded that "the patient is fit for surgery". Thereafter, on 5.2.1991, the patient was admitted in the Nursing Home of opposite party No. 1 - appellant No. 1, reportedly on the latter's suggestion and was operated upon on 6.2.1991. However, she died at the operation table itself. The complaint was, therefore, lodged before the Maharashtra State Commission by the patient's husband alleging negligence in the treatment and service rendered by appellants No. 1 and 2 (opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 respectively) and respondent No. 3 (opposite party No. 3) and he claimed Rs. 9,57,355/- as total compensation.