KANUBHAI S. PATEL Vs. JETHABAI JIVABHAI SOLANKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was the opposite party No. 1 before the District Forum, where the Respondent No. 1/ complainant had filed a complaint alleging medical negligence on the part of the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts leading to filing the complaint were that the complainant's wife was admitted with the Petitioner on 21.9.2001 with severe pain in abdomen, upon which the Petitioner and his wife were advised to come on 22.9.2001 for surgery. Petitioner's wife was brought to the hospital of the Petitioner on 22.9.2001 at 3 p.m. It was expected to be a small surgery but when the surgery was not completed even after three hours, he went in the operation theatre to know the status of the patient and the surgery, wherein the complainant was told by the Petitioner, that treatment shall continue and he was asked to wait outside. At about 7.30 p.m. Petitioner was told that his wife required some more treatment, hence she is required to be shifted to Sardar Patel Hospital, Ahemdabad, where she was taken in an Ambulance in an unconscious position, where she died on 24.9.2001 at about 9.00 a.m. opposite party No. 2 was an anaesthetist, who administered the dose of anaesthesia in the Hospital. Suspecting negligence on the part of the Opposite parties, a Police report was filed. The post mortem was done and report was obtained. As, according to the complainant, the death was caused by way of negligence on the part of the opposite parties, he filed a complaint before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties, allowed the complaint holding the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2 guilty of medical negligence, and directed the opposite parties to pay Rs. 2 lakh jointly and severally, to the complainant, along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till realisation along with compensation of Rs. 2,000 for mental agony and cost of Rs. 2,000. Aggrieved by this order only the Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal, hence this revision petition before us.

(3.) WE had repeatedly and specifically directed the Petitioner to file the surgical notes and also to complete the record. Despite this, what has been filed before us are the affidavits and cross -examination of Dr. Jayendra Modi and Dr. Vinayak Rao Patel, who had carried out the post -mortem. This report is on the record.